River Basin Management Plan for the Upper Dnieper Pilot

Home , Chernobyl, Darnytskyi District, Desna (river), Dnieper, Holosiivskyi District, Irpin

This project is funded by Environmental Protection of A project implemented by a Consortium The European Union International River Basins Project led by Hulla & Co. Human Dynamics KG Contract No. 2011/279-666

RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR THE UPPER DNIEPER PILOT BASIN OF UKRAINE

DRAFT

Prepared by UNENGO “MAMA-86”

Kyiv 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………5 1. Characteristic of the Upper Dnieper river basin ………………….…………..……….. ..7 1.1. Description of the Upper Dnieper river basin …………………………..………………7 1.1.1. Identifying of the Upper Dnieper river basin ……………………………………………….7 1.1.2. Relief………………………………………………………………………………………….8 1.1.3. Geology… …………………………………………………………………………………….8 1.1.4. Soil………… …………………………………………………………………………………. 9 1.1.5. Vegetation…… ………………………………………………………………………………..9 1.1.6. Climate ……………………………………………………………………………………… 10 1.1.7. Hydrological regime ………………………………………………………………………….11 1.2. Typology and identification of surface water bodies…………………………………………….14 1.2.1. General provisions……………………………………………………………………………. 14 1.2.2. Scheme of typology of water bodies ……………………………………………………………16 1.3. Identification, characterisation and delineation of groundwater body………………………… 23 2. A summary of significant pressures and possible anthropogenic impact on the status of surface water and groundwater ………………………………..…………………………………………. ……… 26 2.1. A summary of significant pressures and significant Water Management Issues ……………..…26 2.2. Significant pressures identified in the Upper Dnieper River Basin ………………….………. ...31 2.2.1. Significant point and non-point sources pollution ...... ………….31 3. Inventory of protected area ……………………………………………………………………………..40 4. Monitoring Programme for the Upper Dnieper River Basin ……………………….…...... 44 4.1. Surface water……………………………………………………………………………………..44 4.2. Groundwater……………………………………………………………………………………...54 5. Setting Environmental Objectives ………………………………………………………………..63 5.1. Environmental Objectives ……….………………………………………………………….……64 5.2. Application of Exemption According to EU WFD Article 4 //…………………………….…..…66 6. A summary of the economic analysis of water use in the Upper Dnieper River Basin ……....68 6.1 The economic analysis of water use …………..…/……………………………………………....68 6.2. Fee for special water use in Upper Dnieper basin ……………….………………………………69 6.3. Economic control tools...... 71 6.4. Cost-effectiveness as a criterion for selecting measures to achieve reduction targets……………73 7. Programme of measures ………………...... 74 8. A summary of the public information and consultation measures taken, their results and the changes to the plan made as a consequence ……………………………………………………..83 9. A list of competent authorities ……………………………………………………………………..87 10. The contact points and procedures for obtaining the background documentation and information ……………………………………………………………………………………………89

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

As arsenic AWB Artificial Water Body BOD biochemical oxygen demand BUWR River basin management authority Ca calcium Cd Cadmium CGO Central Geophysical Observatory CIS Common Implementation Strategy (for WFD) Cl Chloride DO dissolved oxygen DWPA drinking water protected areas EC Electric conductivity EPIRB Environmental Protection of International River Basins EU European Union F Fluorine Fe Iron GIS geographic information system GW Groundwater GWB groundwater body GWD GWD - The EU Directive 2006/118/EC on the Protection of Groundwater Against Pollution and Deterioration (referred to as “Groundwater Directive”) GWDTE groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems GWL groundwater level HCO 3 hydrocarbonate Hg Mercury HMWB Heavily Modified Water Body HPP Hydro Power Plant ISO Internation al Standardisation Organisation IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management JFS Joint Field Survey K potassium ion // hydraulic conductivity/coefficient of permeability of aquifer M total mineralisation MAC maximum allowable concentration MENR Ministry for Ecology and Natural resources Mg magnesium m3, m 2 cubic meter, square meter mg-eq/l milligram -equivalent per liter = [(mg/l) / eq weight] mg/l milligrams per liter Na Sodium NGO Nongovernment organisation NH 4 Ammonium NO 2 Nitrite NO 3 Nitrate PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon Pb Lead PCE Tetrachloroethylene PoM programme of measures PVC polyvinylchloride

Q well discharge (l/s) SO 4 Sulphate SAWR State Agency of Water Resources Sr Strontium TCE Trichloroethylene TDS total dissolved solids TOC total organic carbon ToR Term of Reference UDRB Upper Dnieper River Basin WB Water Body WFD Water Framework Directive WWTP Wastewater treatment plants

Introduction

This Upper Dnieper River Basin Management Plan has been prepared in the context of the project ‘Environmental Protection of International River Basins Project’ funded by the European Commission – Directorate General for Development and Cooperation - Europe Aid and implemented between January 2012 and January 2016 by the consortium led by Hulla & Co “Human Dynamics”.

The overall objective of the project is to improve the quality of water in the trans-boundary river basins of the wider Black Sea region and Belarus. The specific objectives of this project are: • to improve availability and quality of data on the ecological, chemical, and hydro-morphological status of trans-boundary river basins including groundwater, and • to develop River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) for selected river basins/sub-river basins according to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive.

In 2012 Ministry of Environmental Protection of Ukraine approved the order on the Basic Plan on adaptation of environmental legislation of Ukraine to the European Union legal framework (Basic Plan approximation). In the Plan there is a list of respect EU legislations which are in accordance with the list of EU Directives of Annex XXIX Chapter 6 of Part V to the Association Agreement between Ukraine and EU, which was signed in July 2014 and ratified by Ukraine in October 2014. Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (№ 847-p, September 17, 2014) on Action Plan for the implementation of the Association Agreement between Ukraine, on the one hand, and the European Union, the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, on the other hand, was adopted on 2014-2017 years period. According to this order MENR and other central executive authorities were to develop and submit to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine by 1st of November 2014 draft plans of implementing EU legal acts. This draft plan was prepared by the MENR. In accordance with this plan, Ukraine should develop and approve the provision on River Basin Management Plan and methodology of its development, and to develop River Basin Management Plans for main river basins.

The key aim regarding the development of the RBMP for the Upper Dnieper pilot sub-basin is to improve understanding of beneficiaries and stakeholders on key elements of the WFD and river basin planning process and to integrate management of water resources (surface water and ground water) within the pilot basin district to achieve environmental objectives.

This report was prepared by the team lead by UNENGO “MAMA-86” with significant assistance and consultations provided by team of EPIRB and the project beneficiary institutions of Ukraine – Ministry of environment and nature recourses.

For the preparation of this Report all technical reports and guidelines of EPIRB projects and CIS for WFD implementation were used: Water body identification and typology , Upper Dnieper pilot basin, Ukraine

Guidance Document addressing hydromorphology and physico-chemistry for a Pressure-Impact Analysis/Risk Assessment according to the EU WFD

Guidance Document addressing Chemical Status of Surface Water Bodies for a Pressure-Impact Analysis/Risk Assessment according to the EU WFD

Guidance Document on the Development of Programme of Measures and the Achievement of Environmental Objectives According to the EU WFD 5

Guidance document on prioritizing selected Programme of Measures (PoMs) and simplified Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA)

Surface Waters Monitoring Programme in the Dnieper (UA) River basin

Guidance for groundwater monitoring programme in the Prut and Upper Dnieper basins, Ukraine

Guidelines for Monitoring the Chemical Status of Surface Water Bodies

Joint Field Survey Report: Surface Waters 2014 Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine

1. Characteristic of the Upper Dnieper river basin

1.1. Description of the Upper Dnieper river basin district

The Dnieper River is the third largest river in Europe after the Volga and the Danube and the second largest river to feed into the Black Sea. The Dnieper River basin has total area of 511 000 km 2 and length of 2200 km. The Dnieper River basin is a trans-boundary system: 20% of its area is situated within the Russian Federation, 23% within the Republic of Belarus, and 57% within Ukraine.

The Dnieper River basin is a multispectral complex of high natural and socio-economic value. Besides socially important natural resources (e.g. water, land, forests), the basin provides valuable resource base to socio-economic stakeholders – commercial, industrial and government organizations, manufacturers, land and water users, agencies for control and regulation, etc. In the Dnieper basin large agglomerations and a range of smaller towns and townships are concentrated (Figure 1.1).

The Dnieper basin is a classic example of unsustainable regional development as a result of attempt to transform the region’s traditional agrarian structure into industrial in just a few decades. The situation is further complicated by economic difficulties, which press on countries in the basin.

Figure 1.1. Trans-boundary system of the Dnieper River basin

1.1.1. Identification of the Upper Dnieper river pilot basin The objective to improve the status of the Dnieper basin is applied in the obligation of the EU- Ukraine Association Agreement, namely to develop EU WFD compliant River Basin Management Plan - RBMP.

The area of interest of the Dnieper basin in Ukraine is situated in northern part of the country and is bounded by the state border of Ukraine and the Kanev HPP (Figure 1.2). Catchment area of the pilot basin is approximately 20 000 km 2. This section of the Upper Dnieper basin has distinctive characteristics, namely: 1) the river runoff is much overregulated; 2) due to inflow of water from the Pripyat and Desna rivers a rather large volume of river runoff is generated in this part of the catchment area –; 3) the pilot area is close to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster site. The largest city in the Dnieper basin is located here – Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. Intensive urbanization adds much to the 7 negative anthropogenic impact in the pilot basin. Large-scale land drainage projects also affect the status of water ecosystems.

Figure 1.2. The Dnieper River basin study area (north of Kanev HPP)

1.1.2. Topography The Dnieper Upland is geomorphologically the highest place (220–240 m a.s.l.) within the boundaries of the Upper Dnieper River Basin in Ukraine. The elevation of Kiev plateau is 166 m a.s.l. Polesye and the Dnieper Lowlands have much less elevation (150–200 m a.s.l.).

The most low-lying area along the Dnieper River has been submerged by Kiev and Kanev water storage reservoirs. At present, the pond level of the Kiev and the Kanev reservoirs (103,0 m and 91,5 m respectively) are the most low-lying areas in the Dnieper basin in Ukraine.

From the city of Loyev to Kiev Reservoir, the Dnieper valley is very wide and its slopes gently assimilate into the adjacent terrain. In the northern part of Kiev Reservoir, the valley reaches width of a few dozen km, and fades into the surrounding swamps and Pripyat River valley. Farther downstream, the Dnieper valley narrows; the slopes are still vague. Near and downstream of the village of Lyutezh, the right slope reaches height of 30–50 m and the river valley becomes much narrower. The right slope comes right next to the Kiev Reservoir near the town of Vyshgorod and the village of Mezhyhirya. The Dnieper valley is very wide downstream of the Desna River estuary.

1.1.3. Geology Geologically, the Upper Dnieper River Basin in Ukraine is situated in the Ukrainian crystalline shield and also, in the Dnieper-Donets Depression (В, Annex 1). The juncture of these two tectonic structures complicates and variegates the geologic structure and lithological composition of the basin.

Regionally (horizontally), the long Dnieper tectonic zone is the border between the north-eastern Ukrainian crystalline shield slopes and the north-western side of the Dnieper-Donets depression. The

Dnieper River divides the basin into two geologically/geomorphologically discrete parts: smaller size right bank and larger left bank.

In the Upper Dnieper RB, Neogene red, brown and variegated clays and some Paleogene deposits (in Poltava, Kharkov and Kiev) are covered with a thick formation (over 100 m) of aqueoglacial and alluvial deposits. Poor drainage of this area (0–2,3 m) and wide occurrence of variegated Neogene seat clays account for high levels of groundwater (0 to 2–3 m).

The most low-lying area along Dnieper River has been submerged by the Kiev and the Kanev water storage reservoirs. At present, the pond level of Kiev and Kanev reservoirs (103,0 m and 91,5 m respectively) are the most low-lying area in the Dnieper basin in Ukraine.

The right bank of the UDRB (the south-west smaller part) is a denudation/accumulative plain. Geotectonically its base is the Ukrainian crystalline shield. The plain structure includes loesses and loess-like loamy soils, glaciolacustrine and morainic loamy soils, which lie on red/brown and variegated Neogene clays. The major part of the area is occupied by the accumulative plain of the Kiev Polesye (woodlands) ( В–1, Annex 1), which is split moderately by the erosion network. High differentiation is present in terms of elevation: from 80–100 m a.s.l. to 250–270 m a.s.l. In Kiev, the elevation is 178–195 m a.s.l. Elevations decrease from south-west to north-east, from 200 m a.s.l. to 120–100 m a.s.l. Vertical differentiation of the terrain is 0–40 m, with a maximum of 80 m. The area slope angles are 0–2°C and reach maximum value of 16°C.

In the right bank of the basin, along the upper and middle course of the Dnieper, the most significant waterways are Pripyat, Uzh, Teterev, Zdvizh, Rokach, Bucha, and Irpen and their numerous tributaries.

The left bank of the Upper Dnieper RB (the north-east larger part) is situated within the Dnieper- Donets depression (geotectonically) and within the bounds of the watershed morainic/outwash plain (geomorphologically). The major part of the area is occupied by the accumulative plain of Chernigov Polesye ( В-2, Annex 1).

Elevations of the surface are 120–140 m and horizontal terrain differentiation varies from 0 to 1,0 km/km 2. Vertical terrain differentiation is 0 to 20 m, with maximum value of 30 m. The area slope angles are 0–2°C and reach a maximum of 8°C.

The most significant waterways in the left bank part of the UDRB are Desna River, with its numerous left and right tributaries (Oster, Smilyanka, Vereb, Strizhen, Zamglai, Snov), and Sozh River with its left tributaries.

1.1.4. Soil In the Polesye basin distributed sod-podzolic soils formed in conditions of excessive moisture in pine and mixed forests. Sandy sediments serve as natural rocks for them. These small soil humus content (1.5%), clearly expressed podzolic horizon from which nutrients are washed away deeper. Therefore, they have low fertility. Gray forest soils are inherent the left bank of the Desna more under wide forests. They formed in loamy soils in sufficient moisture. The content of humus in them is also small - 3%, so their Natural fertility is low.

1.1.5. Vegetation The larger area of the Upper Dnieper RB is located in the Polesye, a mixed forest zone. Forest vegetation occupies less than 50% of the area. Still lower is the share of forests in the forest-steppe zone, which has its northern boundary along the Zhitomir–Kiev–Nezhin line.

According to the State Forest Resources Agency of Ukraine, in 2011 the average share of forests in Kiev Region was 40–50%. Forestation is highest (up to 40–45%) is in the northern part of Kiev Region, especially in the Polesye and Ivankov districts. In recent decades, the share of forests in Kiev Region has increased – at a rate higher than for Ukraine as a whole – due to the decrease in economic activity in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster.

The most widespread vegetation species in the basin has pine - 63%. In the north of the region, its share is 70%. Near rivers, particularly in the floodplains, the most frequently spread species include oak, poplar, alder, numerous species of willows, either wood or shrub. In recent years invasive plants, such as Amorpha fruticosa, became widespread.

Aerial-aquatic and aquatic plants are spread widely in floodplains: e.g. bur reed, narrow-leaved catoptrics and bulrush, rush flower, arrowhead, and reed sweet grass. Aerial-aquatic plants often form islands on shoals. This is particularly common for the headwaters of Kiev Storage Reservoir. On the whole, water storage reservoirs on the Dnieper and its tributaries and connected shoaling because increasing spread of aerial-aquatic plants. In recent years, in the Kiev and Kanev Reservoir significantly increased water chestnut.

1.1.6. Climate The climate in the Upper Dnieper RB in Ukraine is temperate continental with warm summers and temperate cool winters. Anticyclone circulations prevail, for which permanent cloudless weather is typical. Cyclones, however, are accompanied with great changes in air temperatures, precipitations and wind. Anticyclone weather mostly occurs in autumn, cyclone weather occurs in winter. North- western winds have the highest annual frequency.

The average annual temperature in the region is 7.1–7.7oC. In the northern Kiev Region (Chernobyl meteorological station) temperatures are somewhat lower than in Kiev. Available air temperature data indicate a tendency toward temperature rise in recent decades. The average air temperature has increased by at least 1.5oC compared to the 1880s.

The amount of precipitation is a key determinant of water regime. Precipitations during the cold period of the year have the highest effect on the water regime of the Dnieper. Although not as abundant as in summer, winter precipitations are not lost in evaporation. The annual average precipitation is 600 – 650 mm.

In the spring snow covers thaw and water content depends on how much snow had been accumulated. In Upper Dnieper RB in Ukraine, maximum snow cover is observed in February, 30– 35 cm, which generates 30–35 mm water.

Increases in air temperatures in winter and in March necessarily affect the height of snow cover: to a great extent this has dwindled. Increases in air temperatures have also reduced ground freezing depth and thus increased penetration of humidity into the ground. The passage of snowmelt runoff into the ground decreases the flood height. Observations on rivers which have avoided human impact show that maximum spring floods are reduced, while floods in the low-water period grow, albeit moderately. Considering water supply conditions in Ukraine, these changes may be treated as positive, as they minimize water deficiency during the rainless summer season.

By and large, western and north-western winds are prevalent in the Upper Dnieper RB in Ukraine. This is particularly so in the warm period of the year. South-eastern and southern winds are typical of winters, particularly January. The wind velocity is rather low – normally 2–3 m/s, somewhat higher in winter and lower in summer.

1.1.7. Hydrological regime The Dnieper gets water from several sources, the prime ones being snow water which forms a great part of effluent (50%) as well as ground water (27%) and rain water (23%). An average flow rate within Kiev is 7,000 m 3/s (with a maximum rate of 25,000 m 3/s and a minimum rate of 200 m 3/s). Upstream of the Dnieper, the overall discharges vary from year to year slightly with the rates increased and exceeded by 1.5-2 times in the high-water years and decreased to 0.5-0.7 of the rate in the low-water years. During the spring flood-time, the Dnieper effluent makes up approximately a half of the total volume of the annual discharge. In this period 60% to 70% (sometimes up to 80%) of the total annual discharge flows that is followed by a period of summer low water.

Thus, the summer and autumn river runoff is 25-35% of the total annual while the winter discharge is 10-20%. The surface water resources are distributed non-uniformly across the territory of the basin where its upper part is supplied with water resources most abundantly (within the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus). On the average, more than 200,000 m 3/year falls on 1 km 2 of the area over the long-term period. In the Pripyat and Desna river basins, water resources per unit area are provided at 110,000 to 120,000 m 3 per year.

In Ukraine, the Upper Dnieper RB is abundant in rivers: the river density is 0.39 km/km 2. It is a high discharge module. Climate conditions – relatively high precipitation and minor evaporation – determine the basin density and discharge. The largest rivers in the basin are the Dnieper and its tributaries Pripyat and Desna. All three are trans-boundary rivers. Table 1.1 provides a summary of data on the hydrographic network of the pilot area.

Table 1.1. The Upper Dnieper river basin network in Ukraine Water body/river Basin area (km 2) Length (km)

in Ukraine total in Ukraine total Dnieper 291400 504000 1121 2201 Dnieper before the Kiev 1300 111 Reservoir Sozh 42100 155 648 Nemelnya 401 13 32 Atkilnya 90 90 19 19 Vyr 577 1250 41.4 62 Lovynka 96 96 21 21 Suhoy Vyr 80 80 30 30 Shiyka 87 87 17 17 Borzdna 171 171 32 32 Vertech 103 103 23 23 Pakulka 290 290 45 45 Dubrovka 195 195 19 19 Smolova 116 116 29 29 Pripyat 69 140 121 000 290 761 Uzh 8080 8080 256 479 Teterev 15300 15300 365 365 Zdvizh 1775 1775 145 145 Hochevka 101 101 15 15 Zhidok 172 172 35 35 Irpen' 3335 3335 162 162 Bucha 301 301 36 36 Gorynka 176 176 31 31 Rokach 121 121 19 19 Kozka 161 161 23 23

Water body/river Basin area (km 2) Length (km)

in Ukraine total in Ukraine total Kiev Reservoir 90090 90090 107 107 Desna 88900 33820 591 1130 Snov 8705 233 Zamglay 492 492 26 26 Stryzhen' 168 168 24 24 Belous 657 657 49 49 Svishen' 117 117 20 20 Vzdvizh 369 369 29 29 Vereb 209 209 33 33 Rudka 149 149 16 16 Zheved' 102 102 11 11 Smolyanka 99 99 18 18 Mesha 258 258 16 16 Gastusha 143 143 29 29 Oster 2950 2950 199 199 Lubich 217 217 15 15

Within the bounds of Kiev, the fall of the Dnieper is 133 m. As water discharge is 1% of water supply, the slope of water surface within Kiev is 6.8 cm/km. The Kanev Reservoir serves to normalise discharges and decrease the slope of water surface. The operation of the Kiev HPP has a normalising effect on water levels, which constantly change in Kiev. From the upper part of the city to its lower part, the amplitude of water levels decreases approximately 1.5 times.

At present, in the pilot area, the Dnieper River water content is measured at Nedanchichy station (located before the Kiev Reservoir), at the Kiev and Kanev HPPs. A few additional hydrological observation stations operate on the Dnieper tributaries (Table 1.2).

Table 1.2. Data on Hydrological Stations on the Dnieper and its tributaries River-Station Distance to estuary, km Water catchment area, km 2 Dnieper–Nedanchichi 1041 103000 Dnieper –Kiev HPP 903 239000 Dnieper–Kanev HPP 739 336000 Sozh–Gomel 105 38900 Pripyat–Mozyr 171 101000 Teterev–Ivankov 39 12400 Irpen–Mostyshche 28 2840 Desna–Chernigov 205 81400 Desna –Letki 36 88500 Trubezh–Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky 6.0 3430

The water discharge in the Pripyat, which is the largest tributary to the Dnieper, is 393 m 3/s at the Mozyr hydrological station (the area is 101000 km 2 in 1882–2011). The Pripyat water discharge in its estuary is 450–451 m 3/s, while taking into consideration the rather big river Uzh (Table 1.3).

Table 1.3. Characteristic Discharges of the Dnieper and its Largest Tributaries 2 River-Station F, km Period Qmean, Maximum Minimum Discharge m3/s Discharge m3/s date m3/s date Dnieper– 103000 1972– 565 4150 12.04.1979 93.1 08.12.1975 Nedanchichi 2011 Dnieper–Kiev 239000 1966– 1070 10700 18.04.1970 12.0 23% 01.01–24.02. 12

2 River-Station F, km Period Qmean, Maximum Minimum Discharge m3/s Discharge m3/s date m3/s date HPP 2011 1980 (11 events) Dnieper–Kanev 336000 1973– 1390 9980 17.04.1979 3.00 17% 01.01–31.12. HPP 2011 1977 (11 events) Sozh–Gomel 38900 1900– 202 6600 27.04.1931 16.4 13.11.1900 1940 1944– 2011 Pripyat–Mozyr 101000 1881– 393 5670 22– 22.0 12.11.1921 1917 24.04.1895 1919– 1940 1944– 2011 Teterev–Ivankov 12400 1985– 33.2 591 09.04.1996 5.40 18–20.09.2009 2011 Irpen– 2840 1953– 7.85 258 03.04.1956 0.20 14. 15.05.1964 Mostyshche 2011 Desna–Letki 88500 1973– 354 2400 19.04.1979 56.1 28.11.1975 2011

The highest rates of water discharge in the Pripyat are reported for April and the lowest rates are reported for September. The highest measured rate of discharge (5670 m 3/s) at the Mozyr station was recorded on 24.04.1895. The average long-term water content in the Desna at the Letki station (the area was 88500 km 2 in 1973–2011) is 354 m3/s. The highest water discharge is usually observed in May and the lowest water discharge is observed in September. The highest rate of discharge (2400 m3/s) was recorded on 19.04.1979. It is reasonably safe to suggest that the rates of discharge at the station mentioned can be a great deal higher. This is supported by longer-time data from Chernigov where the rates of discharge used to reach 8000 m 3/s.

Lakes and storage reservoirs. There are a pretty great number of lakes and storage reservoirs within the river basin’s section under study; however, most of them are small. The sole exception is storage reservoir on the Dnieper – Kiev and Kanev reservoirs (Table 1.4).

Table 1.4. Design Characteristics of Kiev Storage Reservoir Characteristics Kiev Kanev Full reservoir level (FRL), m 103.0 91,5 Highest water level (HWL), m 104.1 92,7 Drawdown level (DL), m 102.0 91,5 Dead storage level (DSL), m 101.5 91,0 Static volume at FRL, km 3 3.73 2,50 Static volume at HWL, km 3 4.88 3,22 Static volume at DL, km 3 2.91 2,50 Static volume at DSL, km 3 2.56 2,20 Volume between HWL and FRL, km 3 1.15 0,72 Volume between FRL and DSL, km 3 1.17 0,30 Area at FRL, km 2 922 581 Area at HWL, km 2 1166 653 Area at DSL, km 2 678 553 Storage reservoir length, km 110 123 Maximum width, km 12.0 8,0 13

Characteristics Kiev Kanev Mean width, km 8.4 5,5 Mean depth, m 4.0 3,9 Water catchment area, K km 2 239 336

Ground waters are an important component in the river runoff, in the first turn, under low-water conditions. At the same time, they offer a resource used for economic activities.

The area of the Upper Dnieper (Ukraine) is situated in the north-western part of the Dnieper-Donets artesian basin which is characterized by the presence of a stage system of water-bearing horizons and complexes related to Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Kainozoic deposits which occur at the depths increasing north-eastward and eastward toward the down warping of crystalline rocks. The Kainozoic deposits and partly, Mesozoic deposits contain a thick zone of good-quality fresh water.

A regional assessment of the predicted ground water resources for large-scale centralized water supply has been carried out in the 70s of the last century in the area of the Dnieper-Donets basin. Basing on this criterion, the following water-bearing horizons and complexes have been specified and evaluated: - a water-bearing complex in Quaternary deposits (within the Dnieper erosion valley); - a water-bearing complex in Oligocebe-Miocene deposits; - a water-bearing horizon in Eocene (Kanev-Buchak) deposits; - a water-bearing complex in Lower Cretaceous and Cenomanian deposits; - a water-bearing complex in Callovian and Cenomanian deposits; - a water-bearing horizon in Middle Jurassic (Bajocian) deposits; - a water-bearing horizon in Lower Triassic deposits.

The predicted resources of ground waters that offer potentials for their extraction from the bowels in the territory of the Upper Dnieper basin within the bound of Ukraine are estimated at 4 126,340 m3/day.

The predicted ground water resources were explored within the scope approved by the USSR State Commission for Reserves of Mineral Resources and Ukrainian State Commission for Reserves of Drinking and Industrial Ground Water. As at 1.01.2013, the aggregate balance operational reserves of drinking and industrial ground waters are estimated at 1,137,990 m 3/day, thus, the predicted resources in the basin have been explored by 28%.

The predicted ground water resources by water-bearing horizons (complexes) are: - the water-bearing complex of Oligocene-Miocene and Quaternary deposits – 1,097,810 m3/day; - the water-bearing horizon in Eocene (Kanev-Buchak) deposits – 1,804,480 m 3/day; - the water-bearing complex in Lower Cretaceous and Cenomanian deposits – 348,950 m3/day; - the water-bearing complex in Callovian and Cenomanian deposits – 586,900 m 3/day; - the water-bearing horizon in Middle Jurassic (Bajocian) deposits – 288,200 m 3/day. Ground water in ensuring Kiev is 10-12%.

1.2. Typology and identification of surface water bodies

1.2.1. General provisions To assess ecological status of surface water bodies and plan and implement Program of Measures, Identification, delineation and typological classification of water bodies in the Upper Dnieper pilot basin have been carried out as part of the RBMP process. Rivers and lakes have been divided into 14 discrete volumes, or bodies of surface water (WBs). According to the WFD a ‘water body’ should be a coherent sub-unit in the river basin to which the environmental objectives of the directive must apply.

Surface ‘water bodies’ are discrete sections or parts of water bodies, which differ from each other in their specific natural characteristics, the nature of the impact of human activity or any others significant and distinguishable parameters.

The process of delineation and identifying surface water bodies consist of division of water bodies into sections and parts according to agreed parameters and criteria. Each delineated surface water body is subject to regular water status assessment and, in case good status is not achieved, specific measures have to be set to improve, or maintain existing status of water bodies.

The method used for delineation of Water Bodies involves identification of the locations and boundaries of surface water bodies and initial characterisation and typology in accordance with the methodology described below:

(i) The surface WBs within the river basin /sub-basin were identified as falling within either one of the following surface water categories —rivers, lakes, or as heavily modified surface water bodies. (ii) For each surface water category, the relevant surface WB within the river basin/sub-basin was differentiated according to a type. These types are defined using the system A of the WFD in accordance with the ToR of EPIRB Project (Table 1.5).

Each surface WB within the river basin/sub-basin should be differentiated by the relevant ecoregions in accordance with the geographical areas. The pilot basin under this review belongs to the 16-th ecoregion (the Eastern plains).

Afterwards the WBs were differentiated by surface water body types according to the descriptors set out in the table 1.5. For heavily modified surface water bodies the differentiation was undertaken in accordance with the descriptors for whichever of the surface water categories (rivers or lakes) most closely resembles.

Table 1.5. System A: Rivers and Lakes Fixed RIVERS LAKES typology Descriptors Descriptors Ecoregion 16 (Eastern plains) 16 (Eastern plains) Type Altitude typology Altitude typology high: >800 m high: >800 m mid-altitude: 200 to 800 m mid-altitude: 200 to 800 m lowland: <200 m lowland: <200 m Size typology based on catchment area Size typology based on surface area small: 10 to 100 km 2 0.5 to 1 km 2 medium: >100 to 1 000 km 2 1 to 10 km 2 large: >1 000 to 10 000 km 2 10 to 100 km 2 very large: >10 000 km 2 >100 km 2 Depth typology based on mean depth <3 m 3 to 15 m > 15 m Geo- Geo- logy logy calcareous calcareous 15

Fixed RIVERS LAKES typology Descriptors Descriptors Ecoregion 16 (Eastern plains) 16 (Eastern plains) siliceous siliceous organic organic

All rivers with a river basin over 50 km 2 were considered for the purpose of establishing and identifying surface water bodies. Rivers with the catchment areas smaller than 50 km 2 were categorized into individual water bodies in respect to their significance. However, all small rivers are included into larger drainage basins, which serve as the basis for the management of water bodies. The establishment of surface water bodies was based on types of water bodies in natural conditions. The type of the water body in natural conditions was identified for each surface water body.

The other criteria for detailed delineation included: - Human influence on the physical status of water bodies (“at risk”); - Stricter protection requirements established for protected areas.

A methodological problem for water management regulation is the large number of identified river bodies and the consequential large amount of work required for studies, monitoring and surveillance. Preliminary aggregation and grouping river bodies, in particular, was applied to reduce administrative burden.

For the coding of the delineated water bodies the international hydrological coding system was used, known as the Hack's main streams or Gravelius order (Zavoianu et al, 2009), ranks streams based on a hierarchy of tributaries.

1.2.2. Scheme of typology of water bodies Each delineated water body in the Upper Dnieper RB will obtain a unique identifier using the format given in the Table 1.6. For the Ukrainian part of the Upper Dnieper RB the country code UA is based for the identification of water bodies. For lake water bodies UAL abbreviation is used.

Table 1.6. Water body code identification scheme for the Upper Dnieper basin First order tributary Second order Third order Fourth order tributary tributary tributary 01 = Dnieper River 01 = Sozh 01= Nemelnya 01= Atkilnya

0201/xx – the water 02 = Vyr 01= Lovynka bodies of the 02= Suhoy Vyr Dnieper River; 03= Channel-1 0201YY/xx – the 02= Channel -2 water bodies of the 03= Shiyka second order tributary; 04= Bordzna 0201YYZZ/xx – the 05= Vertech water bodies of the third 06= Pakulka order tributary 07= Dubrovka 08= Smolova 01= Uzh 01= Channel-3 09= Pripyat 02= Uzh pritok 10= Teterev 01=Zdvizh 02=Hochevka 11= Zhidok 12= Irpen 01= Bucha 02= Gorenka 16

First order tributary Second order Third order Fourth order tributary tributary tributary 03= Rokach 04 = Kozka 13 = Desna 01= Snov 02= Zamglay 03= Stryzhen 04= Belous 01= Belous pritok 02= Svishen 05= Vzdvizha 06= Vereb 07= Rudka 01= Zheved 08= Smolyanka 09= Mesha 01= Channel-4 10= Gastusha 01= Gastusha pritok 11= Channel-5 12= Oster 13= Channel-6 14= Lubich 01= Lubich pritok 15= Desha pritok 16= Channel-7

Surface water bodies are classified into water bodies in natural conditions, heavily modified and artificial water bodies. The determination of surface water bodies and heavily modified water bodies is based on several guidelines and an agreed methodology, is described below.

In the pilot Upper Dnieper RB of Ukraine there were identified 121 Surface WBs, including 9 artificial WBs, 24 – heavily modified WBs, 48 WBs were assessed as WBs at risk of failing good ecological status, 40 WBs were not assessed and there is no available information related to them, due to this lack of information these WBs were assessed as WBs possibly at risk.

More than 40 WBs were a subject of the JFS on assessment of their hydrobiological, hydrochemical and hydromorphological characteristics and the further analysis.

A list of all surface water bodies is provided in Annex 2.1 and they are shown on the map of Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3. Surface water bodies in the Upper Dnieper pilot basin of Ukraine

Typology The type of a water body depends on the set of natural properties of the water body or their parts. The identification of the types of rivers is based mainly on geographical and morphological character.

On the basis of the ecoregion (16), Geology (Siliceous) and Altitude factor (<200 m) all rivers in the Dnieper pilot basin of Ukraine belong to one single type, meanwhile by the Catchment size, rivers fall within 4 groups:

- Type I includes 16 water bodies with the small catchment area less than 100 km 2; - Type II includes 38 water bodies with the medium catchment from 100 to 1000 km 2; - Type III includes 4 water bodies with the large catchment area from 1000 to 10 000 km 2; - Type IV includes 17 water bodies with the very large catchment more than 10 000 km 2.

The WB types within the Upper Dnieper pilot basin and the corresponding characterizing factors are provided in Tables 1.7, 1.8 and shown in Figures 1.4, 1.5 below.

Table 1.7. Typology of rivers in the Upper Dnieper pilot basin of Ukraine Descriptor Type I II III IV Ecoregion 16 Geology Siliceous Altitude <200 Size typology based on small: <100 km2 medium: >100 large:>1 000 Very large: > surface area to 1 000 km 2 to 10 000 km 2 10 000 km 2

On the basis of geographical and morphological characteristics lake water bodies in the Upper Dnieper RB belong to 6 groups:

Type I includes 1 water body with the average depth less than 3 m and the surface area from 0.5 to 1 km 2; Type II includes 2 water bodies with the average depth less than 3 m and the surface area from 1 to 10 km 2; Type III includes 1 water body with the average depth from 3 to 15 m and the surface area from 0.5 to 1 km 2; Type IV includes 2 water bodies with the average depth from 3 to 15 m and the surface area from 1 to 10 km 2; Type V includes 1 water body with the average depth less than 3 m and the surface area from 10 to 100 km 2; Type VI includes 2 water bodies with the average depth from 3 to 15 m and the surface area from 10 to 100 km 2.

Table 1.8. Typology of lake water bodies in the Dnieper pilot basin of Ukraine Descriptor Type I II III IV V VI Ecoregion 16 Altitude <200 Geology Siliceous Size typology based on 0,5 to 1 1 to 10 km 2 0,5 to 1 1 to 10 km 2 10 to 100 10 to 100 surface area km 2 km 2 km 2 km 2

Depth <3 3-15 m <3 3-15 m

Figure 1.4. River water bodies typology map

Heavily modified and artificial water bodies are sub-categories of surface water bodies. A water body can be designated as a heavily modified surface water body or artificial water body only if it meets the following criteria:

1) Changes in the hydromorphological properties of the water body, which would be required to achieve a good ecological status, would have a significant negative impact on: - the environment in general; - the activities for which the water is abstracted, such as drinking water supply, electricity production or irrigation; - water regulation, protection against floods, or drainage; - other equally significant permanent human development activities.

2) Due to the limited technical resources and/or excessive costs, the benefits resulting from the artificial or modified nature of the water body would not be achievable through alternative methods, which would be more favourable for the environment. The initial identification of AWBs should include the surface water bodies with a catchment area of more than 10 km 2 or surface area more than 0,5 km 2.

A series of drainage systems, some rather large and well-known, have been built in Kiev and Chernigiv Regions. Seven biggest channels were identified as artificial water bodies:

- Channel-1 (UA010103) is a part of the amelioration drainage system in the Sozh River Basin, 30.8 km long with the catchment area 133 km 2; - Channel-2 (UA0102) (delineate 3 WBs) is a drainage channel in the Dnieper River floodplain. Channel is 30.3 km long with the catchment area 182 km 2; - Channel-3 (UA01090101) 13 km long and with the catchment area 62 km 2 belongs to the Uzh River Basin. It is located in the Chornobyl zone; - Channels 4, 5, 6 and 7 belong to the Desna River Basin. - Channel-4 (UA01090101) is 31,6 km long with the catchment area 125 km 2; - Channel-5 (UA011311) is 19.4 km long with the catchment area 124 km 2; - Channel-6 (UA011313) has a length of 21 km and a catchment area of 139 km 2; - Channel-7 (UA011316) has a length of 17.4 km and a catchment area of 111 km 2.

- Two lake water bodies have been designed as artificial water bodies, including ponds Zhavinka1 and Zhavinka2 (UAL0105) in the Belous River floodplain near the confluence with the Desna River. Ponds have been made for fish farming. Ponds have the surface area of 1.0 km 2 and depth less than 3 m.

Figure 1.5. Lake water bodies typology map

In accordance with the EU WFD, the HMWB is designated as “a body of surface water which as a result of physical alterations by human activity is substantially changed in character”.

At this stage of the project the HMWBs were preliminarily designated. This HMWB designation process aims to justify why the WB should be classified as HMWB and therefore should have less stringent objectives in terms of ecological status improvements.

The HMWB designation process consisted of the following steps: 1. Pre-designation: the identification of the location, size, etc. of the water body, description of the hydromorphological changes and ecological alteration(s). 2. Characterisation of the user(s) benefiting from the changes (subject or users that would benefit from the changes). 3. Identification of measures to restore good ecological status of the water body (hydromorphological characteristics). 4. Description of the impacts of the measure(s) on the user(s) and on the wider environment. 5. Test: Are the impacts significant? 6. Identification of potential alternative means for the user to achieve the same function. 7. Test: Are these alternatives feasible technically, economically and environmentally?

Table 1.9. HMWB in Upper Dnieper River Basin (rivers) N River bodies Delineation Code HM alterations 1 Pakulka UA0106/01 Significant hydromorphological changes by two dams 2 Pakulka BY/UA0106/04 constructed along the river. The reservoirs are used for fishing 3 Dnieper UA01/10 Significant hydromorphological 4 Dnieper UA01/11 changes by the Kiev HPP 5 Dnieper UA01/12 construction. 6 Dnieper UA01/13 7 Dnieper UA01/14 8 Dnieper UA01/15 9 Dnieper UA/16 10 Zdvizh UA11001 Significant hydromorphological changes by the channel shortening in the process of land reclamation 11 Zhidok UA0115/01 Significant hydromorphological changes by the channel 12 shortening in the process of Zhidok UA0115/02 land reclamation 13 Irpen UA0115/02 Significant hydromorphological 14 Irpen UA0117/01 changes by the Irpen 15 Irpen UA0117/02 drainage/irrigation system 16 Irpen UA0117/03 construction 17 Irpen UA0117/04 18 Bucha UA011701 Significant hydromorphological changes by water level regulations 19 Stryzhen UA011803/01 Significant hydromorphological 20 Stryzhen UA011803/02 changes by water level 21 Stryzhen UA011803/03 regulations 22 Belous UA011805/03 Significant hydromorphological changes by the channel shortening

N River bodies Delineation Code HM alterations 23 Vzdvizh UA011806 drainage/irrigation system construction 24 Oster UA011813 Significant hydromorphological changes by water level regulations

5 lakes group water bodies have been identified as heavily modified surface water bodies in the Upper Dnieper RB:

Table 1.9. HMWB in the Upper Dnieper River Basin (lakes) N Lake group water bodies Group delineation Code HM alterations 1 Pakulka UAL0101 Significant hydromorphological changes by two dams constructed along the river. The reservoirs are used for fishing 3 Kievskoe (to Pripyat River UAL0103/01 Significant hydromorphological mouth) changes by the Kiev HPP 4 Kievskoe (from Pripyat River UAL0103/02 construction. mouth to Irpen River mouth) 5 Kievskoe (from Irpen River UAL0103/03 mouth to Kiev HPP dam)

The purpose of protecting various areas is to preserve and protect the environment in certain regions from the negative impacts of human activities to preserve the people’s immediate living environment and a viable natural environment as a whole. On the territory of the Upper Dnieper RB the Chornobylsky Special Nature Reserve was established in 2007 in the Chornobyl NPP exclusion zone. It is the largest nature reserve (area of 48 870 ha) in Ukraine and has state boundary location. Forests dominate the area, including young forests, which have sprung up after the NPP accident. Within the protected area there are: 1 water body (UA01/02) in the Dnieper River, 1 group water body (UA0109) in the Pripyat River, 1 group water body (UA010901) in the Uzh River, 1 water body in the Channel-3 (UA01090101) and 1 water body (UA01090102) in the Uzh River tributary (Uzh pritok).

1.3. Identification, characterisation and delineation of groundwater bodies

For the management purposes, WFD requires to delineate, characterize and classify groundwater bodies (further abbreviated as GWB).

According to the WFD Article 2.12: “Body of groundwater means a distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers”. The first step in the procedure of identification of GWBs is analysis of groundwater aquifers and their parts with a significant flow of groundwater and/or significant volume of abstraction.

WFD Article 7 requires identifying all groundwater bodies used, or planned to be used in future, for the abstraction of more than 10 m 3/d of drinking water as an average. In the water body identification exercise this volume is regarded as a significant quantity of groundwater. Geological strata capable to abstract this quantity of groundwater (even only locally) should be qualified as aquifers. Almost all aquifers that contain fresh groundwater can produce more than 10 m 3/d and should be analyzed for groundwater body delineation.

The area of the Upper Dnieper RB is situated in the north-western part of the Dnieper-Donets artesian basin which is characterized by the presence of aquifers and water-bearing complexes

23 related to Mesozoic and Cainozoic deposits which occur at the depths increasing north-eastward and eastward of the basin. The Cainozoic deposits and partly, Mesozoic deposits compose a thick zone which contains good quality fresh groundwater.

A regional assessment of the predicted ground water resources for large-scale centralized water supply in the area of the Upper Dnieper RB has been carried out in the 70s of the last century. Basing on this criterion, the following aquifers and water-bearing complexes have been specified within the boundaries of selected pilot basin area:

- a water-bearing complex in Quaternary deposits, consisting of alluvial and glacial aquifers; - a water-bearing complex in Upper Paleogene (Oligocene) – Lower Neogene (Miocene) deposits; - a water-bearing horizon in Middle Paleogene (Eocene -Kanev-Buchak) deposits; - a water-bearing complex in Lower Cretaceous and Cenomanian deposits.

The predicted resources of groundwater that can be potentially used for abstraction on the territory of the Upper Dnieper basin in Ukraine are estimated at 4 126 340 m 3/day. The breakdown of groundwater resources by aquifers and water-bearing complexes is the following:

- in Quaternary deposits – 1 097 810 m 3/day; - in Eocene (Kanev-Buchak) deposits – 1 804 480 m 3/day; - in Lower Cretaceous and Cenomanian deposits – 348 950 m 3/day;

These aquifers have been analysed for identification and delineation of GW bodies (Figures 1.6).

Groundwater bodies have been identified using WFD and CIS Guidance document recommendations, GIS mapped and characterized. Characterization and delineated groundwater bodies is presented below.

Four groundwater bodies have been identified and delineated in the UDRB: two in unconfined Quaternary aquifers and two in artesian aquifers. All four groundwater bodies are of good quantitative and chemical status. Only Cretaceous groundwater body around Kiev deserves more careful management because depression cone has developed in the aquifer with the radius of 30 km and decline of groundwater level of 40 m in the central part of the cone is formed due to intensive exploitation of the aquifers. Changes of chemical composition in productive aquifers have to be observed for the identifying significant and sustained upward trends in the concentration of pollutants in groundwater and if any - defining the starting points for trend reversals.

Figure 1.6. Delineated groundwater bodies in the Upper Dnieper river basin

2. A summary of significant pressures and possible anthropogenic impact on the status of surface water and groundwater

2.1. A summary of significant pressures and significant Water Management Issues

The overall aim of the Pressure and Impact analysis (PIA) is the identification/estimation of water bodies at risk, possibly at risk or not at risk of failing the WFD environmental objectives. Water bodies have been classified possibly at risk in the case of insufficient information or knowledge based on the identified significant anthropogenic pressures the Pressure and Impact Analysis and Risks assessment (RA) of not achieving the WFD environmental objectives for WBs in the Upper Dnieper RB of Ukraine. The results of from WFD compliant monitoring network JFS 2013-2014 and WFD compliant classification of WBs made by the experts of EPIRB Project were used for the PIA and RA based on DPSIR methodology and the Guidance Documents addressing (i) Hydromorphology and Physico-Chemistry and (ii) Chemical Status of Surface WBs. In addition the available data of the national monitoring network (the Central Geophysical Observatory and the Dnieper BUWR) and national Water Quality Norms and Standards were used for the PIA and RA. The approach followed an interim procedure of risk estimation using pressure and impact criteria/thresholds values for significant anthropogenic pressures in the Upper Dnieper RB. Based on the Upper Dnieper River Basin Analysis 2013 (WFD Article 5) the significant anthropogenic pressures were identified and assessed as following: contamination of water by organic compounds, nutrients and hazardous pollutants caused by emissions of low treated and untreated wastewater from agglomerations, industry and agriculture point and non-point sources; hydromorphological alterations, including water flow regulation, river and habitat continuity interruption, disconnection of adjacent wetlands/floodplains and within the pilot river basin. There are other anthropogenic pressures/impacts identified in Upper Dnieper RB Analysis, like contamination made by Chernobyl accident, sediments accumulation and contamination, climate change and other, but these pressures/impacts were not analyzed in details and not assessed due to lack of available information, as well as non-existence of WFD compliant monitoring network and WFD compliant classification systems in Ukraine. These pressures and impacts need further investigation in accordance to the WFD relevant monitoring of WBs.

The overall aim of the Upper Dnieper RB pressure/impact analysis and risk assessment (PIA & RA) was to identify surface water bodies at risk or not at risk of failing the WFD environmental objectives for the period of 2015-2021. Water bodies have been identified possibly at risk in case of lacking or having insufficient information and knowledge. Due to lack of national methodology on pressure/impact analysis and risk assessment the approach followed the simplified interim methodologies developed by EPIRB project experts for pressure/impact analysis and risk assessment for significant anthropogenic pressures, including hydromorphological alterations, point and non- point sources of pollution, general physic-chemical parameters and priority pollutants using pressure and impact criteria/thresholds.

As a result of delineation and typology of water bodies in the Upper Dnieper RB and based on the JFS 2013 and JFS 2014 results, among 140 Surface Water Bodies there were identified 121 river WBs, including 88 natural river WBs, 8 Artificial river WBs and 24 heavily modified river WBs as well as 19 lake WBs, including 12 natural lake WBs, 2 artificial lake WBs, 5 heavily modified lakes WBs. In general lakes of the Upper Dnieper RB are floodplain lakes. They have very close hydraulic connection (ground waters) with their main river beds and therefore similar ecologic conditions.

Figure 2.1. The River Water Bodies of the Upper Dnieper River Basin in numbers and length (km)

Figure 2.2. The Lake Water Bodies of the Upper Dnieper River Basin in numbers and area (km 2)

The results of the risk assessment presented in diagrams A and B (Figure 2.3 A and B)

Figure 2.3 A. Results of the risk analysis for the Upper Dnieper River water bodies (number WBs): general typology and pressure/impact from: hydromorphological alterations (HMA): C1- >70% of overall water body length is allocated to Morphological Quality Class 3-5; C2 - several impoundments are in place and affect >30% of the overall water body length; C3 - Intense deformation processes distorting the shape of the channel and coastal topography); point sources of pollution, organic pollution and priority pollutants.

Figure 2.3.B. Results of the risk analysis for the Upper Dnieper River water bodies (length, km): general typology and pressure/impact from: hydromorphological alterations (HMA): C1- >70% of overall water body length is allocated to Morphological Quality Class 3-5;C2 - several impoundments are in place and affect >30% of the overall water body length; C3 - Intense deformation processes distorting the shape of the channel and coastal topography); point sources of pollution, organic pollution and priority pollutants.

Out of 4.99 million inhabitants living in the Upper Dnieper RB, about 97.7% are living in the urban areas.

The share of population connected to public water supply varies significantly between urban and rural areas and between different cities: from 50 till 100% in urban, and in rural areas dwellers use shallow or artesian wells. The main problem of water supply sector is poor condition of infrastructure and lack of financing for maintenance and investment for development of infrastructures. In the pilot Upper Dnieper RB there are 14 agglomerations > = 10 000 PE (the agglomerations of more than 10 ,000 PE population equivalent) with total 3.614 mln PE, all of them connected to water supply and 13 agglomerations connected to a sewer and WWTP with the secondary treatment. Approx. 51 000 dwellers of these agglomerations are not connected to a sewer and/or WWTP. In addition significant number of the agglomerations with less than 10 000 PE (small towns, townships and rural settlements, approx. 1.4 mln PE) located in the pilot area is neither connected to a collector system (sewer) nor to a WWTP.

The P/I and RA analysis showed that significant number of surface WBs in the Ukrainian part of the Upper Dnieper RB are at risk due to the pressure of organic emissions caused by insufficient wastewater treatment or lack of wastewater collection. In the Kyiv reservoir, which is identified as a HMWB there is a trend to reduce organic pollution, including pollution by oil products and phenols. In the same time there is a negative trend of increasing organic pollution in WBs within and downstream of big agglomerations (Kiev, Chernigov and others) and WWTP outlet discharges. To 29 reduce negative impacts of organic pollution on surface water status the adequate measures should be applied, including upgrading and improving treatment technologies of operating WWTPs, as well as measures on enlarging sewerage network and WWTPs. These measures are listed in the Programme of Measures section of the Upper Dnieper RBMP (Chapter 7).

Regarding the pressure caused by nutrient emissions , the P/I and RA Analysis showed a pilot basin wide significant contamination of surface WBs by nitrogen, NH 4, and phosphorus compounds as a result of the emissions of nutrients from the point and diffuse sources of pollution. Unfortunately, there is no positive progress on reduction of nutrient contamination of surface WBs, moreover there is a broad nitrates contamination of wells, used for drinking purposes in rural and small agglomerations in Upper Dnieper RB.

Pressures resulting from hazardous substance pollution were identified as significant source affecting surface waters and groundwater. This conclusion was made based on available results of the long term monitoring of water quality carrying on by the State Water Agency Central Geophysical Observatory , as well as JFS 2013 and JFS 2014 and analysis of possible pressures/impacts caused by industry developed in the pilot Upper Dnieper RB. This analysis was based on deskwork with available information about wastewater discharge and solid wastes produced by the industrial enterprises in the basin. Overall, priority and hazardous substances loads in full extent could not be evaluated due to the lack of capacity of water monitoring laboratories in Ukraine that are supposed to monitor priority substances in accordance to the WFD priority pollutants’ list.

The Surface WBs of the Upper Dnieper RB were dominantly at risk or possibly at risk due to the significant hydromorphological pressures caused by water flow regulation, river and habitat continuity interruption by dams and reservoirs (Kyiv reservoir) and disconnection of adjacent wetlands/floodplains as a result of development extensive amelioration system in the 1960s.

The results of the P/IA and RA show that 21% (or 41% of total length) of River WBs were identified at risk due to organic pollution, 25% (or 47% of total length) - due to nutrient pollution and 25% (or 43% of total length) - due to pollution by hazardous substances.

Only 8 River WBs were identified as not at risk from hydromorphological alterations. 25 river WBs or 21% (20% of the length) of river WBs were at risk or possibly at risk of failing the WFD environmental objectives due to hydromorphological alterations. Water bodies possible at risk were not investigated in framework of 2013 JFS. 9 AWB are canals built for drainage in irrigation systems. 24 river HMWBs are part of rivers with heavily modify banks, beds, water courses and with hydraulic structures.

Due to the fact that lake WBs have very close hydraulic connection (ground waters) with its main rivers beds, all lakes at risk are located in the area with high urban development. The ‘Kievskoe Sea’ – is a huge reservoir under multiple pressures.

Overall, the majority of Surface WBs are at multiple pressures at the same time. 1 of 4 GWBs of the Upper Dnieper RB are possibly at risk due to quantitative and chemical status.

Significant Water Management Issues as follows: - Directly or indirectly affected status of Surface Water ; - Pollution by organic pollutants and nutrients; - Pollution by hazardous substances; - Hydromorphological alterations; and Pollution by hazardous substances and - Water abstraction affecting directly and indirectly status of Groundwater Bodies . 30

2.2. Significant pressures identified in the Upper Dnieper River Basin

2.2.1 Significant point and non-point sources pollution

The contamination of water bodies caused by point and non-point sources of pollution were identified as main pressure on Surface WBs of the pilot river basin. Organic pollutants, nutrients and hazardous substances are discharged into the WBs as part of untreated and bad treated wastewater formed in urban areas of the pilot basin. These multiple point sources of pollution are mainly generated in urban areas and represent one of the principal factors affecting sanitary and hygienic conditions in the basin. Diffuse sources of the organic, nutrients, hazardous substances pollution of surface and ground waters are surface and storm runoffs. There are not the storm water collection system and treatment facilities in most of settlements, industrial sites, animal and poultry farms. As a result of industrial, household, agricultural, recreation and other human activities, a big amount of various well known and not still un-identified organic substances (nutrients, heavy metals and other pollutants) are accumulated in surface water bodies and affect negatively the status of water bodies. In addition, pollutions from the Chernobyl zone affect significantly the Upper Dnieper section within the pilot basin. Once accumulated, these broad spectrums of organic and inorganic pollutions cause degradation of surface water quality actually for all parameters, including physical, chemical, biological and sanitary/hygienic.

2.2.1.1. Risk estimation regarding point source pollution

The main anthropogenic pressure on surface water bodies of the Upper Dnieper RB comes to point source pollution related to bad or untreated wastewaters discharged by wastewater treatment plants or from the sewer and wastewater collectors directly discharging untreated waters. Taking into account that most of industrial enterprises discharge their treated, insufficiently treated, or un-treated wastewaters to the municipal sewer and transport them to wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) for final treatment together with domestic wastewater (WW), all WWTPs in Ukraine shall be considered as significant point sources of multi spectrum pollution by organic matter, nutrients (particularly, nitrogen and phosphorus) and different chemical pollutants.

Point sources: organic and nutrients pollution. Assessment of point source pollution, which is based on the official wastewater discharges statistics (2TP Vodhoz), identifies reduction of waste water discharges and water abstraction within the pilot basin on 1.5 times since 2000. Having no effect on the Dnieper water balance (quantity), the wastewater disposal affects the Dnieper water quality. The significant pollution of surface WBs were caused by insufficiently treated and untreated wastewaters discharged from WWTPs. WWTPs built in 1960s still use only secondary treatment scheme and cannot reduce organic and nutrients loads of communal and industrial WWs. Concentrations of pollutants, including organic matter, nutrients, oil products, phenols are higher (sometimes in 10 times) in discharged wastewaters than in the river’s water. According to the official assessment based on the 2TP-Vodhoz in recent years (2008-2011) the annual dry residue (organic matter) load into the Kiev Reservoir was 26 000 to 30 000 tons and into the Kanev Reservoir - 110 000 to 115 000 tons. There is a substantial difference in ammonium nitrogen loads caused by point sources in the Kyiv Reservoir (400 t NH 4/year) and the Kanev Reservoir (2 300 tons NH 4/year) due to the fact that the Bortnichi WWTP discharged wastewaters into the upper part of the Kanev Reservoir.

Despite the fact that in recent years discharges from the Bortnichi WWTP have been decreased from 3 3 468.7 million m in 2000 to 291.6 million m in 2012, the loads of organic matter, BOD 5, COD, NH 4 and P tot have increased, as it is shown in the official assessment (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4. Dynamics of dry residue, BOD tot, oil products and NH 4 emissions from point sources into the Kyiv Reservoir, Kaniv Reservoir and Upper Dnieper within the Kyiv city limits in 2000, 2009, 2010 and 2011( Source: the Dnieper River Basin Department: 2TP-Vodhoz)

In the framework of EPIRB Project for the assessment of pressure of untreated wastewaters related to organic pollution, caused by emissions of BOD 5, COD and nutrients pollution, caused by emission of Ntot and P tot into the environment, the inventory of the wastewater treatment in agglomerations with population higher than 10 000 of the UDRB was done based on the reference date by 01.01.2013. About 3,6 mln (or 73%) population of 18 agglomerations with ≥10000 PE within the pilot Upper Dnieper RB are connected to the sewer and WWTPs with secondary treatment (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1. Reference scenario: wastewater treatment in agglomerations ≥ 10000 PE in the Upper Dnieper RB (reference date 01/01/2013) 32

Level of sewer coverage WW Rivers population, People Portion of WWTP agglomeration Treatment capita connected to population, units level sewer, РЕ , connected to capita sewer % Vuzh c. Korosten 65687 33829 51,5 2 secondary Teteriv c. Radomyshl 15052 15052 100 1 secondary

c. Zhytomyr 280793 224354 79,9 3 secondary

c. Korostyshiv 25735 25735 100 1 secondary tsp.Marianivka 26620 21562 81 1 secondary tsp. Ivankiv 10424 8443 81 1 secondary Zdvyzh tsp. Borodyanka 13135 2102 16 1 secondary tsp Makariv 10148 1624 16 0 ------Irpin c. Irpin 91853 51162 55,7 0 ------Bucha c.Bucha 28483 27486 96,5 1 secondary Rokach tsp.Gostomel 14411 2305 16 1 secondary Desna c. Novgorod - Siverskyi 13791 12936 93,8 1 secondary c. Chernigiv 300384 255326 85 1 secondary Snov c. Schors 11471 10760 93,8 1 secondary Oster c. Nizhyn 73000 36354 49,8 1 secondary Dniper c.Kyiv 2858384 2858384 100 1 secondary

c.Ukrainka 15644 15096 96,5 1 secondary

c. Vyshgorod 26536 25607 96,5 1 secondary Total 3881551 3628117 73%

Inventory of emissions of BOD 5, COD, N tot and P tot and assessment of the risks of organic and nutrients pollution of SWBs was done for 14 agglomerations ≥ 10 000 PE of the Upper Dnieper RB. The Guidance Document, developed by experts of the EPIRB Project and reference to the Technical Report: ICPDR Municipal Emission Inventory 2006/2007 (agglomerations ≥ 2000), were used for this inventory. The results show that annual total municipal emissions of 14 agglomerations ≥ 10000 with 3.6 Mln PE are about 55 733t BOD 5,109 329 t COD, 4169 t N tot and 696 t P tot .

To calculate the emissions the following population equivalents values were used: 1PE BOD = 60 g/ d; 1PE COD = 110 g/ d; 1 PE N tot = 8,8 g/d. For calculation of P tot emissions 1 PEP tot = 2,5 g P/PE/day taking into account the significant load caused by using of phosphorus detergents (reference: Technical Report: ICPDR Municipal Emission Inventory 2006 / 2007 (agglomerations ≥ 2000)) in addition the treatment efficiency coefficient = 0,2 based on the practical knowledge that the secondary classical treatment used on Ukrainian WWTPs takes out only 20% of Phosphorus loads.

Table 2.2. Wastewater treatment in agglomerations ≥ 10000 PE and BOD5, COD, Ntot and Ptot emissions in the Upper Dnieper River Basin COD N tot Number Load BOD emission, P tot 5 emission, emission, agglomerations (РЕ ) t/y emission,t/y t/y t/y Secondary 13 3562482 54613 107275 4005 650 treatment No 1 51162 1120 2054 164 46

COD N tot Number Load BOD emission, P tot 5 emission, emission, agglomerations (РЕ ) t/y emission,t/y t/y t/y treatment Total 14 3613644 55733 109329 4169 696

Pressure analysis and risk assessment according to the EPIRB Guidelines shows that the largest point sources of organic and nutrients loads on surface WBs are untreated wastewaters of Kyiv with its 13 satellites-cities and Chernigov; and the biggest amount of organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus are discharged together with wastewaters into the rivers: Dnieper, Sozh, Desna, Stryzhen. Based on the results of untreated wastewater pressure criteria calculations, the domestic wastewaters create substantial impacts in the pilot basin, particularly the Irpin, Bucha, Rokach and Dnieper Rivers are at risk and the Oster River is possibly at risk. Calculation of the “total share of wastewater in the river” (the pressure indicator) and comparison of the results with the risk criterion show that the Irpin and Teterev Rivers are possibly at risk. Additionally, the WFD complaint analysis of the general phisico-chemical conditions of the river WBs in the pilot basin was done based on the assessment of the data provided by the state water resources monitoring network (by the Dnieper BUWR and by the CGO) for 2000-2012 period and data obtained during the EPRB JFS 2013 and JFS 2014. The analysis confirmed the significant organic and nutrients man-made contamination of the surface WBs within the pilot Upper Dnieper RB.

The analysis of the long term data on NH 4, - a critical water quality parameter, shows that there is a substantial regionwide impact on water quality, which can be caused by lack of WWT facility in the pilot area, taking into account that usually NH 4 pollution is associated with the insufficiently treated, or untreated domestic wastewater discharge, or point and diffuse sources of pollution related to agriculture. Risk assessment of available data for investigated WBs shows that all these River WBs are ”at risk” and under long term and basin-wide impact. Analysis of the JFS 2013 data of general physic-chemical elements shows that in 2013 all investigated 24 river WBs were polluted by NH 4 and 2/3 of water samples had phosphorus concentrations higher than threshold value. As a result, these surface WBs were classified as surface WBs “at risk”. In addition, taking into consideration the Ukrainian ecological norms and standards, 3 surface WBs were classified as WBs “at risk” because of exceeding BOD 5 standards, while 17 river WBs were also classified as WBs “at risk” due to exceeding COD standards.

Point sources: Chemical pollution. WWTPs are the main sources of chemical pollution of the surface and ground WBs in the pilot Upper Dnieper RB. Most of wastewaters released by industrial enterprises are discharged into and transported to WWTPs for treatment by municipal communal sewer system. The main problem of the WWTPs is that the existing scheme of wastewater treatment and sludge processing was designed in the 1950's and 1960's. Since that time no upgrade of treatment plants was done. As the WWT norms designed in the 1960's are not applicable to remove individual compounds, there are no national standards to monitor the chemical pollutants’ content in the wastewater discharges and in receiving water bodies.

The industrial potential of the Kyiv region is based on more than 6000 enterprises (01.01.2012, Environmental Passport of Kiev region, 2012), which includes: extractive (mining) industries - 152; processing - 5670; electricity production and distribution enterprises, gas and water supply enterprises - 339. All of them generate wastewaters and /or solid wastes of different classes of pollutants and are sources of point and/or diffuse pollution in the pilot Upper Dnieper RB.

Main industry sectors in Chernigov Region, as sources of chemical pollution, with direct or indirect wastewater discharges, are presented by mining (grade oil, peat), energy generation (TEC), food 34 processing (meat, milk, butter, fat cheese, sugar, drinks), fabrics and shoes production, building materials (ceramic bricks, cement, concrete or artificial stones, wallpaper) production, chemical industry (plastics, polymeric paints and vanishes), wood processing and others industries.

.Analysis of main anthropogenic pressures provides the list of the sources of pollutants – enterprises of Kyiv and Chernigov regions that highly affect environment, including water bodies. According to the ecological passports, there are 60 ecologically hazardous enterprises located in Kyiv and Chernigov Regions. Usually, wastewaters of these enterprises are discharged into municipal sewer and treated together with domestic wastewater at WWTPs, for example in Kiev at Bortnichy WWTP. Some small amount of industrial wastewaters of Kyiv enterprises, such as Darnitsa CHPP and CHPP-2, are treated and discharged directly to the Dnieper. The Cardboard and Paper factory in Kiev has own WWTP as well. However, the volume of these wastewaters is not comparable with those of the Bortnichy WWTP.

The Upper Dnieper RBA and results of the JFS 2013 of surface and ground WBs showed that CHPP-5 and CHPP-6 of Kievenergo with their 2 sludge collectors, chemical shop, limestone and vanadium sludge collectors, Darnitsa CHPP and CHPP-2, as well as Chornobyl zone enterprises impose chemical pollution threats both for surface waters and groundwater.

According to the WFD the chemical quality elements together with biological quality and general physic-chemical quality elements are used to determine a high and good water status. The ultimate WFD objective is achieving ‘good ecological status and good chemical status for surface WB. To determine the chemical status of WBs according to WFD the list of priority (hazardous) substances and ‘certain other pollutants’ with 45 parameters, as well as their related environmental quality standards (EQS), have to be taken into consideration. This list was introduced by the Directive 2013/39/EU “amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC.

Analysis of the List of 33 WFD Priority pollutants and the available information about sources of pollution in the Upper Dnieper RB shows that at least 13 top Priority pollutants can be a subject for the WB monitoring, including 4 POPs: Endosulfan, DDT, Hexachloro- benzene, Hexachloro- cyclohexane (mixture of isomers), Pentachloro- benzene; Highly Hazardous Pesticides: Alachlor, Atrazine, Chlorpyrifos (Chlorpyrifos- ethyl), Trifluralin and Heavy Metals: Cadmium and its compounds, Lead and its compounds, Mercury and its compounds, Nickel and its compounds.

The available data of long term monitoring of SWBs in the pilot Upper Dnieper RB provided by Central Geophysical Observatory (CGO) gives some information about pollution of WBs by some heavy metals, oil products and phenols during the 2000-2011 period. In the JFS 2013 and JFS 2014 several chemical pollutants, including Heavy Metals, DDT, Aldrin, Endrin were measured for 24 surface WBs and 18 ground WBs. Analysis of the 2013-14 JFS results show that 18 river WBs from 24 sampling locations can be classified as river WBs “at risk” failing to achieve good chemical status in accordance to the EU WFD EQS. On the other hand, if considering the Ukrainian water quality standards, which are stricter than EU EQS, all of the investigated river WBs can be defined as WBs “at risk” (annex 2.1).

The results of the water quality analysis, based on CGO’s monitoring data, show that all surface WBs in the pilot area had water quality indicators higher than threshold values for fish breeding waters for the following measured parameters: Cu, Zn, Cr (+6) and Mn. The content of manganese in water had the clear seasonal fluctuations (maximum is observed in winter and flood times, when water is rich of suspended organic matter, washed out from wetland areas of the Pripyat, Teterev and Irsha catchments).

Lack of monitoring data and information about WFD priority (hazardous) substances and ‘certain other pollutants’ in the WBs of the Upper Dnieper RB can be considered as a gap of the existing monitoring network and significant challenge to develop WFD compliant monitoring system in Ukraine.

2.2.1.2. Risk estimation regarding diffuse source pollution

The following main sources of diffuse pollution affecting surface WBs in the Upper Dnieper RB were identified as a result of the study:

- Rain-storm runoffs in Kiev, Chernigov, Vyshgorod and other settlements situated nearby the water bodies of the pilot basin as the storm water disposal and treatment systems have been out of operation in these cities and untreated storm runoffs are draining to the nearest water bodies and thus polluting them. In wintertime, the storm runoffs have higher levels of mineralization due to the washout of the chemicals used for ice control on the roads; - Effluents from industrial sites that are abundant in Kiev and its outskirts pollute the nearby water bodies (20 small rivers around Kiev) with fuels and lubricants, oil products and heavy metals; - Runoffs from farmlands that carry dissolved mineral fertilizers, chemicals and pesticides; - Effluents from animal farms and poultry farms; -Effluents from cottage townships, individual tourist complexes, restaurants that are growing in number at very high rate alongside the Kiev reservoir and its take-out channels and the Desna river that are not equipped properly with waste water treatment systems; - Atmospheric emissions from Coal Thermal Power Plants and vehicles that could be attributed to diffuse pollution sources due to high concentrations of suspended matter (dust), sulphur oxide (SO 2), carbon dioxide (CO 2), nitrogen oxide (NO 2), phenol and formaldehyde that are higher by 1.2 to 3.5 MAC in the outdoor air in Kiev. Some hazardous pollutants listed in WFD priority pollutants contribute to the air and environment, including surface and ground waters, diffuse pollution in all cities within the UDRB. - Runoffs from Chornobyl zone land contamination causes contamination of surface and ground waters by radionuclides, heavy metals.

Due to a lack of national methodology of risk assessment of diffuse source pollution on WBs in P/IA & RA the first steps were made to assess the significant non-point sources pollution caused by untreated wastewater from settled areas without access to improved sanitation, as well as by agriculture and animal livestock. All agglomerations less than 10 000 PE (small towns, townships and rural settlements) located in the pilot area are neither connected to a sewer nor to a sewage treatment plants. Lack of improved sanitation contributes into diffuse organic and nutrients pollution of the environment in the pilot Upper Dnieper RB. About 1.3 mln people, living in the settlements of the pilot basin without sewerage and WWTPs, use pit latrines and septic tanks which are sources of diffuse organic and nutrients pollution of the environment, including surface WBs and shallow wells. Due to lack of relevant statistics regarding access to unimproved sanitation in agglomerations with population less than 10 000, assessment of wastewater loads generated by these sources was not possible to conduct.

Two pressure indicators have been addressed regarding the main diffuse pollutions sources: Likelihood for diffuse pollution for Agriculture and Animal livestock Drivers.

The likelihood of diffuse pollution by agriculture includes typical agricultural contaminants, such as nutrients from fertilizers, pesticides and other plant protection products. The indicator uses a general variable for the quantification of agricultural activities. Information on agricultural areas in 36

Ukraine exists only on the level of administrative-territorial units, not for catchments of specific water bodies. The smallest administrative unit in Ukraine where statistical information is being collected is a district. Thus dat for this indicator was calculated for all WBs fully located in such administrative districts. Application of this pressure indicator and its criteria showed that water bodies of the Desna and Dnieper river catchments in Chernigiv Region and water bodies located in the Kyivo-Svyatoshynskiy district are at risk of diffuse contamination from intensive agriculture. Testing of the animal livestock pressure indicator showed that for proper usage of this criteria the WFD compliant statistics about all types of livestock, is needed.

Analyses of the general physico-chemical elements as part of analysis of pressures and impacts identifying WBs at risk of falling environmental objectives, together with biological elements, were used to determine a high and good water status of WBs. PIA RA results on the general physico- chemical elements showed the long term basin-wide trend of contamination of surface WBs by NH 4, which could be a result of diffuse pollution of the environment within the Upper Dnieper RB. The analysis of the annual monitoring data of the water quality in the pilot basin showed that in almost all water bodies the established maximum allowable concentrations for certain parameters (total iron, phosphate ions, manganese, and sometimes BOD 5, ammonium and nitrite ions) for the fishing ponds are not met.

Analysis of JFS 2013 and JFS 2014 resulted in identification of the nutrients pollution as a main pressure within the pilot Upper Dnieper RB. All investigated River WBs and Lake WBs hydraulically connected to these River WBs were classified as at risk.

On the territory of the Upper Dnieper RB the Special Nature Reserve of Chornobyl is located along the border with Republic of Belarus. It is the largest nature reserve (area of 48 870 ha) in Ukraine and is located within the Chornobyl NPP exclusion zone . The reserve was created in 2007 (by Decree No 700/2007 of 13.08.2007).Within the protected area there are 9 River WBs, including 8 natural and 1 artificial RWBs, which are at risk to fail environmental objectives due to diffuse sources of pollution, including radionuclides and heavy metals, caused by Chornobyl accident.

2.2.2. Risk estimation regarding hydromorphological alterations of water bodies Water flow regulation, river and habitat continuity interruption

Kiev and Kanev reservoirs have a crucial impact on the Dnieper hydrological regime and morphological alterations in the pilot basin. Impacts of hydromorphological alteration are as follows:

- Water level fluctuations upstream and downstream the dams and permanent flooding of the area which was dry land formerly (meadows, forests, farmlands, settlements);- Essential alterations in the water regime, particularly, water discharges, silt content, sediment yield, thermal and ice regimes;- Alterations of water quality, river-bank erosion, habitats of aquatic organisms.

Disconnection of adjacent wetlands/floodplains.

8 River WBs were identified as not at risk from hydromorphological alterations based on the “desk work” results of analysis. 25 river WBs or 21% (20% of the length) of river WBs were at risk of failing environmental objectives due to hydromorphological alterations.4 water bodies on the Dnieper, Borzna, Sryzhen, Lubich Pritok rivers are at risk according to the rick criterion: Impoundment / Reservoir Effect when Individual Impoundment >1,000 m or several impoundments are in place and affect >30% of the overall water body length. WBs downstream of the Kyiv Reservoir dam is at risk related to Hydropeaking criterion. These WBs are affected by Hydropeaking amplitude below dam > 1:5.

According to the River Morphology rick criterion, 14 surface WBs of the Vyr, Borzna, Dubrovka, Zamglay, Stryzhen, BilousPritok, Desna Rivers were identified as at risk because more than 70% of overall water body length are classified as Morphological Quality Class 3-5 (interruption, river- channel straightening).

Overall, 8 RWBs in the Upper Dnieper pilot basin are identified as not at risk in terms of hydromorphology alterations, 55 – possibly at risk due to a lack of information, 25 – at risk, 6 – AWB, 8 – HMWB. Water bodies possibly at risk were not investigated in the framework of JFS 2013 and JFS 2014. AWB are canals built for drainage water in irrigation systems. HMWB are part of rivers with hard modifying banks, beds, water courses and with hydraulic structures.

Lakes of the Upper Dnieper RB generally are floodplain lakes. They (groundwaters) have very close hydraulic connection with the main rivers beds and therefore are characterised by similar ecologic conditions. All lakes at risk are located in the area with high urban development and are used as recreation zone without any protected conditions.

Figure 2. 5. Water bodies at risk in the Upper Dnieper RB

The ‘Kievskoe Sea’ – is a huge reservoir that has been in operation since 50 years and shows highly affected ecological and chemical characteristic due to specific reservoir effects. There are a lot of scientific studies done that prove this theory. One of the major hydromorphological problems of the Upper Dnieper RB is breaking of Kiev`s reservoir banks resulted in losses of land due to erosion, destroyed infrastructure, sedimentation of reservoir and eutrophication of water. The Upper Dnieper RB has distinctive characteristic - the river runoff is strongly regulated. There are a lot of channels, drainage systems, bungs, pumping facilities that regulate the runoff. Natural condition of water ecosystems is disturbed. Poor state of the network in the drained area caused secondary water logging and soil acidification.

3. Inventory of protected areas

In the Ukrainian part of the pilot Upper Dnieper RB there are 4 types of protected areas for the protection of rivers, water supply sources and habitats and species as well as Chornobyl zone. There are following types of protected areas in the pilot basin:

1) Water protected zones, riversides, waterway protected strips; 2) Zone of sanitarily protection of water supply sources, including surface water intakes, shallow wells and Ground water abstraction; 3) Areas of Nature preserve fund and Chornobyl exclusion zone.

Water protection zones, riversides, waterway protection strips. According to Article 87 of the Water Code of Ukraine (WCU) the protected areas (zones) are established to create a favourable regime, prevention of pollution, contamination and depletion of WBs, degradation of hydro- ecosystems and fauna and flora depended on water, and to reduce fluctuations of flow along the rivers, seas and around lakes, reservoirs and other WBs protection zones.

Water protection zone is a protected area, economic activity within this area is regulated and some activities, which can cause WBs contamination, degradation or other harmful impacts, are prohibited. In order to protect surface WBs from pollution and contamination and preserve their water content along the rivers, seas and around lakes, reservoirs and other water bodies within the water protection zones the coastal protection strips are allocated.

Coastal protection strips are installed on both sides of rivers and around water bodies along the water's edge (in the low-flow period) width: - for small rivers, streams and streams and ponds area less than 3 hectares - 25 meters; - for medium rivers, reservoirs on them, ponds, and ponds larger than 3 hectares - 50 meters; - for large rivers, reservoirs and lakes on them - 100 meters.

The regimes and regulation of the water protection zones, riversides, waterway protection strips are established under Chapter 12 of the Ukrainian Land Code, Articles 87 thru 93 of the Ukrainian Water Code.

In the Upper Dnieper RB the special protection regime as sanitary protection zone for the Dnieper river upstream city Kyiv was established in 1991 under the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution:

1. Belt 1 boundary (strict access) embraces the entire territory of the Dnieper water treatment station with a set of facilities to the highway and the Dnieper water area and 100 m wide riversides on both banks from the edge of water intake facilities for a distance of 1000 m upstream the river and 500 m downstream the river.

2. Belt 2 boundary on the left-hand bank: stretches from the Desna estuary to the motor road to the village of Oseshchina and embraces the whole water area of Kiev storage reservoir and the drainage channel; on the right-hand bank: from the water encroachment line in the summer-autumn low-water period to the Irpen estuary and farther, with a width of 500 m, to the upper reach of the storage reservoir and along its entire left-hand bank as well as the water areas and 500 m riversides of the Dnieper and Pripyat rivers and the left-hand bank of the Sozh river to the border on the Republic of Belarus, the Uzh, to the town of Polesskoye, the Teterev river to the town of Ivankov, and the Irpen river all along its length.

3. Belt 3 boundary runs along the watershed line while covering the 5 km strips on the right-hand bank of Kiev storage reservoir to the Irpin’ estuary, farther on the 3 km zone to the upper reach of 40 the storage reservoir and along the entire left-hand bank and along the both banks of the Dnieper and Pripyat rivers, along the left-hand bank of the Sozh to the border on the Republic of Belarus, the Uzh, to Polesskoye, along the Teterev to Ivankov, along the Irpin’ all along its length including the inhabited localities, ravines, gullies, brooks, sources, and tributaries located within this area.

In addition as reported by Communal utility ‘Pleso” by 2012 in Kyiv city there were designated in place the protection coastal strips of total area about 225 ha for the lakes and Dnieper river within city area, including for Didorovsky ponds in Holosiivskyi district, the Telbin lake and Rusanivsky Strait (Darnytskyi districtn), Lakes :Verbne and Central and Gulf Natalka (Obolonskyi district). In 2013, funds were not allocated for these measures.

The official data about river and lakes coastal protection strips are not free available. The coastal protection strips designation is not a priority for the local authorities and the legal norms are just on the paper. As Desnyanskyi BUVR informed that there was no requests from the local authority for designing the coastal protection strips in the Desna river basin for the last 10 years.

Zones of sanitary protection of water intakes for water supply. A zone of sanitary protection (of water supply sources) is “a land and water area where a special sanitary and epidemiological regime is introduced to prevent deterioration of water in the sources of centralized household and drinking water supply and to protect water supply facilities” (Article 1 of the Ukrainian Water Code). Provisions on the sanitary protection zones are included in Articles 59, 93 and others of Water Code, Article 113 of Land Code, Article 18 of the Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring of Sanitary and Epidemiological Welfare of Population”, Chapter VII of the Law “On Drinking Water and Drinking Water Supply”, the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No 2024 of 18.12.1998 “On the Legal Regulation of Sanitary Protection Zones of Water Bodies”.

The sanitary protection zones are designed for intakes of surface water supply sources, shallow wells and groundwater sources.

In the Upper Dnieper RB all cities with a population of over 10 000 inhabitants have centralized water supply from surface waters and/or from groundwater. Kyiv has 2 main surface water sources of water supply: Dnieper and Desna rivers as well as groundwater sources. Chernigov supplies from groundwater sources only. In rural areas the main sources of water supply is ground water - shallow wells and wells. Unfortunately, only in big cities and only the first zone (of strict access) of sanitary protection zones installed and maintained, though not fully, strict protection regime. In Ukraine, the task to stake all zones of sanitary protection of water sources and water protection zones remain unfulfilled.

The sanitary protection zones of the centralized drinking water supply sources and facilities are part of the water protection zones and are divided into three (strict access) belts: strict access belt 1 includes the water intake location area, water pipeline and channel facility sites, belts 2 and 3 (restriction and surveillance) include the guard areas for the centralized drinking water sources and facilities. These zones are determined under Article 35 of the Law “On Drinking Water and Drinking Water Supply” and the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No 2024 of 18.12.1998 “On the Legal Regulation of Sanitary Protection Zones of Water Bodies”.

In the pilot basin as suggested by the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, a special sanitary belt is allocated for the water supply source for Kiev that includes: - The whole territory including the water area (except the part included in belt 1 of the zone of sanitary protection of the Dnieper and the Desna) which is confined by the Dnieper riverbed, lock canal, Kiev HPP dam, road to the village of Oseshchina, old drainage channel and the Desna course and estuary, 300 m strip from the water encroachment line (in the summer-autumn low-water period) 41 and the Dnieper river on its right-hand bank from the HPP dam to the Desna estuary and farther on along the left-hand bank of the Desna and the old drainage channel to the motor road to Oseshchina. The boundaries of the special-regime belt of the Dnieper water station on the right-hand bank should be identified depending on watersheds and should run along the ground surface peaks upstream of Vyshgorod.

Belt 1 (strict access) of Dnieper water station. The Dnieper water station facility has an area of 129.4 ha with 9.8 ha under buildings and is restricted by the Kiev-Vyshgorod motor road and forest-park in the north and the construction and erection department’s base, railroad and vegetable plots in the east. It is restricted by vegetable plots in the south and the forest-park in the west. This territory is attributed to belt 1 (strict access) of the sanitary protection zone and is isolated by a fence and the entire territory is under the permanent specialized guards.

Figure 3.1. A Schematic of the Section of the Territory around the Dnieper Water Intake Station р. Десна – the Desna, Киевское водохранилище – Kiev reservoir, о. Великий – Veliky island, р. Днепр – the Dnieper, Днепровская водопроводная станция – Dnieper water treatment station

In accordance with the normative requirements, all types of construction, waste discharge, swimming, watering, fishing, use of pesticides, organic and other fertilizers are prohibited within this zone. Within the belt 1, the houses should have sewage systems with waste water to be directed to the sewer or waterproof cesspits.

At the same time, on the right-hand bank of the Dnieper downstream of the water intake in the 100 m strip of belt 1 within the 500 m protected zone of watercourses the cottage settlement with cesspits is located. It is compliances with the requirements to this zone and leads to pollution of riparian areas. The Dnieper water supply sources relocation is an actual issue to reduce risks of industrial, household, agricultural contamination and natural effluents to the water from the upstream riparian strips.

Zones of sanitary protection of groundwater intakes. A sizes of the sanitary protection zones for ground water intakes as well as sanitary and health-improving measures to be taken within the sanitary protection zones are determined based on hydrogeological and, particularly, natural 42 protection of ground waters against superficial pollution. The degree of protection of the water- bearing horizon operated is determined by a possibility and intensity of polluted water to penetrate into the water intake from the ground surface of lake and other water bodies. With this in view, two main groups of ground water may be specified – protected and insufficiently protected ground waters.

The protected ground waters include artesian and non-artesian confined waters which have contiguous waterproof cover within all of the sanitary protection zone belts that precludes local feed from overlying water-bearing horizons or from the ground surface. Also, there should be no direct link with surface waters.

Purpose of sanitary protection zone belts and determination of their boundaries. The sanitary protection zones consist of three belts: belt 1 is a strict access belt, belts 2 and 3 are restriction belts. Belt 1 includes the area of water intake locations, all water facility sites and water pipelines. It is established to prevent possible occasional or deliberate pollution of the source water in the place where water intake and water conduit facilities are located. The belt 1 boundary is established no less than 30 m away from the water intake when protected groundwater is used and no less than 50 m away for insufficiently protected aquifer. For a group of groundwater intakes the belt 1 boundary should be no less than 30 m and 50 m away from the edge wells or open pits.

For littoral (infiltration) ground water intakes, the belt 1 boundaries should includes the area between the water intake and the surface water body, if the distance between them is less than 150 m. In the case of underflow water intakes, the sanitary protection zones should have the boundaries similar to those of surface water supply sources. Belt 2 is designed to protect water-bearing horizons against microbe pollution and located inside the belt 3. Belt 3 is designed to protect aquifer against chemical pollution.

A distance from the belt 2 boundary to the water intake is designed based on the estimated time for effective self-purification, Tm of microbial contamination movement with the groundwater flow to the water intake that should be enough for pathogens to lose their viability and virulence. The estimated time T m is chosen as recommended in Table 1.6.

Table 1.6. Estimated Time T m for Substantiating Sanitary Protection Belt 2 Тm , days Hydrological and Geologic Conditions Within Climate Regions I Within Climate Regions III and II and IV 1. Ground waters: 400 400 а) hydraulic link with open water body b) no hydraulic link with open water 400 200 body 2. Artesian and nonartesian confined waters: 200 200 а) direct link with open water body б) no direct link with open water body 200 100 Note. The climate regions are assumed in accordance with SNiP P – L.I.7I Construction Norma and Rules “Dwelling houses. Designing norms”.

The Belt 3 boundaries are determined based on hydrodynamic calculations of the time of polluted water moves from the belt 3 boundary to the water intake which should be longer than the designed term of water intake operation (25 to 50 years).

The establishment of all 3 belts around intakes is an actual task for the water utility and municipal authorities. The information about area allocated for such protected zones in the UDRB is not free available.

Sites of Nature Reserve Fund and Chernobyl exclusion zone. In the pilot Upper Dnieper basin there are over 100 sites of the nature reserve fund: national and regional natural parks, reserved stows and nature sanctuaries.

The national natural park “Goloseevsky” was created in 2007 by Presidential Decree No 794/2007 from 27 August 2007. The park area is 45.3 km 2 in total, of which 18.9 km 2 were allocated to the park for permanent use. The park is situated within the city Kyiv bounds in southern part of the city, partly within the Dnieper river valley. The park consists of several sections: Goloseevo forest, M. Rylsky monument park of garden art, Lesniki and Bychok stows. In turn, the Bychok stow is a partial nature reserve of national status for which a variety of hygrophilous vegetation is typical. The river of Vita, the streams: Orekhovatsky, Didorevsky and Kitayevsky flow across the park.

The Zalesye national natural park, established by the Presidential Decree No 1049/2009 of 11 December 2009, is situated in Brovary District of Kiev Region and Kozelets District of Chernigov Region. The area of the park is 13548.5 ha (135.5 km2) . Pinewood occupies the greater part of the park with the pine-trees newly planted.

In 2002 the largest in Polesie and Ukraine regional landscape park “Mezhdurechensky” was established. It occupies an area of 79000 ha (790 km 2) in Kozelets District of Chernigov Region in the interstream area of the Dnieper and the Desna. Pine forest prevail here, there are mixed forests as well. Over 20 rare plants entered in the Ukrainian Red Book can be found here. Natural woodland dunes and valuable swamp areas, including the largest Polesye swamps – Bondarivske, are protected here.

The Dnieper Islands landscape park was established by Kyiv city Council Decree N 878/2288 from 23.12.2004. It occupies a number of islands between the Dnieper and the Desyonka rivers, including the Muromets island, within and near Kiev. The total area of the park is 1214.99 ha (12.15 km 2). Several nature reserves of national status: “Chernobylsky Special”, “Dneprovsko-Desnyansky”, “Kozinsky”, “Chubinsky Bowery” (10 ha or 0.1 km 2), “Rzhishchevsky”(1712 ha or 17.12 km 2), “Kalityanskaya Villa”(1162 ha or 11.62 km 2), “Zhukov Bowery”(622.5 ha or 6.225 km 2), “Urochishche Mutvitskoye”(785 ha or 7.85 km 2), “Ilyinsky”(2000ha or 20 km 2) and others are located in the UDRB. The total area of 8 nature reserves is about 57525,5 ha (575.3 km 2). The ecological nature reserve “Chernobylsky Special” has a boundary location. This reserve was created in 2007 by the Ukrainian Ministry of emergencies Decree No 700/2007 of 13.08.2007. This unique reserve is situated in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. This reserve is the largest nature reserve with an area of 48870 ha (488.7km 2). Predominant in the area is forest including young forests, planted after the accident.

The Dneprovsko-Desnyansky landscape nature reserve of national importance was created in 1980. This reserve occupies area of 1400 ha (14 km 2) within the inter-river area of the Desna and the Dnieper in Vyshgorod District near the villages of Pyrnovo, Verkhnyaya Dubechnya, Zhukin and Bodenki. The reserve is a typical Polesie forest-meadow-bog. There are several partially located here swamps: Vydrinskoe, Ostroganovskoe, Dubechanskoe.

The Kozinsky landscape nature reserve of national status is situated in the southern outskirts of Kiev. It was created in 1994. Its area is 964 ha (9.64 km 2). Flood plain landscapes occupy the biggest part of the reserve area.

The Kyiv city administration designated 29 equipped (official) recreation areas near water in Kiev (Annex 3.1) : • Zhukov Island – the Dnieper Riviera recreation area; • Galerny Bay – the Galernaya recreation area; • Friendship of Peaples Park; • Deseyonka Bay – Troyeshchina recreation areas; • Solnechnoye Lake – Solnechny recreation area; • Osokorki – Osokorki recreation area; • Pushcha-Voditsa; • Natalka Bay, Prirechnaya Street – Natalka recreation area; • Verbnoye Lake – Verbnaya recreation area; • Bogatyrskaya Street – Redchina recreation area; • Sobachye Ustye Bay, Prirechnaya Street – Verkhnyaya recreation area; • Trukhanov Island; • Hydropark; • Raduga Lake – Raduga recreation area; • Lesnoye Lake – Lesnaya recreation area; • Nikolskaya Slobodka – Veselka recreation area; • Telbin Lake – Telbin recreation area; • Rusanovka Spit – Rusanovka Spit recreation area; • Dnieper embankment – Bereznyaki recreation area; • Kadetsky Gai Street – Sovki Ravine recreation area. • Gorbachikha Urochishche – Gorbachikha recreation area; • Pons No 14 on the Nivka river – Svyatoshin recreation area Goloseevo are the ones where bathing is prohibited; • Pravda Avenue – Sineozernaya recreation area.

Figure 3.2. Map-scheme of recreation zoning of Kiev

recreation zone diving and rescue station Wastewater Treatment Plant

4. Monitoring Programme for the Upper Dnieper River basin

4.1. Surface Waters The two key environmental objectives of the WFD for surface waters are: • to prevent deterioration of the status of all bodies of surface water; • achieving good surface water status. The status of surface waters is determined by both its ecological status and its chemical status. Monitoring programmes and assessment is required in order to substantiate where the objectives are achieved. The surface water monitoring programme for the UDRB covers: • surface water categories: rivers and lakes; • the protected areas as defined in Article 6 of the WFD; • artificial and heavily modified water bodies.

Development of a WFD compliant monitoring programme The WFD sets out three types of monitoring programmes: surveillance, operational and investigative. These programmes will be explained further in the sections below.

Surveillance Monitoring Programme of Surface Waters The objectives of Surveillance Monitoring (SM) Programme for surface water are as follows: • supplementing and validating the impact assessment procedure detailed in Annex II of the WFD, • the efficient and effective design of future monitoring programmes, • the assessment of long-term changes in natural conditions, and • the assessment of long-term changes resulting from significant anthropogenic activities.

Sampling locations The selection of sampling locations and the design of the SM programme is based on sub-networks each related to fulfil one or more of the main objectives of SM as presented above. The sub- networks of the SM programme for rivers include the following ones: • SM1: to be representative of the overall surface water status; • SM2: detection of long-term trends (the assessment of long-term changes in natural conditions and the assessment of long-term changes resulting from the anthropogenic activities); • SM3: supplementing and validating risk assessments; • SM4: Large rivers and significant cross border river and lake water bodies.

Four types of the surface water bodies were identified in the UDRB and one sampling location per identified type with reference conditions is included in the SM Programme of the pilot river basin.

The sampling locations for the SM Programme of the UDRB are summarized in the Table 4.1 and shown in Figure 4.1. All together 7 sampling locations were selected to be representative for the SM Programme. Table 4.1. Surveillance monitoring sampling locations in the Dnieper River basin (rivers) River Character of Expected Risk SM sub- No name WB status/potential Location name category network 1 Suhyi Vyr NWB High Gribova Rudnya NR SM1 2 Snov NWB High Sedniv NR SM2 3 Zdvizh NWB RC Fenevich NR SM1 4 Desna NWB High Ulyanovka NR SM2 5 Dnieper NWB Good Border BY/UA NR SM4 47

6 Desna NWB Good Puhovka NR SM1 7 Teterev NWB High Voropayevka NR SM2 NWB means Natural Water Body

Regarding the SM Programme for lakes there were identified two lakes to be monitored in the pilot river basin (see Table 4.2). For more details see also the Appendix 2 to the ‘Surface Waters Monitoring Programme in the Upper Dnieper (UA) River basin’.

Table 4.2. Surveillance monitoring sampling locations in the Dnieper River basin (lakes) No Lake name Character of WB Expected Location name Risk OM sub- . status/potential category network 1 Pakulka NWB Moderate shore and close to dam PR SM1

2 Chernoe NWB High shore and close to dam NR SM1

Figure 4.1. Sampling locations for the SW Monitoring Programme in the Dnieper pilot river basin

Quality Elements According to WFD Annex V.1.3.1, a Surveillance Monitoring Programme shall be performed at each selected surveillance monitoring location for a period covered by a RBMP for (see Table 4.3 and 4.4): 48

• parameters indicative of all biological quality elements; • parameters indicative of all hydromorphological quality elements; • parameters indicative of all general physico-chemical quality elements; • priority list pollutants which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin; • other pollutants discharged in significant quantities in the river basin or sub-basin (pilot river basin specific pollutants).

Sampling methods and devises based on the European Standards will be used in the monitoring programmes (exception ichtyofauna). The biological quality elements incorporate for rivers: Macroinvertebrates, Phytobenthos, Macrophytes and Fish; for lakes: Macroinvertebrates, Phytoplankton, Macrophytes and Fish. The water samples will be identified for the abundance and composition for all biological quality elements up to Genus/Species level. Individual metrics (indices) will be applied to the biological quality elements (for ichtyofauna only migratory fish species will be described). The physico-chemical quality elements include for both rivers and lakes: General conditions; Specific both synthetic and non synthetic pollutants. EN, ISO and other international standards will be applied for the analysis of the water samples. The hydromorphological quality elements will incorporate the following elements: Hydrological regime; River continuity; Morphological conditions. Hydromorphological field and assessment protocols used during the JFS in the EPIRB project will be applied.

Table 4.3. List of the quality elements monitored for the Surveillance Monitoring Programme in the UDRB (rivers) Parameter Unit SM Physico-chemical Quality Elements General condit ions Temperature oC X Dissolved Oxygen mgO2/l X pH pH units X Conductivity µS/cm X Hardness mg/l CaCO3 X Colour visual X o-Phosphate mg P/l X Nitrate mg N/l X Ammonium mg N/l X Chloride mg/l X Sulphate mg/l X Total suspended solids mg/l X Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) mgO2/l X Chemical oxygen demand (COD - X dichromide) mgO2/l Oil substances visual X Other specific pollutants Copper** µg/l X

Zinc** µg/l X Chromium** µg/l X Radioactivity* Priority Substances and Certain Other Pollutants All ‘Priority substances and certain other pollutants’ that can be analysed with the existing laboratory capacity X Biological Quality Elements Macroinvertebrates Metrics X Macrophytes Metrics X Phytobenthos Metrics X Migratory fish X Fish species Hydromorphological Quality Elements River morphological conditions HM protocol X Daily Mean Flow X River flow (m3/s) * to be monitored in the area affected by Chernobyl ** to be monitored if discharged in the significant quantities

For more details see also the Appendix 1 to the ‘Surface Waters Monitoring Programme in the Upper Dnieper (UA) River basin’. The following quality elements will be monitored for the lakes as are presented in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4. List of the quality elements monitored for the Surveillance Monitoring Programme in the Upper Dnieper River Basin (lakes) Parameter Unit OM Physico-chemical Quality Elements General conditions Temperature oC X Dissolved Oxygen mgO2/l X pH pH units X Conductivity µS/cm X Colour visual X Total Phosphorus mg P/l X Total Nitrogen mg N/l X Hardness mg/l CaCO3 X Alkalinity mg/l CaCO3 X Ammonium mg N/l X Chloride mg/l X Sulphate mg/l X Calcium mg/l X Sodium mg/l X Magnesium mg/l X Silica mg/l X Sechi disc m X Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) mgO2/l X Chemical oxygen demand (COD - X dichromide) mgO2/l

Depth at site m X Other specific pollutants There are not identified any pollutants discharged in significant amounts into the lak es Priority Substances and Certain Other Pollutants All ‘Priority substances and certain other pollutants’ that can be analysed X with the existing laboratory capacity

Biological Quality Elements Macroinvertebrates* Metrics X Phytoplankton Metrics X Chlorophyll a mg/m3 X Macrophytes Metrics X Migratory fish X Fish species Hydromorphological Quality Elements Daily Mean Flow X River flow (m3/s) * Macroinvertebrates will be sampled in the shorelines

For more details see also the Appendix 2 to the ‘Surface Waters Monitoring Programme in the Upper Dnieper (UA) River basin’.

Operational Monitoring of Surface Waters The Operational Monitoring (OM) Programme is focussed on monitoring the effect of supporting measures aimed at achieving the objectives of the WFD in the water bodies (possibly) at risk. It is designed to provide targeted information on the effectiveness of specific measures taken within the UDRB. The objectives of OM programme are defined as follows: • to establish the status of those bodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives; • to assess any changes in the status of such bodies resulting from the programmes of measures. Because the protection of high and good status from deterioration is required by the WFD, OM programme must also provide information on whether the POMs, aimed at maintaining such status, are effective. Therefore, even water bodies that are not categorized to be at risk in the Risk Assessment Report prepared are included in the OM programme because measures are required to maintain them at their current high or good status regardless of existing risk category. Risk Assessment Analysis has identified 50 water bodies “at risk” and 40 ones “possible at risk” in the UDRB, 9 as AWB and 24 as HMWBs. These results were transferred into the OM programme.

Sampling locations Sampling locations for OM programme are assigned to one or more sub-networks each related to fulfil one or more of the main objectives of the OM programme. The sub-networks of the OM programme for rivers include the following ones: • OM1: to assess the effect of measures that have been aimed at improving the impact of individual and combined point sources (organic pollution, eutrophication impacts and priority substances); • OM2: to assess effectiveness of the measures related to diffuse pollution sources; • OM3: To assess effectiveness of measures to reduce hydromorphological alterations;

• OM4: To monitor high and good status sites currently not categorized to be at risk in order to assess the effectiveness of POMs aimed at maintaining high and good status water bodies; • OM5: to monitor protected areas which are at risk.

Note: Several water bodies with the same type were identified to be “at risk” due to the same pressure type (water abstraction and sources of pollution). Therefore, some of sampling locations for the OM programme were selected to be representative for the group of water bodies.

All together 11 sampling locations for rivers were identified to be monitored under the OM for the UDRB and results are summarized in the Table 4.5.

Table 4.5. Operational Monitoring sampling locations in the Dnieper (UA) River basin (rivers) Character of Expected Risk OM sub- No. River name WB status/potential Location name category network After confluence with OM2 1 Pripyat NWB Moderate Uzh R 2 Nemelnya NWB High Border BY/UA NR OM4 Inflow to Kievskoe OM2 3 Dnieper NWB Moderate Reservoir R 4 Lubich NWB Moderate Lytki R OM1 5 Desna NWB Moderate Below Chernigov R OM1 6 Desna NWB Good Mouth NR OM4 7 Mesha NWB Moderate Rudnaya R OM2 8 Vzdvizha HMWB Poor EP Ivanovka R OM3 9 Belous NWB Good Koshivka NR OM4 10 Irpen' HMWB Poor EP Dymydiv R OM2 11 Vorzna NWB High Border BY/UA NR OM4

Due to the same character of the pressures and the same type of the water bodies those water bodies were grouped and sampling locations were selected to represent such groups. In the pilot river basin 7 reservoirs were identified to be monitored under the OM Programme (see Table 4.6).

Table 4.6. Operational Monitoring sampling locations in the Dnieper (UA) River basin (lakes) Character Expected Risk OM sub- No. Lake name of WB status/potential Location name category network shore and close to dam 1 Staraya Desna NWB Moderate R OM2 2 zaliv Chertoroy NWB Moderate shore and close to dam R OM2 3 Almaznoe NWB Moderate shore and close to dam R OM2 4 Pakulka HMWB Moderate EP shore and close to dam R OM2 5 Kievskoe 1 HMWB Good EP shore and close to dam NR OM4 6 Kievskoe 2 HMWB Good EP shore and close to dam NR OM4 7 Zhavinka HMWB Good EP shore and close to dam NR OM3

Quality Elements In order to assess the magnitude of the pressure to which the surface water bodies are exposed in the Dnieper (UA) River basin those quality elements are monitored that are indicative of the identified pressures. The following quality elements will be monitored as relevant (see Table 4.7 and 4.8): • parameters indicative of the biological quality elements, most sensitive to the pressures to which the water bodies are subject; • all other specific pollutants discharged in significant quantities into the river basin or sub- basin; 52

• parameters indicative of the hydromorphological quality elements most sensitive to the pressure identified.

Table 4.7. List of the quality elements monitored for the Operational Monitoring Programme in the Dnieper (UA) River basin (rivers) Parameter Unit OM Physico-chemical Quality Elements General conditions Temperature oC X Dissolved Oxygen mgO2/l X pH pH units X Conductivity µS/cm X Hardness mg/l CaCO3 X Colour visual X o-Phosphate mg P/l X Nitrate mg N/l X Ammonium mg N/l X Chloride mg/l X Sulphate mg/l X Total suspended solids mg/l X Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) mgO2/l X Chemical oxygen demand (COD - dichromide) mgO2/l X Oil substances visual X Other specific pollutants Copper** µg/l X Zinc** µg/l X Chromium** µg/l X Radioactivity* X Biological Quality Elements Macroinvertebrates Metrics X Macrophytes Metrics X Hydromorphological Quality Elements River flow Daily Mean Flow (m3/s) X * in the sampling locations which are connected with Chernobyl ** to be monitored if discharged in the significant quantities

For more details see also the Appendix 1 to the ‘Surface Waters Monitoring Programme in the Upper Dnieper (UA) River basin’.

Table 4.8. List of the quality elements monitored for the Operational Monitoring Programme in the Dnieper (UA) River basin (lakes) Parameter Unit OM Physico-chemical Quality Elements General conditions Temperature oC X Dissolved Oxygen mgO2/l X pH pH units X

Parameter Unit OM Conductivity µS/cm X Colour visual X Total Phosphorus mg P/l X Total Nitrogen mg N/l X Hardness mg/l CaCO3 X Alkalinity mg/l CaCO3 X Ammonium mg N/l X Chloride mg/l X Sulphate mg/l X Calcium mg/l X Sodium mg/l X Magnesium mg/l X Silica mg/l X Sechi disc m X Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) mgO2/l X Chemical oxygen demand (COD - dichromide) mgO2/l X Depth at site m X Other pollutants discharged in significant quantities (basin specific) There are not identified any pollutants discharged in significant amounts into the reservoir Biological Quality Elements Phytoplankton Metrics X Chlorophyll a mg/m 3 X Macroinvertebrates Metrics X Macrophytes Metrics X Hydromorphological Quality Elements River flow (inflow and outflow) Daily Mean Flow (m3/s) X

For more details see also the Appendix 2 to the ‘Surface Waters Monitoring Programme in the Upper Dnieper (UA) River basin’.

Investigative monitoring The WFD includes a third type of monitoring called Investigative Monitoring (IM). The WFD states that this type of monitoring is required for situations when the surface water body is at risk with a very specific manner that causes of water bodies failing to achieve the required environmental objectives under the WFD. The list of parameters in this case will be dynamic and its validity in time should be limited, in order to respond to new information on the potential risks posed by emerging pollutants and any others alterations. However, it is not expected to conduct the IM in the UDRB in this stage of the monitoring programme.

Frequency of monitoring programme Sample frequency will vary depending on the monitoring programme and the individual sub- networks and the quality element. The WFD outlines the minimum requirements for frequency of monitoring, as it is presented in Table 9.

Table 4.9. Monitoring frequencies according to WFD Annex V.1.3.4 Rivers Lakes Biological quality elements Phytoplankton 6 months 6 months 54

Rivers Lakes Other aquatic flora 3 years 3 years Benthic invertebrate fauna 3 years 3 years Fish 3 years 3 years Hydromorphological quality elements Continuity 6 years Hydrology continuous 1 month Morphology 6 years 6 years Physico-chemical quality elements Thermal conditions 3 months 3 months Oxygenation 3 months 3 months Salinity 3 months 3 months Nutrient status 3 months 3 months Acidification status 3 months 3 months Other pollutants 3 months 3 months Priority substances 1 month 1 month

Long-term trend monitoring locations will require high frequency sampling. The sites required for supplementing and validating the risk assessment will be monitored with different frequencies depending on the importance of the risk, details of the frequency of monitoring required for each of the individual river sub-networks are given in Appendix 1 and 2 in the ‘Surface Waters Monitoring Programme in the Upper Dnieper (UA) River basin’.

Quality Control and Quality Assurance It is important for the surface water monitoring programme to ensure that data generated by WFD physico-chemical and biological monitoring parts are reliable and representative. Furthermore, as it is known a data should allow the assessment of the impacts of Programs of Measures on the water body status. Therefore, Quality Management Programme should be prepared for all steps of the monitoring programme from sampling via analysis to the data management and interpretation. It is expected that sampling and analysis (physico-chemical and biological quality elements) will be conducted in accordance with ISO Standards (other International Standards) and laboratories will meet the requirements of the ISO 17025 Standard.

Ecological Status Assessment The WFD defines ecological status in the high, good and moderate classes for each of the ecological quality element for each of the surface water categories. It describes the biological and hydromorphological parameters and the physico-chemical and relevant pollutants required in the overall ecological assessment. The overall ecological status assessment is shown on the scheme below.

All biological quality elements must be taken into account when assigning water bodies to any of the ecological status or ecological potential classes. For each biological element the set of the metrics (or indices) will be selected to be indicative for the given pressures. The status of each of the biological elements for natural water bodies is determined by measuring the extent of the deviation, if any, of the observed condition from the reference condition established for that type of water body. Reference conditions are the conditions established for the biological elements in the absence of pollution or disturbance (or at least minimum disturbance). Ecological status assessment system will be expressed numerically as ecological quality ratios (EQR) in the range between 1 (high status) and 0 (bad status). The EQR scale for the assessment system for each surface water category is divided into the five classes by assigning a numerical value to each of the boundaries between the classes. The physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements are supporting elements of the biological assessment for the purpose of the overall ecological status assessment. Therefore, based on the existing data from the JFS and national monitoring programmes statistical analysis will be conducted to express numerically boundary for the classes.

Chemical Status Assessment The chemical status of surface water bodies is linked with the WFD Annex X pollutants. The latest EU directive specifying both the pollutants (‘ Priority substances and certain other pollutants’ ) and their environmental quality standards (EQS), is the Directive 2013/39/EU “ amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards Priority substances in the field of water policy ”. The Directive 2013/39/EU has defined EQSs for in total 45 (groups of) substances, comprising four metals (cadmium, lead, mercury and nickel) and a wide array of organic micropollutants. In principle, two (complementary) environmental quality standards are defined; both EQSs are to be met in order to qualify as ‘good chemical status’: • annual average – environmental quality standard (AA-EQS), applying to the arithmetic mean of one year of data, with monthly sampling presumed; • maximum concentration – environmental quality standard (MAC-EQS), applying to the maximum concentration in the annual set of data.

4.2. Groundwater

Quantitative Status Good quantitative status implies that the level of groundwater in the groundwater body is such that the available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long-term annual average rate of abstraction. Essential requirements for assessing the quantitative status include: • modern equipment for recording groundwater levels, • sound understanding about the recharge-discharge conditions of aquifers, abstractions, etc., • sufficient and experienced staff, budgets for operation and maintenance.

Chemical Status Good groundwater chemical status is the chemical status of a body of groundwater, which meets all the conditions set out in table 2.3.2 of WFD Annex V and the groundwater quality standards of the Directive 2006/118/EC. 1

Essential requirements for assessing the groundwater chemical status include: • modern analytical equipment, including field equipment, • certified reference material plus other reagents and consumables, • EN/ISO standards for analysis methods, • an operation in accordance with EN ISO/IEC-17025, • establishment of environmental quality standards, • sufficient and experienced staff, budgets for operation and maintenance.

Existing groundwater monitoring network There are only 8 monitoring wells in Upper Dnieper river basin, where groundwater levels are measured in Chernigov and Kiev well fields. When the economy of the country recovers a new groundwater monitoring network shall be designed and developed. Existing groundwater monitoring stations in Upper Dnieper river basin are presented in the table 4.10. These monitoring wells have quite long observation lines of 18 years (1996-2014). The wells shall be secured for future as they can be used for operational monitoring of impacted by abstraction groundwater bodies.

Table 4.10. Existing groundwater monitoring stations (level measurements) in Chernigov and Kiev well fields No. Well field name and well No . Geological index Observation period 1 Chernigov, 2/12a P2bc 2002, 2004-2013 2 Chernigov, 2/37 K1+2 1996-2013

1 Directive 2006/118/EC on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration . 57

3 Chernigov, 2/304 P2bc 1996-2013 4 Chernigov district Nedanchinskij well field, K1+2 1996-2013 95/587 5 Kiev, Desnianskij well field, 30/151 J2b 1996-2013 6 Kiev, Desnianskij well field 30/152 J3k+K 2s 1996-2013 7 Kiev, Desnianskij well field 30/153 K2s+P2bc 1996-2013 8 Kiev, Desnianskij well field, 30/154 P2(kn+bc) 1996-2013

In Upper Dnieper basin four groundwater bodies are delineated: 2 in unconfined Quaternary and 2 in artesian Pre-Quaternary aquifers. All delineated groundwater bodies in both pilot basins are of good quantitative and chemical status.

Table 4.11. Identified and delineated groundwater bodies in the Upper Dnieper river basin, Ukraine Name of the aquifer Water bearing sediments Number of identified GWB Alluvial and alluvial-diluvia Holocene Pebbles, gravel sand with interlayers of sandy and 1 aquifers in river valleys and all their clay and loam terraces Fluvioglacial, limnoglacial and glacial Differently grained sands with gravel and pebbles, 1 aquifers lenses and interlayers of sandy and clayey loam, remnants of peat and decayed plants Neogene-Paleogene Fine-grained sands with interlayers of sandstones, 1 clays and lenses of brown coal Cretaceous Mainly fine grained sands with glauconitic sand and 1 interlayers of sandstone and Total: 4

Surveillance monitoring programme shall be developed for the groundwater bodies of good chemical status. Operational monitoring programme shall be organised in and around the groundwater abstraction sites which pump >100m 3/day for human consumption. Significant and sustained upward trends in the concentration of pollutants will be monitored and if such trends are identified - the starting points for trend reversal shall be defined. It would be advisable to oblige water supply companies to perform drinking water protected areas monitorin g and entities – potential groundwater polluters - to carry out prevent and limit monitoring. For observations of surface water- groundwater interaction it is suggested to observe flow regime of surface streams, bogs and peat lands in the low-flow periods when rivers and bogs are mainly fed by the groundwater discharge. Proposed groundwater monitoring programme is based on the present conceptual understanding of the hydrogeology and anthropogenic pressures within each delineated groundwater body and will be reviewed as this understanding improves or at least once in each monitoring planning cycle (every 6 years).

Surveillance monitoring programme In all homogenous groundwater bodies with good quantitative and chemical status surveillance monitoring network shall consist of a minimum three monitoring stations, covering groundwater recharge, transit and discharge areas (source: "The EU Water Framework Directive: Statistical aspects of the identification of groundwater pollution trends, and aggregation of monitoring results"). Holms et. al proposes to install five monitoring wells in each groundwater body with the homogenous hydrochemical and hydrodynamic features. Five monitoring points will guarantee confident characterisation of the body of groundwater (source: Irrigation Sector Reform Activity 58

(ISRA) River Basin Management Sub-activity Identification, Delineation, and Classification of Water Bodies). In Upper Dnieper river basin 5 monitoring wells are proposed for each delineated groundwater body (table 4.12, Figures 4.2 and 4.10).

Table 4.12. Recommended surveillance groundwater monitoring network for Upper Dnieper river basin No/ Name and code of Number of monitoring wells What is Purpose of monitoring No GWB monitored 1 Quaternary alluvial 5 new monitoring wells Level and GWB recharge – discharge unconfined quality zones;

2 Quaternary glacial 5 new monitoring wells Level and GWB recharge – discharge unconfined and quality zones; confined Transboundary with Belarus 3 Neogene-Paleogene 5 new monitoring wells Level and GWB recharge-discharge quality zones; Transboundary Belarus 4 Jurassic -Cretaceous 5 new monitoring wells Level and GWB recharge-discharge quality zones;

Total: 20 monitoring wells

During the surveillance monitoring programme, some parameters have to be measured in the field at the well/river before collection of samples: pH, temperature, DO, conductivity, TDS, etc. Monitoring wells must be properly purged before collecting groundwater samples. EPIRB project has rented field-monitoring equipment (pH, temperature, conductivity, TDS-meters and purge pump) which was used for measurement groundwater parameters during the field surveys. Chemical analysis of collected samples for general indicators (main cations and anions, nutrients, permanganate index, etc.) characterizes the chemical status and quality of groundwater formed under natural conditions and anthropogenic loads. These components have to be analysed in groundwater samples at least twice a year. Such specific chemical components as organic compounds and pesticides, with usually very low concentrations shall be monitored once in six years, and trace elements shall be monitored once in a two-year period in wells where these components are likely to be detected.

Figure 4.2. Proposed groundwater monitoring network in unconfined Quaternary GWB

Figure 4.3. Proposed groundwater monitoring network in artesian GWB

The following groundwater monitoring frequency for the surveillance monitoring is proposed for the UDRB (table 4.13).

Table 4.13. Groundwater parameters and sampling frequency for the surveillance monitoring programme Parameters and indices Frequency, at least tot Main anions and cations (Na, K, Ca, Mg, Fe , NH 4, HCO 3, 2-4 times a year Cl, SO 4, NO 3, NO 2) and physical properties (pH, specific conductivity, permanganate index, or TOC) Trace elements (Fe, A s, Hg, Cd, Pb, Zn, Cu, Cr, etc.) Once per 2 years Pesticides* Once per 6 years Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, Phenols, Once per 2 years Trichloroethylene, Tetrachlorethylene** Groundwater levels in monitoring wells, boreholes and Electronic data loggers – every 6-12 hrs. Other flow of natural springs monitoring wells 3 times/month. Rivers- during the low flow periods (2-4 times/year) Notes: * pesticides have to be analysed only at monitoring stations located in the agricultural areas; their choice depends on local usage, land-use framework and observed occurrences in groundwater; ** PAH, phenols, TCE&PCE have to be analysed in the wells located in urban territories and near the industrial sites. Precise choice depends on the local pollution sources.

Operational monitoring Operational monitoring programme shall focus on observation „at risk“ groundwater bodies, establishing the presence of any long-term anthropogenically induced upward trend in the concentration of pollutants, supporting the design of PoMs and assessing the effectiveness of such measures within groundwater bodies. There is no sufficient monitoring information to prove that groundwater bodies in UDRB are at risk of not achieving good status. Where there is lack of data to prove “at risk” status, groundwater body should be assigned good status, but with low confidence of information. Additional monitoring and/or investigation should be put in place so that the classification of groundwater body can be properly conducted during the next planning round. Operational monitoring shall be carried out not only in GWB at risk but also around the major well fields which abstract >100 m 3/day of groundwater for human consumption in order to observe their impact on subsurface and surface environments. All larger well fields Kiev, Chernigov, etc. shall monitor impact of groundwater abstraction. Operational monitoring frequency shall generally be based on the characteristics of the aquifer and human impact. The following groundwater monitoring frequency for the operational monitoring is proposed for UDRB:

Table 4.17. Operational groundwater monitoring parameters and sampling frequency Parameters and indices Frequency, at least tot Main anions and cations (Na, K, Ca, Mg, Fe , NH 4, HCO 3, 4 times a year for assessment of seasonal Cl, SO 4, NO 3, NO 2) and physical properties (pH, specific changes, later – once a year conductivity, permanganate index, or TOC) Trace elements (Fe, As, Hg, Cd, Pb, Zn, Cu, Cr, etc.) Once a year Pesticides* Once per 6 years Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, Phenols, Once a year Trichloroethylene, Tetrachlorethylene**

Parameters and indices Frequency, at least Groundwater levels in monitoring boreholes, production Electronic data loggers – every 6-12 hrs. Other wells and flow of impaired rivers monitoring wells 3 times/month. Rivers- in low-flow season (2-4 times/year)

Water supply companies and other economic entities which abstract >100 m 3/d of groundwater for human consumption shall be obliged to carry out groundwater monitoring. Water companies may use abandoned exploitation wells for impacted groundwater monitoring.

Prevent and limit monitoring Preventive monitoring (chemical operational monitoring) of groundwater shall be performed by the entities and enterprises engaged in potentially polluting economic activities. Monitoring shall be conducted in order to establish development of groundwater drawdown, the amount of pollutants discharged, assess the impacts of the economic activity on the natural environment, and ensure preventing and limiting of such pollution. Potential groundwater polluters shall be obliged by legislation to perform groundwater monitoring at their abstraction points. Changes in legislation (procedure for issuing permits for water use) shall be foreseen in order to oblige water users that abstract >100 m 3/day and potential polluters to monitor impact of abstraction and pollution on groundwater bodies. Monitoring drinking water protected areas WFD requires monitoring drinking water protected areas (DWPA) for assessment the achievement of environmental objectives for groundwater bodies, which provide more than 100 m 3/d for the human consumption as an average. Chemical composition of groundwater will have to be analysed for all DWPA that are categorized as being significant drinking groundwater abstractions. Major water supply companies in Ukraine shall monitor their drinking water protection areas. Observation of surface water-groundwater interaction Monitoring of surface water – groundwater interaction is an important WFD requirement. It is well known that increasing abstraction and as a consequence, development of depression cones negatively influences surface waters - bogs, peat lands and small streams. Surface water- groundwater interaction is not a separate branch of monitoring but it should be considered in both surveillance and operational monitoring programmes. It is suggested to observe flow regime of surface streams in the low-flow periods when rivers are mainly fed by the groundwater discharge and compare river flow with the data on groundwater abstraction.

National groundwater monitoring network in UDRB is completely missing. It is recommended to install (rehabilitate) at least 5 monitoring stations in each delineated groundwater body. Total number of surveillance monitoring wells for the WFD compliant programme will then be 20 in UDRB. Operational monitoring and drinking water protection areas monitoring shall be performed by the water supply companies, which provide > 100 m 3/d for human consumption as an average. Preventive monitoring of potentially polluting sites (prevent&limit monitoring) shall be organised obliging potential polluters to carry out groundwater monitoring. Changes in water legislation shall be made for obliging water uses and polluters to monitor impact of their economic activities to the environment. It is suggested to include surface water courses into monitoring network and observe surface water – groundwater interaction, measuring surface water flow regime during the low-flow periods when rivers are mainly fed by the groundwater discharge.

5. Setting Environmental Objectives

The EU WFD requires achievement of the environmental objectives by 2015: a. good ecological/chemical status of surface water bodies; b. good ecological potential and chemical status of HMWBs and AWBs; c. good chemical/quantitative status of groundwater bodies.

The UDRB management plan objectives are: - Achieving good status for all water bodies; - Preventing deterioration of water status; - Ensuring sustainable water management; - Meeting specific requirements for protected areas.

For water bodies in high status the environmental objectives aim on measures to maintain high water status. Water bodies in moderate or poor status shall be addressed with measures that allow an achievement of set environmental objectives within the WFD planning cycles.

Within the EPIRB Project it is recommended to set environmental objectives for all water bodies in the Upper Dnieper RB (Guidance Document on the Development of Programme of Measures and the Achievement of Environmental Objectives According to the EU WFD). The outcomes of the (i) pressure/impact analysis, (ii) the risk assessment and (iii) available monitoring results were considered for each delineated water body in order to align environmental objectives and in follow- up measures over six-year-planning cycles (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1. Setting environmental objectives in the EPIRB Project RBMPs considering the six-year planning cycles that start end 2015 Water Status 2015 Environm ental Objectives to be set Water bodies in high or good status in 2015 need the setting of environmental objectives and measures that maintain water status over all planning cycles up to 2032 and beyond. Water bodies that are (i) at risk to fail the need the setting of environmental objectives within environmental objectives in 2015 or (ii) in the first planning cycle (= by 2021): (i) to have moderate status in 2015 WFD compliant status assessment in place or (ii) to achieve good status by 2021 Water bodies that are (i) at risk to fail the need the setting of environmental objectives : (i) to environmental objectives in 2015 or (ii) in poor have WFD compliant status assessment in place status in 2015 within the first planning cycle (= by 2021) or (ii) to achieve moderate status by 2021 and good status by 2027 Water bodies that are (i) at risk to fail the need the setting of environmental objectives : (i) to environmental objectives in 2015 or (ii) in bad have WFD compliant status assessment in place status in 2015 within the first planning cycle (= by 2021) or (ii) to achieve moderate status by 2021; moderate or good status by 2027 and for sure good status by 2033.

In the pilot Upper Dnieper RB among Surface Water Bodies there were identified 121 river WBs (total length 1509.4 km), including 9 (with length 118 km) artificial river WBs, 24 ( with length 240.7 km ) – heavily modified river WBs, and 19 lake WBs, including 12 natural lakes, 2 artificial lake WBs, 5 heavily modified lake WBs.

Based on free accessible official monitoring data and results of JFS 2013 JFS 2014 on

63 hydrobiological, hydrochemical and hydromorphological characteristics for 40 river WBs, the preliminary classifications and risk assessment was done for Surface WBs. 48 river WBs were assessed as WBs at risk of failing good ecological status, 41 river WBs were not assessed and due to this lack of information these WBs were assessed as WBs possibly at risk. The lake WBs were not a subject of JFSs and there is a lack of state monitoring data, due to a lack of information all natural lakes were assessed as WBs possibly at risk.

Four groundwater bodies were delineated in the pilot UDRB and assessed as GWBs with good quantitative and chemical status. The observations results show unstable trend of level decreasing. The water abstraction has no impact on groundwater quality, no pollutants were detected in water samples from monitoring places during the JFS 2013. Due to intensive ground water exploitation in Kiev city, a depression cone has developed in the aquifer with a radius of 30 km, and groundwater level has declined 40 m in the central part of the cone. While Ukrainian experts note the trend towards restoration the aquifer level, the Cretaceous GWB near Kyiv requires special monitoring program to identify the impact of water abstraction on its quantitative and chemical status.

5.1. Environmental Objectives

Determination of the environmental objectives is based on the article 4 (paragraphs 4.3-4.7) of the Guidance document #1“Economics and the environment. The implementation challenge of the Water Framework Directive”.

The main methodological concept for setting and implementing the environmental objectives are the followings: - for surface water, the highest ecological and chemical status possible should be achieved, given impacts that could not reasonably have been avoided due to the nature of the human activity or pollution; - for groundwater, the least possible changes to good groundwater status, given impacts that could not reasonably have been avoided due to the nature of the human activity or pollution.

The WFD requires achievement of the following environmental objectives: a. good ecological/chemical status of surface water bodies; b. good ecological potential and chemical status of HMWBs and AWBs; c. good chemical/quantitative status of groundwater bodies. The environmental objectives for the Upper Dnieper river basin are based on the good ecological status / good ecological potential of surface water bodies, which is determined by taking into account chemical (hydrochemical) status, hybrobiological status and hydromorphological alterations 2 based on adjusted scheme (Figure 5.2). As for Upper Dnieper RB WBs with the reference conditions were not found during JFS 2013 and JFS 2014 and therefore it was proposed to use the same approach to define the good ecological status class/potential for Surface WBs based on the existed proper practices and results, approved in the Republic of Belarus and used by Belarusian colleagues for setting the environmental objectives for the Dnieper RBMP. The same ranges of hydro-chemical and hydro-biological parameters relevant for the good ecological status of the surface WBs in the Dnieper can be applied for the Ukrainian part of the Upper Dnieper RB and be a basis for the environmental objectives of the Upper Dnieper RBMP.

2 For determining the ecological status class TCP 17.13-ХХ -201 Х/ОР "Environment protection and natural resources. Analytical control and monitoring. Rules of reference of a surface water body to classes of ecological status”, approved by Republic of Belarus was used.

Not good Good hydrobiological hydrobiologic status High hydrobiological status al status

phological phological

cal status cal

High Chemi High hydromorphologicalstaatus Good status chemical Not mor good status Not good status chemical Any status morphological good Highor status chemical Not good status chemical and chemical Any status morphological Good Moderate Not good High ecological Good ecological Good ecological status ecological ecological ecological status class status class class status status status class class class

Figure 5.2. Scheme for the determination of the environmental objectives

According to paragraph (26) of the Water Framework Directive “States should aim to achieve the objective of at least good water status by defining and implementing the necessary measures… Where good water status already exists, it should be maintained. For groundwater, in addition to the requirements of good status, any significant and sustained upward trend in the concentration of any pollutant should be identified and reversed. “

Consequently, the targets for the Upper Dnieper RB water bodies are defined by upper limit of the range (according to the Belarus TCP 17.13-ХХ -201 Х/ОР Annexes tables 1-2) of surface water quality, respective good chemical (hydrochemical) status. The chemical status under the WFD targets to achieve the required hydrobiological status of water bodies of the Upper Dnieper RB is determined by upper limit of range of indicators (according to the Belarus TCP 17.13-ХХ -201 Х/ОР Annexes tables 3-4) of surface water quality, relevant good status. Typing of water objects is the same as in the definition of the chemical (hydrochemical) status.

List of the key Environmental Objectives for delineated surface bodies in the Upper Dnieper RB corresponding to i) water bodies expected to be ‘at risk’ in 2015 is the following: - due to contamination NH 4, COD, BOD, Cu, Cd, Mn, Zn, Cr, phenol- reducing the amount of these pollutants in water to the environmental standards, - due to contamination hexachlorobenzene - the absence of this pollutant in water , - due to contamination DDT - the absence of this pollutant in water , - due to the HM alteration: impoundment / reservoir effect – restoration of the natural the hydrological regime for regulated water bodies , - due to the river morphology alteration / interruption (gateways), river-channel straightening - restoration of the continuity of the water flow .

List the key Environmental Objectives for delineated groundwater body (GWB) in the Upper Dnieper RB corresponding to i) water bodies expected to be ‘at risk’ in 2015: - due to the depression cone of Cretaceous GWB - reduction of the depression cone .

5.2. Application of Exemption According to EU WFD Article 4

According to Article 4 of EU WFD there is a provision to set exemptions that explain why the good ecological/chemical/quantitative status or the good potential of water bodies cannot be achieved within the first planning cycle by 2015 but only later or not at all. When setting environmental objectives the requirements related to exemptions need to be taken into account.

The application of exemptions require comprehensive tests that justify for each water body in a transparent way why measures can only be implemented (i) after the first planning cycle and with an extended deadline or (ii) through applying a less stringent environmental objective. The tests show if the needed measure to achieve the environmental objectives and good status/potential:

- is not feasible to be implemented within the first planning cycle because of natural conditions; - is technically not feasible; or - is technical feasible but disproportionally expensive.

In case exemptions are applied, water status must not be degraded in the meantime. Articles 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 of WFD describe the conditions and the process in which they can be applied. These exemptions range from small-scale temporary exemptions to midland long term deviations from the rule "good status by 2015", and include the following aspects:

− the extension of the deadline: good status must be achieved by 2021 or 2027 at the latest (Article 4.4) or as soon as natural conditions permit after 2027; − the achievement of less stringent objectives under certain conditions (Article 4.5); − the temporary deterioration of the status in case of natural causes or "force majeure" (Article 4.6); − new modifications to the physical characteristics of a surface water body or alterations to the level of bodies of groundwater, or failure to prevent status deterioration of a body of surface water (including from high status to good status) as a result of new sustainable human development activities (Article 4.7).

The exemption described in Article 4.6 was not applied due to a lack of information and taken to account due to vision that WBs at risk cannot be affected by natural factors more than anthropogenic pressures in the future.

Future Infrastructure Projects (FIP) may need an exemption according to WFD Article 4.7 in the case that they would provoke deterioration in water status – the application of these exceptions is also summarized.

Based on preliminary ecological classification of the pilot Upper Dnieper RB water bodies made on results of JFS 2013and JFS 2014, among 50 surface WBs assessed as WB at risk there were 25 WBs (total length 297.9 km) identified as WBs at risk due to the hydromorphological alterations as straightening channels, impoundments, as well as 9 WBs (total length 65,3 km) at risk due to the influence of diffuse sources of Chornobyl zone pollution. These WBs are seeing as exceptions according to EU WFD, which will not achieved the environmental objectives to 2021 after implementation of PofM (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2. Summary table of Exemption according to WFD - WBs which probably will not achieved the environmental objectives to 2021 after implementation of the Program of measures (Surface water bodies) Code Name Reasons

Code Name Reasons < 70% Morphological Quality Class 3-5 (river-channel straightening) UA010102/02 Vyr Intense deformation processes distorting the shape of the channel and BY/UA01/01 Dnieper coastal topography UA0107 Dubrovka < 70% Morphological Quality Class 3-5 (river-channel straightening) UA01/09 Dnieper Chornobil' zone UA0109 Pripyat' Chornobil' zone UA010901 Uzh Chornobil' zone UA01110102 Uzh pritok Chornobil' zone UA011704 Kozka < 70% Morphological Quality Class 3 -5 (river -channel straightening) UA011302 Zamglay < 70% Morphological Quality Class 3-5 (river-channel straightening) UA011805/04 Belous < 70% Morphological Quality Class 3-5 (river-channel straightening) UA01180501 Belouspritok < 70% Morphological Quality Class 3-5 (river-channel straightening) UA0118/17 more than 70% of overall water body length is allocated to Desna UA0118/18 Morphological Quality Class 3-5

6. A summary of the economic analysis of water use in the Upper Dnieper River Basin

6.1. The economic analysis of water use

The WFD requires the description of the river basin in economic terms. The main economic principles addressed in WFD Art.5 (and Annex III) and Art.9 and have to be applied by the countries to achieve the environmental goals of the WFD are the following: water services cost recovery, including environmental and resource costs; polluter pays; use water resources efficiently.

These economic WFD principles have some relevant reflections in the Ukrainian environmental legislation. According to the Article 30 of the Water Code of Ukraine Fees for Special Water Use are introduced in Ukraine. This fee for special water use is collected to stimulate the rational water use and protection and reproduction of water resources. It includes the fee for water and water body’s use and the fee for discharging pollutants. The amount of the fee for using water is set based on the fee rates, actual volume of water used and existing limits on water use.

The surface water (80% of total water supply) is a main water supply source in Ukraine and in the Upper Dnieper RB particularly. In 2013 total amount of 1063.7 mln m 3 were abstracted in the pilot basin, including 837 mln m 3 (or 79%) of surface water and 226.64 mln m 3 (21%) from groundwater sources. Water abstraction and use within the Upper Dnieper RB was specific for its two different parts: the upper Dnieper River sub-basin (Kyiv HPPs dam) and the Desna river basin. 66% of total water abstraction, 77% of groundwater abstraction, 60% of water use and 73% of wastewater discharge were done in the Upper Dnieper. There were 3 334 big water users, including 2000 in Upper Dnieper and 1334 – in Desna basins.

Statistics of water abstraction for different sectors of economy in 2013 in the Upper Dnieper RB was the following:: for agriculture (mainly for fisheries) - 299.4 mln m3, including 24.36 mln m3 from groundwater; for industry – 348.3 mln m3, including 43.2 mln m3 from groundwater; for drinking water supply – 406.4 mln m3 including 150.9 mln m3 from groundwater. (Figure 6.1)

Figure 6.1. Water abstraction and water use by main sectors in UDRsub-basin (upper KyivHPP dam), in the Desna river basin and in total UDRB, 2013, Mln m 3

Water abstraction among the main water users in 2 parts of the Upper Dnieper RB was divided as following: 68

• the Upper Dnieper (upstream of the Kyiv HPP dam) approx. 40% for agriculture, 38% - for industry and 22% - for drinking water supply; • the Desna river basin: approx. 6% for agriculture,23% for industry and 71% -for drinking water supply. (Figure 6.2) 38% of abstracted surface waters and 87% of abstracted groundwater in the pilot basin were made for drinking water supply. Among the industries, the biggest user of water resources is the Chornobyl NPP and thermal hitting plants.

Figure 6.2. Water abstraction by main sectors in UDR sub-basin (upper Kyiv HPP dam) 2013, mln m 3 (left ), water abstraction by main sectors in Desna River basin (right) within UDRB, 2013, mln m 3

According to EU WFD article 2 (38) “Water services” means all services which provide for households, public institutions or any economic activities, including: - abstraction, impoundment, storage, treatment and distribution of surface water or groundwater; water; - waste-water collection and treatment facilities which subsequently discharge into surface water. Out of 4.99 million inhabitants living in the Upper Dnieper RB, about 97.7% reside in the urban areas. The share of population connected to the public water supply varies between urban and rural and between different cities from 50 to 100% in urban areas. , and in rural areas dwellers use wells. The main problem of water supply sector is poor condition of infrastructure and lack of financing for maintenance and investment for development of infrastructures. In the pilot Upper Dnieper RB there are 14 agglomerations (with the population of more than 10,000 inhabitants) >= 10 000 PE with total 3,614 PE, 13 of agglomerations among them connected to sewer and WWTP with the secondary treatment.

In Ukraine (2013) waste water were discharged into surface water (113.0 mln m 3), including 19,2 mln m 3 of non-treated waste water.

6.2. Fee for special water use in the Upper Dnieper Basin

According to EU WFD an economic analysis of water uses has to carry on to assess the importance of water use for the region’s economy and socio-economic development of the river basin, based on long-term projections of water supply and demand in a river basin.

The Tax Code of Ukraine sets legal basis of budget (state and local in a 50:50 ratio) accumulation of the fees for special water use of surface and ground-waters. The Code determined the payers, taxation object and rates of charges for special water use for surface and ground water. In 2013 1453 mln UAH was accumulated in total for special water use, including 726,7mln UAH in the state budget and 726.7 mln UAH in the local budget.

The rate of charge for special surface water use in Upper Dnieper basin is 35.66 UAH per 100 m 3. The rate of charge for special ground water use in Kyiv Region is 48.89 UAH per 100 m 3, in Chernigov Region is 53.47 per 100 m 3, in Kyiv city – 53.27 UAH.

Fee rate of for special water use for hydropower is 6.93 UAH per 10.000 m 3 of water passed through the turbines of HPP. The rates of the fee for special surface water use for water transport needs of all rivers, except the Danube, are: - for freight and non-self-propelled fleet operated - 0.1188 UAH per 1 tonnage-day operation; - for passenger fleet operated - 0.0132 UAH per 1 seat-day operation.

Fee rates for special use of water for fish farming are: - 36.39 UAH per 10.000 m 3 for surface water; - 43.75 UAH per 10.000 m 3 for ground water.

Fee rates for special use of water, which is part of beverages, are:

- 33,85 UAH per 1 m 3 of surface water; - 39.48 UAH per 1 m 3 of ground water.

Fee rate for special use of mine water, quarry and drainage water is 0.0784 UAH per 1 m 3 of water. Fee for thermal power plants (for the actual volume of water passed through the turbine condensers to cool the condensate) is calculated at a ratio of 0.005. By collecting pond of house holding companies is using ratio of 0.3. Fee rate for water use from channels is set according to the rate of water body, from which water is taken into the channel. For the mixed water sources fee rates of each water source are used.

Fee rates for centralized water supply and wastewater services for the last five years for dwellers of agglomerations with > 10,000 inhabitants in Kyiv and Chernihov Regions including the cities of Kyiv and Chernihov, of the pilot UDRB varied significantly (3in 2,6 times) between settlements. The highest water service tariff is set in town Korostyshev (UAH 7.92/m 3) and the lowest one – in Zhytomyr (UAH 3.09/m 3). On the whole, the rates for wastewater services range from UAH 3.37/m 3 to UAH 7.67/m 3, respectively. The highest wastewater service rate is in Irpin, Bucha and Hostomel (UAH 7.67/m3) due to a lack of own WWTPs leading to extra costs of wastewater transportation to Bortnychy WWTP belong to KyivVodoKanal.

The situation with the water and wastewater service cost recovery in the pilot river basin was assessed based on data on six largest cities. The current cost recovery levels are shown in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1. Centralized Water and Wastewater Services: Actual Tariffs for Services and Cost Recovery Levels Actual Service Cost Recovery Production Level under Tariffs (UAH/m 3 net of VAT) Cost (UAH/m 3 Current Rates # City net of VAT) (%) Waste Waste Waste Regulator's resolution Water water Water water Water water 1 Chernihiv* dated 30.05.2014 № 625 4.06 3.37 9.19 9.21 44.2 36.6 2 Nizhyn** dated 27.06.2014 № 782 3.95 6.49 3.86 5.56 102.3 116.7 3 Korosten** dated 22.08.2014 № 1160 4.7 4.08 4.54 3.87 103.5 105.4 4 Zhytomyr** dated 23.05.2014 № 555 3.09 4.72 3.7 3.8 83.5 124.2

Actual Service Cost Recovery Production Level under Tariffs (UAH/m 3 net of VAT) Cost (UAH/m 3 Current Rates # City net of VAT) (%) Waste Waste Waste Regulator's resolution Water water Water water Water water 5 Irpin* dated 23.05.2014 № 556 3.48 7.67 3.64 7.55 95.6 101.6 6 Kyiv* dated 18.06.2014 № 756 3.24 2.98 2.64 2.48 122.7 120.2 * - for nine months of 2014 ** - for six months of 2014

There are two groups of cities where current service rates recover and fail to recover the actual centralized water and wastewater service costs. The first group includes Chernihiv, Zhytomyr and Irpin, where the inadequate service rates may complicate the financial situation significantly and even lead to bankruptcy of the utility companies. The other group includes Nezhyn, Korosten and Kiev, where the service cost recovery level is near 100% due to (i) the rates are intended to make utility companies' operations profitable and (ii) the current rates were introduced in the second half of 2014; therefore, actual costs for the first half of the year were linked to the previous – lower – rates.

In order to optimize the rates for water and wastewater services, they need to be raised up to the economically justified level. In a situation where prices for electricity are skyrocketing (they grew by 35% during the last four months) and the electricity costs contribute 35% - 40% to the utility service costs, there is a need to make an energy audit and install energy saving equipment on water supply and WWT facilities.

In view of the current condition of the water/wastewater sector, there is a need to reform the management from the administrative style to the market style and introduce relevant financial mechanisms in addition and efficient use of the existed mechanisms as budget funding, lending and self-funding.

Under current conditions of country's economic development, there is an objective need to put higher level of economic relationships in the water sector and to address such issues as valuation of water resources as a component of the national wealth, identification of their taxation potential, ways to channel to the budget an excessive rental income which is conditioned by both natural and economic factors in the process of commercial use of water resources.

Pursuant to current law, Ukrainian local governments should set economically justified rates for water and wastewater services. However, the definition of "economic justification" fails to reflect the operation, upgrading and development needs of water sector infrastructure. On the other hand, local governments fail in practice to approve rates, oriented on systems development. This leads to insufficiency of investments in water distribution and wastewater systems. The amount of required investments and magnitude of problems keep growing.

6.3. Economic control tools

The procedure for paying the fee for special use of water resources and the fee for using water for needs of hydropower engineering and water transport is approved by decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The fee for special use of water resources is charged for using water from bodies of water which is taken by using facilities and technical devices intended to discharge wastewater in such bodies of water.

The fee for using water for hydropower engineering needs is charged for using water which is passed through power plant turbines for the electricity generation purposes; and for water transport companies – for using water in the process of operating waterways by cargo self-propelled and dumb barges and passenger vessels.

Payers of the fee for special use of water resources and the fee for using water for needs of hydropower engineering and water transport are enterprises, institutions and organizations irrespective of their institutional form and self-employed individuals who use water resources and use water for needs of hydropower engineering and water transport. The system for funding water protection measure in Ukraine is based on the following major sources: • State budget of Ukraine and local budgets; • Budget of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea; • Environment protection funds of all levels; • Companies' own funds; • Foreign funds and investments; • Other categorical funds.

Funds from the state budget are allocated for priority programmes and projects of national importance.

According to Article 16 of the Constitution of Ukraine, it is the government responsibility to ensure environmental safety and maintain environmental balance on the territory of Ukraine, overcome consequences of the Chornobyl accident and preserve the genetic pool of the Ukrainian people. The state budget of Ukraine is the main source of funding the environmental policy. The rules of procedure for collecting revenues and distributing allocations from the state budget are set by relevant laws for each year.

Under current conditions of country's economic development, there is an objective need to transfer to a higher level of economic relationships in the water sector. A number of issues need to be addressed, such as valuation of water resources as a component of the national wealth, identification of their taxation potential, ways to channel to the budget an excessive rental income which is conditioned by both natural and economic factors in the process of commercial use of water resources.

Pursuant to current law, Ukrainian local governments should set so-called economically justified rates for water and wastewater services. However, the very definition of "economic justification" fails to reflect the necessity to operate, modernize and develop distribution networks. On the other hand, local governments fail in practice to approve rates which would be oriented towards systems development. This leads to insufficiency of investments in water distribution and wastewater systems. The amount of required investments and magnitude of problems keep growing. The EU Water Framework Directive highlights that in order to attain its ultimate objective – ensuring "good quality" of water, the principal of the water service costs recovery must be accounted for. This includes environmental and resource costs associated with the damage or negative impact on the water environments. More specifically, the principle "polluter pays" must be followed. To this end, an economic analysis of water services must be made which would be based on long-term projections of water supply and demand in a river basin.

6.4. Cost-effectiveness as a criterion for selecting measures to achieve reduction targets

A table 6.2 summarizes the costs of the proposed measures. As seen from the table, the total cost of the measures proposed for implementation in the first planning cycle is slightly over EUR 413 million. This, taking into account the total number of population of the Upper Dnieper BMA, composes about EUR 85 per person.

Table 6.2. Cost estimates of the proposed measures for Upper Dnieper River Basin Measures Upper Dnieper UA Estimated Budget, EUR Basic measures of the Programme of measures to the UDRB (EU Directives 2 500 000 implementation), Ukraine Reduction and elimination of water bodies pollution (UDRB, UA) 393 026 000 Improvement of hydromorphological state of the rivers (UDRB, UA) 12 250 000 Maintenance of good status of ground water (UDRB, UA) 5 050 000 Development of WFD compliant monitoring program for surface water of UDRB UA 931 080 (surveillance and operational) Total 413 757 080

Cost of Basic measures of the UDRB Programme of measures (EU Directives implementation) in Ukraine is shown in Table 7.1.

There are a broad range of water protection basic and supplementary measures which supported by the on-going State National, Regional and Local Programs of action and can be implemented till the end of 1-st Planning cycle in Ukraine. Supplementary measures are presented in the Table 7.2.

7. Programme of Measures

Basic and Supplementary Measures on Maintenance and Restoration of Water Bodies

Based on recommendations of Guidance Document on the Development of Programme of Measures, the structure of the Programme of Measures should include basic and supplementary or additional measures.

Basic measures were developed for all WBs of the Upper Dnieper and be aimed on implementation of the measures established in the Ukrainian legislation. Those measures have to maintain the high or good status of WBs, as well as to provide the possibility for WBs at risk failing of environmental objectives to achieve a moderate status.

For the WBs at risk of failing the good ecological status the development of the supplementary measures has been proposed, which will include concrete measures ensuring the improvement of ecological status of the WBs by 2021.

Basic measures are based on state legislation. It is recommended to include in the list of basic measures the following ones:

− Measures on modernization of institutional and economic mechanisms of protection and to restoration of water resources recharges /restoration; − Measures on promotion of effective and sustainable water usage; − Measures on drinking water sources protection; − Measures to control water abstraction and recharging of surface water and groundwater; − Measures to control point and diffuse sources of pollution; − Measures on priority substances management; − Measures to control all other actions affected water status; − Measures to avoid accidental spills/releases.

Supplementary measures

For EU countries the Supplementary Measures are the options on their consideration and they should be applied in case, when the basic measures cannot ensure the achieving of environmental objectives and good water status.

The Basic measures belong to the national and whole basin levels and are implemented as measures of national legislation at the same time the additional measures are mostly related to certain WBs and to the local level.

Moreover there exist so-called soft measures , which help competent authorities of states- beneficiaries to improve planning. Soft measures should include, for example, the monitoring programme and networking according to EU WFD requirements (related to all biological quality elements); improvement of water status assessment and carrying out of WFD intercalibration; validation of abiotic typology by biological monitoring; harmonization of national legislation to WFD requirements, including process of licensing and permissions, and adaptation of technical and personal capacities to full implementation of WFD.

The Programme of measures consists of two sections. The first section includes the water protection measures aimed on improvement of ecological status of the WBs at risk till the end of the Planning cycle and the measures to prevent or decrease the impact on the state of water bodies, as well as measures on restoration of water bodies with ecological status “high” and ‘good”.

The second section of the Programme includes the water protection measures for the rest of WBs to conserve and maintain the existing good ecological status of these WBs.

The Programme submits the measures aimed on decreasing of the pollutants discharging into WBs from point and non-point sources of pollution, as well as measures aimed on sustainable water usage and reduction of negative impacts of other anthropogenic pressures leading to degradation of WBs ecological status.

The main basic measures to maintain the status of water bodies with high (excellent) or good status and to restore status for the poor status water bodies are determined by legal framework existed in Ukraine, which include the Ukrainian laws, state and regional programs/plans of measures, bylaws and broad spectrum of regulatory and technical norms, which regulating the activities in the field of water protection and usage.

Legislation and Methodological Support . The main basic measures to maintain the status of water bodies with high (excellent) or good status and to restore status for the poor status water bodies are determined by legal framework existed in Ukraine, which include the Ukrainian laws, state and regional programs/plans of measures, bylaws and broad spectrum of regulatory and technical norms, which regulating the activities in the field of water protection and usage. The broad legal framework on water issues includes numerous special water and water-related legislation, among them are the following laws and state programs:

- Law of Ukraine " On Environmental Protection of Ukraine " (Vedomosti Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy (VVRU), 1991, № 41, pag.546 (As amended in accordance with the laws); - Law of Ukraine " On ensuring sanitary and epidemiological public welfare " (VVRU, 1994, № 27, pag.218) with amendments; - Code of Ukraine "On Subsoil" (VVRU, 1994, № 36, page 340 ) with amendments; - Water Code of Ukraine , from 6.06. 1995 № 214/95-ВР and Law of Ukraine "On amendments to the Water Code of Ukraine on 5.10.2000 p. № 2026-III; - Law of Ukraine "On Waste" (VVRU, 1998, № 36-37, pag.242); - The Land Code of Ukraine (VVRU, 2002, № 3-4, pag.27) with amendments; - Law of Ukraine " On Drinking Water and Water Supply " (VVRU, 2002, №16, pag.112) with amendments; - Tax Code of Ukraine (VVRU, 2011, № 13-14, №15-16, № 17, st.112) with amendments; - Law of Ukraine "On Approval of the National Target Program on Water Resources Management and Environmental Rehabilitation of the Dnieper River for the period by 2021 " "(VVRU, 2013, № 17, page 146); - National Action Plan of on environment protection for 2011-2015, adopted by Order of CMU from 25.05.2011 №577-р, with amendments according to orders №189-р from 01.04.2013 аnd № 870-р from 02.10.2013; - Complex Programme of protection of rural settlements and lands against harmful effects of waters till 2010 and prognosis till 2020» adopted by Cabinet of Ministries of Ukraine (CMU) Order from 03.07.2006 № 901; - The State Programme of flood protection in the basins of rivers: Dniester, Prut and Siret for 2008-2025, adopted by Order of CMU from 27.12.2008 № 1151;

as well as bylaws, including the followings: 75

- Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (CMU) 25.05.2011 №577-r "On approval of the National Action Plan on Environmental Protection for 2011-2015" (with amendments); - Joint Order of the State Committee for Water and Environment Ministry 09.10.2007 №199 / 517 "on the approved permit for work (excluding construction) in the lands of the water fund and sample applications to receive it" (registered with the Ministry of Justice on December 4, 2007 at №1342 / 14609 ) - CMU Resolution 12.07.2005 № 557 "On approval of the order permitting the works on the lands of water fund" (as amended under the provisions CMU); - CMU Resolution from 13.03.2002 № 321 “On Approval of Procedure of approval and giving the permits on special water usage and amendments to the CMU of 10 August 1992 р. №459 (as amended under the provisions CMU) - CMU Resolution from 25.03.1999 № 465 «On approval of rules of surface water protection against pollution by reverse waters"(As amended in accordance with the regulations of CMU); - CMU Resolution from 11.09.1996 №1100 «On the procedure of development and approval the standards of maximum allowable discharge of pollutants and the list of pollutants, discharge of which is normed"(as amended under the provisions CMU); - State sanitary rules and regulations "Hygenic requirements for drinking water intended for human consumption" (SanPiN 2.2.4-171-10); - Order of the Ministry of Environment of Ukraine "On Approval of the Instruction on the procedure of development and adoption of maximum permissible discharges (MPD) of substances into the water with reverse waters» №116 from 15.12.94 (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine December 22, 1994 №313 /523 - CMU Resolution from 17 September 1996 р. N 1147 «On approving the list of environmental protection measures" (As amended according to CMU); - the Ministry of Health protection Order № 400 from 12.05.2010. «on Ratification of the State Sanitary Rules and Regulations "Hygienic requirements for drinking water intended for human consumption" (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine July 1, 2010 №452/17747); - Order of the Ministry of Environment of Ukraine №38 from 18.05.95 «On approval of "the method of calculating reimbursement of damages caused by violation of legislation on protection and rational use of water resources" (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine May 29, 1995, №157/693); - State Committee of Housing and Communal Services №30 from 05.07.95. "On Approving the Rules of technical operation of water supply and sewerage of the settlements in Ukraine" (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine July 21, 1995 by №231/767). - The legislation related to Hydrosphere control includes the following regulations: - GOST 3041-95. The system of standards of environmental protection and rational use of resources: Hydrosphere. Use and protection of water. Terms and definitions; - Guiding regulations. Quality measurements composition and characteristics objects and sources of environment pollution (collector). Kyiv, 1997 .; - List of temporarily permitted to use and certified methods for detection of the composition and characteristics of samples of environmental components (objects), emissions and discharges of pollutants into them. Order of the Ministry of Environmental 30.03.97r. № 97. Agreed letter from the State Standard 12.05.97r. Number 1864 / 5-3; - A generalized list of maximum permissible concentration (MPC) and approximately safe levels of exposure (ASLE) of hazardous substances for water using for fish farming №12-04-11.

In 2012 MENR approved the order on the Basic Plan on adaptation of environmental legislation of Ukraine to the European Union legal framework (Basic Plan approximation). In the Plan there is a list of relevant EU legislations which are in accordance with the list of EU Directives of Annex XXIX Chapter 6 of Part V to the Association Agreement between Ukraine and EU, signed in July 2014 and ratified by Ukraine in October 2014. 76

For approximation of Ukrainian legislation to each EU Directives are already dedicated responsible authorities, deadlines the recommended actions, needed to implement in the legal framework of Ukraine. Part of the legislation changes, proposed by the Basic Plan, is directly related to the measures that should be considered as a basic for the Programme of measures to the Upper Dnieper River Basin Management Plan for all water bodies in the pilot basin. These measures (Table 7.1) are obligatory for implementation by the central executive authorities till December 2017 that fits to the RBMP planning cycle for the Upper Dnieper RB.

Table 7.1. Basic measures of the Programme of Measures to the Upper Dnieper RBMP for the first planning cycle until 2021, Ukraine EU legal act Measures Responsible Responsible Deadlines Esti mated authorities Departments Budget, EUR

Directive • To amend the Water Code of MENR, Department December 1500 2000/60/ ЄС – Ukraine (aligning terminology, State Agency of nature 2017 000 WFD, appointment of the relevant of Water resources according to competent authority (ies) on Resources, protection of decision № river basin management). Мinistry of MENR 2455/2001/EU • To amend the Land Code and health Water Code of Ukraine (on Protection, upgrading of the mechanism State Services for dedication and putting in of emergency place the coastal and water situations, protection zones). Ministry of • Put the sections «Surface Justice, water» and «Groundwater» of State Agency the State Water Cadaster in of land compliance to the requirements resources of the relevant sections of the Directive • Approve the mandate of the Basin departments of water management with responsibilities defined by the Directive. • To ensure proper implementation of river basin management principle: • by recognition in law the zoning of the territory of Ukraine based on basin principle; • by identifying the units of hydrographic regionalization of the territory of the country; • Ensure the development of the working structure of water resources management according to basin approach; • Develop and legalize the criteria for the river basin status assessment; • Develop and approve the provision on River Basin 77

EU legal act Measures Responsible Responsible Deadlines Esti mated authorities Departments Budget, EUR

Management Plan and methodology of its development; • To develop River Basin Management Plans (in compliance with requirements of Article 14 of WFD on public participation and information, consultations); • Develop the methodology of the Programme of measures development according to Article 11 of the Directive; • The amendments to the existed regulations for the transposition provisions of WFD and in relation with new approved law have to be done. Directive To revise current legislation and Minregion December 550 000 91/271/E ЕС approve new regulation on MENR 2017 concerning responsibilities of authorities to State Agency urban ensure access to sewer in cities of water wastewater and townships, development list resources treatment with of vulnerable zones according to Мinistry of amendments the criteria lay down in Annex II justice provided by of WFD (possible additional Directive categorization), introduction of the 98/15/ ЄС and principle of obvious wastewater Regulation treatment before discharging into (EU) vulnerable zones; approval 1882/2003 prohibition of sediment discharges (UWWT into surface water from ships, Directive) pipelines or in any other ways. Develop draft regulation on specifics of Directive 91/271/E ЕС requirements application for the mountain settlements. Approve the Technical and Investments Programmes for implementation of the Directive provisions and approval the responsibility of water utilities to report regularly and publish the reports about wastewater discharging and sediments displacement in the areas which are under their responsibilities. Unify methodology for determining the load on wastewater treatment facilities and their technical characteristics used in Ukraine and EU;

EU legal act Measures Responsible Responsible Deadlines Esti mated authorities Departments Budget, EUR

Directive Clarify provisions of the Order of МoH December 150 000 98/83/EU on the Ministry of Health (MoH) of МENR 2017 the quality of Ukraine "On approval of the State Ministry of water intended sanitary rules and regulations" regional for human Hygienic requirements for development, consumption drinking water intended for human building and with consumption" (DSanPiN 2.2.4- communal amendments 171-10) from 12 May2010 № 400 services and additions related to “points of accordance” approved by (Art. 6 Directive). Regulations Develop methods of drinking EU 1882/2003 water quality monitoring in (Drinking residential areas. Water Check the compliance of Directive) procedures and standards for determination of the safety and quality of drinking water, provided in a tentative list of Annex 5 to State Standards 2.2.4- 171-10, with requirements of Annex III and other relevant provisions of Directive Council Align with the terminology and December 100 000 Directive legalize it. 2017. 91/676/EEC of Adopt a regulatory act to 12 December determine zones vulnerable to 1991 (accumulation) nitrates (including concerning the the mechanisms of cooperation in protection of transboundary context). waters against To adopt action plans for zones pollution vulnerable to (accumulation) caused by nitrate nitrates from Adopt codes of best agricultural agricultural practices and programs to sources, with facilitate the implementation of amendments these codes. and additions Take into account the by Regulation requirements of Annex III to the EU 1882/2003 Directive during theProgramme of (Nitrate Measures drafting and adoption Directive) according to paragraph. 4. 5 of the Directive. To amend the related regulations taking into account the aim of Directivetransposition and the adoption to the new legislation. Council To amend the Law of Ukraine «on МENR, Department December 100 000 Directive environmental network of Мі nistry of of natural 2017 92/43/EEC of Ukraine» of 24 June 2004 № agricultural resources 21 May 1992 1864-IV; the Law of Ukraine «on politics, protection on the Nature Reserve Fund of Ukraine» State Agency Department conservation from 16 June 1992 № 2456-XII in of forest of

EU legal act Measures Responsible Responsible Deadlines Esti mated authorities Departments Budget, EUR

of natural relation with networking resources, Reservation habitats and of establishment according to State Agency wild fauna and Directive requirements, especially of fish flora,with in terms of the criteria of resources, amendments establishment of ecological National and additions networks based on habitat Academia of made by selection as the basis of selection Sciences of Directives of the constituent elements of the Ukraine, 97/62/EU, ecological network and / or adopt Ukrainian 2006/105/EU new legislation to protect habitats. Academia of and Regulation To detail and agree with the Agrarian (EC) No provisions of the Directive and its Sciences 1882/2003 of Annexes the provisions for the the European protection of natural habitats, Parliament and mentioned in the Laws of Ukraine of the Council "On Wildlife" December 13, 2001 of 29 № 2894-14; “On Flora" of 9 April September 1999 № 591-XIV; “On fisheries, 2003 commercial fisheries and conservation of aquatic biological resources" of 08 July 2011 № 3677-VI; "On the Red Book of Ukraine" of 07 February 2002 № 3055-14 and "On Hunting Economy and Hunting" of 02 February 2000 № 1478 -14 -III . Directive Align with the terminology and MENR, State December 100 000 2007/60/EC on legalize it. Agency of 2017 the assessment Update and amend the current Water and legislation to ensure effective Resources, management flood forecasting and flood and State Service of flood risks emergency response of emergency situation TOTAL 2 500 000

There are a broad range of water protection basic measures which supported by the on-going State National, Regional and Local Programs of action and can be implemented till the end of 1-st Planning cycle in Ukraine. Supplementary measures are presented in the Table 7.2.

Table 7.2.Basic and Supplementary measures to the Upper Dnieper RBMP for the first planning cycle until 2021, Ukraine

Measure Environmental Which current Programme Provisions Imple- Esti- objective of Ukraine correspond to of which men- mated EU tation Budget, Directive cycle EUR correspond to Basic Measures 1. REDUCTION AND ELIMINATION OF WATER BODIES POLLUTION 1.2. Upgrading the Overall State Target Program Water 2020 1 000000

80 technologies of “ Drinking Water of Ukraine” Framework Wastewater and on period of 2011 – 2020 Directive Storm Water Treatment 1.3. Transition from Overall State Target Program UWWT 2020 1 500000 Sludge displacement “ Drinking Water of Ukraine” Directive to on period of 2011 – 2020 utilization/treatment 1.4. Develop the Regional Program 2020 3 000000 maximum allowable «Environmental Protection discharges of and Rational Use of natural pollutants through a Resources of Kyiv Region till combination of the 2016» principle of best available technical solutions and assessment of the impact on the state of the water body. 1.5. Streamlining the Overall State Program, 2016- 2 000000 diversion of storm Regional Programmes, 2020 and runoff from Regional Programme urban areas and «Environmental Protection industrial sites and Rational Use of natural Resources of Kyiv Region till 2016», the Regional Program "on Elimination of the consequences of water logging areas in towns and cities of Kyiv region in 2003- 2030 years." 1.6. Identification, The Program of Management Nitrate 2020 5 500000 minimization, and of solid domestic waste in the Directive, further elimination of Kiev region for 2012-2016. UWWT diffuse sources of The scheme of sanitation for Directive pollution of surface city of Kyiv (Order of the and ground water Kyiv City State bodies, including Administration (2014), Kyiv runoff from landfills City Master Plan for the and dumps of period until 2020 industrial and domestic waste 1.7. Development of Overall State Program, Water 2020 263 646 community and Regional Programmes, State Framework 000 individual sanitation Programme “Drinking Water Directive, system and of Ukraine”, the Programme UWWT wastewater treatment of public supply by safe Directive plants in small towns drinking water in adequate and rural areas quantity in Kyiv Region in 2011-2020” 1.8. Greening water Overall State Program, UWWT 2020 5 500000 sector complex by Regional Programmes, The Directive introduction of water- Kyiv City Master Plan for saving technologies, period till 2020. reduction of average water consumption

81 per unit of production, modernization of existing and construction of new systems of reverse and re-cycling water supply, reusing of the proper treated wastewater on production needs, improvement of limiting and monitoring of costs and water quality 1.9. Introduction of The Regional Programs, Nitrate 2016 100 000 organic agriculture «Environmental Protection Directive (ecological methods) and the Rational Use of natural Resources of Kyiv Region till 2016 р.» 1.10. Development the Programme of public Drinking 2020 350 000 and implementation supply by safe drinking water Water of the programs on in adequate quantity in Kyiv Directive improvement of the Region in 2011-2020” environment near the large livestock farms 1.11. Establishment National and regional Directive 2016 750 000 and operation of programs of formation of the on the Ukrainian sections of national ecological network conservatio transboundary n of natural biosphere reserves, habitats wetlands of and of wild international fauna and importance, World flora Natural Heritage 1.12. Implementation Absence of DDT Regional Programme Nitrates 2016 1 500000 of measures for the and «Environmental Protection Directive environmentally safe hexachlorobenze and Rational Use of natural storage of hazardous ne in surface Resources of Kyiv Region till pollutants, including water 2016» pesticides, including banned and obsolete pesticides 1.13. Ensuring of National Program on Water 2021 2 500000 ecologically safe Resources Management and functioning of Environmental Rehabilitation Dnieper reservoirs of Dnieper till 2020

Total basic measures 287 346 000 Supplementary Measures 1. REDUCTION AND ELIMINATION OF WATER BODIES POLLUTION 1.1. Reconstruction, Reducing the Overall State Target Program Water 2020 105 679000 capacity expansion, amount such of Water Sector Framework construction of new pollutants as Development and restoration Directive, wastewater treatment NH4, COD, of the Dnipro River Basin till UWWT facilities for BOD, Cu, Cd, 2021. (Overall State Directive, 82 industrial and Mn, Zn, Cr, Program), the Regional Nitrates domestic waste water Phenol in water Target Program of the Water Directive in order to avoid to the Sector Development of Kiev contamination (in environmental and Chernigivska Regions cities: Kiev, standards (The Regional Program), Chernigov) Overall State programme “Drinking Water of Ukraine” for 2011 – 2020, the Regional Programme “Environment protection and Rational Use of Natural Resources of Kyivska Region till 2016 », Programme of public supply by safe drinking water in adequate quantity in Kyivska Region in 2011-2020”, State Strategy of Regional Development for period till 2020” 2. IMPROVEMENT OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL STATE OF THE RIVERS WBs (UDRB, UA) 2.1. Inventory of all Restoration of National Program on Water Water 2021 600 000 existing reservoirs, the natural the Resources Management and Framework ponds and irrigation hydrological Environmental Rehabilitation Directive systems in the basin regime for of Dnieper till 2020 with the assessment regulated water of their condition, bodies modern and future use, the impact on the hydrological regime of rivers and adjacent areas 2.2. Optimization of National Program on Water Water 2021 100 000 the number river bed Resources Management and Framework reservoirs, reducing Environmental Rehabilitation Directive their number to of Dnieper till 2020 environmentally safe levels 2.3. Optimization of National Program on Water Water 2020 4 500000 water balance in river Resources Management and Framework basins; ensuring an Environmental Rehabilitation Directive ecological balance of Dnieper till 2020, The and maintaining Kyiv City Master Plan till water regulatory 2020. functions of landscapes of catchment areas; restore and maintain favourable hydrological regime and sanitary state of water bodies 2.4. Preservation of State Strategy of the Regional Directive 2020 1 500000 natural wetlands as Development on period till on the well as the 2020 conservatio improvement and n of natural

83 restoration of habitats damaged elements of and of wild wetland systems , fauna and which provide habitat flora for the optimum level of biodiversity; development of a system of measures for their re- naturalization and environmental rehabilitation. 2.5. Optimization of Restoration of National Program on Water WFD 2027 1 750000 the number of the continuity of Resources Management and gateways that the water flow Environmental Rehabilitation regulate water levels of Dnieper till 2020 in the rivers and the construction of fish breeders 2.6. Development and National Program on Water WFD 2027 2 000000 implementation of Resources Management and measures to improve Environmental Rehabilitation the ecological state of Dnieper till 2020 (recovery capacity) of the river beds of the Dnieper and Desna Rivers Basins. 3. MAINTANENCE OF GOOD STATUS OF GROUNDWATER 3.1. Construction of Reduction of the Program to provide the Drinking 2020 3 250000 underground depression cone population of Kiev region Water intakes for city Kyiv of Cretaceous with quality drinking water in Directive considering GWB sufficient quantities for 2011- location and 2020. perspective The Kyiv City Master Plan performance water till 2020. intakes suburban areas to prevent the formation of the Regional depressive cone. 3.2. Stabilization and Program to provide the Drinking 2020 1 800000 gradual reduction of population of Kiev region Water potable water supply with quality drinking water in Directive to the consumer of sufficient quantities for 2011- per-urban areas by 2020. construction of local The Kyiv City Master Plan ground water intakes. till 2020. 4. MONITORING PROGR AMME REGARDING WFD REQUIREMENTS Providing the WFD 2021 National relevant State water Budget + monitoring System EU according WFD funding requirements Total supplementary measures 121 179 000 TOTAL (Basic + Supplementary measures) 408 525 000

Preliminary estimated budget for the basic and supplementary measures will be verified and further elaborated with the competent authorities.

8. A summary of the public information and consultation measures taken, their results and the changes to the plan made as a consequence

Under the Activity of EPIRB project - development of Joint RBMPs for selected river basins, the Communication strategy was developed for UDRB, and awareness building activities are undertaken throughout the project. The Communication Strategy and the Communication Plan for UDRB covers the aspects of communication, information access and public participation. They are developed fully in compliance within the overall Communication and Visibility Plan of the project and the EU Visibility Guidelines.

9. List of competent authorities

The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (CMU) is the supreme authority in the system of state executive bodies (Article 113). Among other things the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine ensures the implementation of policy on environmental protection, ecological safety and nature management (Article 116). Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine (MENR) is the main authority in the system of central executive bodies in the formation and realization of state policy in the field of environmental protection, ecological and (within its competence) biological, genetic and radiation safety including the development of water management and land reclamation The State Agency for Water Resources of Ukraine (SAWR) holds the foremost place among national institutions involved in the management of the Upper Dnieper basin. SAWR is a central body of executive power. Its activities are directed and coordinated by the CMU through the MENR. Main tasks of SAWR are to: - submit motions to shape government policies regarding the development of water economy, land reclamation, and the management, use and remediation of surface water resources; - implement government policies regarding the management, use and regeneration of surface water resources, the development of water economy, land reclamation, and the operation of multi-purpose state-owned water facilities and central farm irrigation and drainage systems.

The Dnieper Basin Administration for Water Resources (Dnieper BUWR) is a state-financed non-profit organization as part of SAWR. Within its legally specified powers, Dnieper BUWR supports the implementation of government policies on the management, use, regeneration and protection of water resources, the development of water economy, and the operation of water facilities and waterside structures within the Dnieper basin. Further, Dnieper BUWR addresses issues regarding population and industry water supply, in association with state executive bodies and other organizations and institutions. Finally, it coordinates water-related activities of SAWR agencies. In its work, Dnieper BUWR collaborates with local state administrations, local self-government bodies, territorial agencies of MENR, the State Emergency Service (SES), other central bodies of executive power, law-enforcement authorities, and water management organizations, enterprises and SAWR agencies located in the basin, as well as other organizations, enterprises and institutions. Main tasks of Dnieper BUVR are to: - support the government in the management of water resources, implement government policies on the use, maintenance and regeneration of surface water resources in the basin, and meet the water demand of populations and industries; - carry out long-term comprehensive programs on the reliable operation of water systems, waterside structures and individual units of engineering infrastructure, which are state-owned or in the books of BUVR-run water organizations; - undertake actions to prevent damage from water-related emergencies in villages and farmlands, provide flood protection in relevant areas; - direct and coordinate activities of SAWR organizations in the basin regarding the management, use, protection and remediation of surface water resources, population and industry water supply, and the functioning of the SAWR program for State Monitoring of Surface Waters.

Dnieper BUWR’s functions are to: - submit motions to SAWR, state executive bodies and local authorities on the development of government target programs and regional programs with regard to the development of water economy and the management, utilization and remediation of water resources; participate in program implementation; - coordinate the work of the inter-departmental commission on establishment of operating regimes for water storage reservoirs and management of water resources in river basins; 87

- under instruction from SAWR, maintain international cooperation regarding the management, use, protection and remediation of water resources in the basin’s trans-boundary water bodies, and participate in meetings with state representatives, deputies and groups of parties; - coordinate agreement between water user requests, substantiated water demand, surface water utilization rates, and water supply rates; - perform state assessment of water consumption; - gather and summarise information from regional water resource administrations in the basin related to water resource use in the basin; submit this to SAWR; - prepare materials for the State Water Cadastre for the section “Water Use”; - monitor water quality in check sections of the main water intakes for general use, industries and agriculture; - prepare analyses of basin surface water monitoring data, participate in the development of operational and long-term forecasts of variations in the ecological status of water bodies, and submit these to SAWR, state executive bodies and local authorities; - review documents on the construction or reconstruction of waterside structures on rivers; - issue permits for dredging, laying of cable, pipeline, etc. in water resource areas; - confirm the issue of permits for building waterside, hydrometric and line structures in water resource areas; - monitor river bank hydromorphology changes and submit proposals to SAWR on strengthening river banks; - perform hydrogeological monitoring in protected areas near reservoirs and irrigated lands; - take actions, together with other state executive bodies, to prevent emergencies, to minimize the destructive consequences of floods, and to provide for trouble-free passage of floods, freshets and ice drifts on rivers.

Transboundary Upper Dnieper River Basin Council The Water Code of Ukraine (No 213/95-BP of 06.06.1995) and the EU WFD both mandate principles of basin management in the management of water resources. In compliance, the Transboundary Upper Dnieper River Basin Council (the Council) was established in 2011 as an advisory body to SAWR and part of Dnieper BUWR. The principal objective of the Council is to create an effective organizational mechanism for designing and achieving River Basin Management Plan goals. This includes: - outline of a strategy of River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and development of RBMP; - outline of a long-term basin-level target action program for the development of water resources in the basin, the harmonisation of interests of water resources management entities in the basin area, and the coordination of their activities; - compliance with relevant provisions in both Ukrainian law and international agreements.

The Council has a status of permanent advisory and consultative body. In its activities, it works with Dnieper BUWR, SAWR agencies, environmental, public and scientific institutions, and water users.

10. The contact points and procedures for obtaining the background documentation and information

Ukraine special representative bodies are performing public administration in the use and protection of water resources under the current legislation are the central government for environmental protection and water management issues. In fact, today water management of Upper Dnieper river basin directly or indirectly implemented by the following competent authorities:

Ministry of environment and nature resources of Ukraine UA-03035 Кiev, Uritcskogo Str., 35 Web-site: www.menr.gov.ua

State Water Agency of Ukraine UA-01601 Кiev, Velyka Vasylkivcka Str., 8, Web-site: www.scwm.gov.ua

Dnieper river basin authority UA- 07301 Vyshgorod, Kievskaya Str., 10 B Web-site: www.dbuwr.com.ua

Desna river basin authority, UA - 14017 Chernigov, Peremogy Str., 39 A Web-site : www.desna-buvr.gov.ua

ANNEXS Of the UPPER DNIEPER River Basin Management Plan

Annex 1.1

Schematic map of engineering-geological zoning of the Upper Dnieper

Annex 1.2.

Annex 1.3.

Annex 1.4.

Annex 1.5.

Annex 2.1.

Upper Dnieper river WBs

№ Risk Risk Risk Risk asses- asses- assess- assess- Len- sment sment on ment on ment on Cri- Area, Group River Group Code DelName DelCode gth on HM HM HCH HB, MZB teria km2 Type km ecological status

1 Not BY/UA0101/ at Sozh 01 risk 2 Not BY/UA0101/ at Sozh 02 risk BY/UA0101 Sozh 19.9 42100 4 3 Not BY/UA0101/ at Sozh 03 risk 4 Not at Sozh UA0101/04 risk 5 Not BY/UA0101 at Nemelnya 01/01 risk 6 ‘mod At risk erate’ NH 4 (1,32 ES mg/dm 3) , Cu (0,002 µg/dm 3), Nemeln COD (28,0 ya O2 BY/UA010101 11 401 2 SW 24 mg/dm 3) BY/UA0101 Nemelnya (2) 2013 01/02 BOD5

(0,75 O 2 mg/dm 3), NH 4 (0,26 mg/dm 3), PO 4 (0,21 mg/dm 3) 2014 7 At risk ‘moderate ‘high NH 4 (0,58 ’ ES Atkilny ’ ES N/dm 3) Atkilnya UA01010101 a UA01010101 22.6 90 1 ES, Cu SW 14 (0,004 µg/dm 3) 8 Not UA010102/0 UA010102/01 1 at 1 Vyr Vyr 18.6 51 risk 9 At < 70% risk Morpholo gical Quality UA010102/0 Vyr Class 3-5 2 (river- UA010102/02 Vyr 41.4 577 2 channel straighten ing) 10 At < 70% At risk Good UA010102/0 risk Morpholo NH 4 (2,07 potential 3 ‘poor gical mg/dm 3) , Vyr SW2 ’ ES Quality BOD5 № Risk Risk Risk Risk asses- asses- assess- assess- Len- sment sment on ment on ment on Cri- Area, Group River Group Code DelName DelCode gth on HM HM HCH HB, MZB teria km2 Type km ecological status

Class 3-5 (5,28 mg (river- /dm 3), channel COD straighten (116,0 mg 3 ing) O2/dm ) , suspended matter (84,0 mg/dm 3) 11 At < 70% risk Morpholo gical Quality UA010102/0 Vyr Class 3-5 4 (river- channel straighten ing) 12 At 1 Lovyn_ka UA01010201 Lovynka UA01010201 20.5 96 risk 13 Not UA01010203 at Suhoy Vyr /01 risk 14 At risk ‚high’ ES ‘high DDT Suhoy ’ ES (0,036 UA01010202 29.6 80 1 Vyr UA01010203 2µg/dm3), Suhoy Vyr /02 NH 4 (0,82 SW 1 mg/dm 3) , COD (34,0 mg 3 O2/dm ) 15 Channel- AWB 2 Channel UA010103 1 UA010103 30.8 133 16 At Dnieper BY/UA01/01 risk 17 At Dnieper BY/UA01/02 risk 18 At Dnieper BY/UA01/03 risk 19 At Dnieper BY/UA01/04 risk 20 At Dnieper BY/UA01/05 risk Intense 21 At deformatio Dnieper BY/UA01/06 risk n processes 22 At distorting At risk BY/UA01/01 Dnieper 109 216048 4 risk the shape NH 4( 0,45 of the N/dm 3), channel Cu (12,9 and coastal 3 topography µg/dm ), Dnieper BY/UA01/07 Zn (36 µg/dm 3), Cr (5,4 µg/dm 3), Mn (60 µg/dm 3) 23 At At risk risk pH (8,72), BY/UA01/08 BOD5 (4,3 Dnieper SW 31 mg/dm 3) № Risk Risk Risk Risk asses- asses- assess- assess- Len- sment sment on ment on ment on Cri- Area, Group River Group Code DelName DelCode gth on HM HM HCH HB, MZB teria km2 Type km ecological status

24 Channel UA0102/01 AWB 25 Channel UA0102 Channel-2 UA0102/02 30.3 182 2 AWB 26 Channel UA0102/03 AWB 27 At Several At risk Cd ‚high’ ES risk impound (1,5 ‘goo ments are µg/dm 3) , d’ in place DDT and affect (0,041 Borzdna Borzdna BY/UA0104 BY/UA0104 31.9 171 2 >30% of µg/dm3) , SW 7 the NH 4 (1,37 overall mg/dm 3) , water COD (32,3 body mg 3 length O2/dm ) 28 At risk ‚good’ ES ‘high hexachloro ’ ES benzene (3,0035 Vertech µg/dm 3), Vertech UA0105 UA0105 22.5 103 2 SW 22 NH 4 (0,78 mg/dm 3) , COD (38,4 mg 3 O2/dm ) 29 Pakulka UA0106/01 HMWB 30 Pakulka UA0106/01 Pakulka UA0106/02 38.8 262 2 31 Pakulka UA0106/03 32 ‘poor HMWB Cd (1,5 Moderate ’ ES µg/dm 3) , potential DDT (0,0315 BY/UA0106/0 Pakulka BY/UA0106/ µg/dm 3) , Pakulka 9.2 290 2 2 SW 9 04 NH 4 (0,62 mg/dm 3) , COD (62,4 mg 3 O2/dm ) 33 At At risk ‚high’ ES risk NH 4 (0,73 ‘mod mg/dm 3) , erate' Cu (0,003 ES µg/dm 3) , COD (54,5 Dubrov < 70% mg UA0107/01 3 Dubrovka UA0107/01 ka SW 1 O2/dm ) Morpholo 11(2) gical 2013 Quality BOD5 (0,3 Class 3-5 mg/dm3), (river- NH 4 (0,4 channel mg/dm 3), straighten PO 4 (0,43 5.7 67 ing) mg/dm 3) 34 At Dubrovka UA0107/02 risk 35 Dubrovk UA0107/03 At Dubrovka UA0107/02 19 195 2 a risk 36 BY/UA0107/ At Dubrovka 04 risk 37 Smolova BY/UA0108 Smolova BY/UA0108 29.1 116 2 № Risk Risk Risk Risk asses- asses- assess- assess- Len- sment sment on ment on ment on Cri- Area, Group River Group Code DelName DelCode gth on HM HM HCH HB, MZB teria km2 Type km ecological status

38 Dnieper 21620 At Chornobil' Dnieper UA01/02 UA01/09 10.4 4 4 risk zone 39 At Chornobil' Pripyat' UA0111/01 risk zone, 40 1143 At Chornobil' UA0109 Pripyat' 20.9 4 Pripyat' UA0111/03 00 risk zone, 41 At Chornobil' Pripyat' UA0111/04 risk zone, 42 UA011101/0 At Chornobil' Uzh 1 risk zone, 43 UA011101/0 At Chornobil' 808 Uzh UA010901 Uzh 2 14.9 3 risk zone, 0 44 At Chornobil' At Risk UA011101/0 risk zone, point Uzh 3 source 45 Chornobil Channel- Channel UA01090101 UA01110101 13 62 1 ' zone, 3 AWB 46 Uzh At Chornobil Uzh pritok UA01090102 UA01110102 6.1 95 1 pritok risk ' zone

47 Dnieper UA01/10 3312 HMWB UA01/03 Dnieper 20.3 4 48 Dnieper UA01/11 42 HMWB 49 Dnieper UA 01/12 33272 HMWB 50 Dnieper UA01/04 Dnieper UA01/13 32 3 4 HMWB 51 Dnieper UA01/14 HMWB 52 33627 HMWB 4 Dnieper UA01/05 Dnieper UA01/15 19.3 9 53 At risk At ‚high’ ES ‘high Risk point ’ ES source Cd (2,0 µg/dm 3), NH 4 (0,94 mg/dm 3) , Cu (0,003 Teterev µg/dm 3) , Teterev UA0110 SW 21 UA0114/02 16.0 410 2 COD (28,0 (2) mg 3 O2/dm ), Phenol (0.035 mg/dm 3), Cr (8,8 µg/dm 3), pH 8,64 54 ‘goo HMWB At Risk Zdvizh 177 3 d’ point Zdvizh UA11001 SW 20 UA11001 8,8 5 ES source 55 Hochevk 2 Hochevka UA011002 a UA011002 14,8 101 56 Zhidok UA0111/01 Zhidok UA0115/01 HMWB 35,1 172 2 57 Zhidok UA0111/02 Zhidok UA0115/02 HMWB 58 HMWB At Risk point 334 Irpen' UA0112 Irpen UA0117/01 31.6 3 source 0 59 UA0117/02 ‘mod HMWB Cd (2,0 Moderate Irpen' SW 18 e- µg/dm 3) , potential № Risk Risk Risk Risk asses- asses- assess- assess- Len- sment sment on ment on ment on Cri- Area, Group River Group Code DelName DelCode gth on HM HM HCH HB, MZB teria km2 Type km ecological status

rate’ DDT ES (0,0425 µg/dm 3) , NH 4 (1,42 mg/dm 3), Cu (0,003 µg/dm 3) 60 Irpen' UA0117/03 HMWB 61 UA0117/04 ‘mod HMWB SW 19 erate' Irpen' ES 62 Irpen' UA0117/05 HMWB 63 HMWB At Risk 2 point Bucha UA011201 Bucha UA011701 2.1 318 source 64 Gorenka UA011201 Gorenka UA011702 10.1 51 1 65 At Risk 2 point Rokach UA011203 Rokach UA011703 1.9 124 source

66 At < 70% At risk O2 risk Morpholo (4,4 Mod gical mg/dm 3),

erate Quality NH 4 Kozka ES Class 3-5 (28,25 Kozka UA011204 UA011704 13.3 161 2 SW 25 (river- mg/dm 3), channel aldrin straighten (0,012 ing) µg/dm 3), endrin 67 Desna UA0118/01 68 ‘high At risk Cd ‘high’ ES UA0118/02 Desna ’ ES (2,5 SW 12 µg/dm 3) 69 ‘goo At risk d’ ES BOD5 (2,43 844 3 UA0113/01 Desna 22.8 4 mg/dm ), 42 PO 4 (0,61 mg/dm 3), Cd (2,0 µg/dm 3), aldrin (0,02 UA0118/03 µg/dm 3), Desna SW 34 endrin 70 ‘goo At risk Cd ‚high’ ES d’ ES (1,5 µg/dm 3), NH 4 (0,65 mg/dm 3), Cu (0,005 Snov µg/dm 3) , 870 Snov UA011301 SW 6 UA011801 23.9 3 Pb (0,035 5 (2) µg /dm 3) , COD (36,4 mg 3 O2/dm ) 2013 BOD5 (1,97 № Risk Risk Risk Risk asses- asses- assess- assess- Len- sment sment on ment on ment on Cri- Area, Group River Group Code DelName DelCode gth on HM HM HCH HB, MZB teria km2 Type km ecological status

mg/dm 3), NH 4 (0,17 mg/dm 3), PO 4 (0,3 mg/dm 3) 71 At < 70% risk Morpholo gical Quality Zamglay UA011302 Zamglay UA011802 47.6 490 2 Class 3-5 (river- channel straighten ing) 72 Stryzhen' UA011303/01 Stryzhen UA011803/01 25.6 143 2 HMWB O2 (4,2 SW 27 mg/dm 3), BOD5 (2,9 mg/dm 3), NH4 (0,18 mg/dm 3), PO 4 (0,32 mg/dm 3), Cd (2,0 µg /dm 3), Fe (16,0 µg /dm 3), Zn (14,5 µg /dm 3) 73 UA011803/0 HMWB Stryzhen' 2 0. 8 157 UA011303/02 Stryzhen 2 74 UA011803/0 HMWB Stryzhen' 3 5.3 174 75 Desna UA0118/04 76 Desna UA0118/05 77 Desna UA0118/06 78 Desna UA0118/07 79 Desna UA0118/08 80 At Point and At risk Cd ‘moderate 864 risk diffuse (2,0 ’ ES UA0113/02 Desna 49.6 4 26 sources of µg/dm 3), pollution NH 4 (1,75 from city mg/dm 3) , UA0118/09 Desna Chernigiv COD (46,0 SW 13 mg 3 O2/dm ), Phenol 0,002 mg/dm 3) 81 At Several risk impound ments are in place and affect UA011304/01 Belous 40.1 602 2 >30% of the overall UA011805/0 water 1 body Belous SW 8 length № Risk Risk Risk Risk asses- asses- assess- assess- Len- sment sment on ment on ment on Cri- Area, Group River Group Code DelName DelCode gth on HM HM HCH HB, MZB teria km2 Type km ecological status

82 ‘poor BOD5 ’ ES (0,56 mg/dm3), Cd (2,0 UA011805/0 µg/dm 3), 2 Fe (18,0 Belous SW 28 µg/dm 3), 83 HMWB NH4 (0,15 Low of mg/dm 3), UA011805/0 WWTP Zn (20,0 3 Chernigy µg/dm 3) Belous SW 29 v 84 UA011805/0 At < 70% NH 4 (0,21 4 risk Morpholo mg/dm 3), SW 30 ‘mod gical Cd (2,0 erate’ Quality µg/dm 3), ES Class 3-5 Fe (17,0 (river- µg/dm 3), channel Zn (17,5 straighten µg/dm 3), ing) hexachloro benzene (0,1350 Belous µg/dm 3) 85 At < 70% risk Morpholo gical Belous Belous pritok UA01130401 UA01180501 20.7 79 1 Quality pritok Class 3-5 (interrupti on) 86 Svishen' UA01130402 Svishen' UA01180502 19.9 104 2 87 At risk Cd ‚high’ ES ‘high (2,5 2 ’ ES µg/dm 3), UA011805/0 NH 4 (1,52 Belous UA011304/02 Belous 5 9.2 700 mg/dm 3) 88 HMWB At Risk Poor Cd (2,5 potential µg/dm 3) , DDT (0,032 µg/dm 3), Vzdvizh NH 4 (2,04 Vzdvizh UA011305 UA011806 21.6 482 2 SW5 mg/dm 3) , BOD5 (3,14 mg/dm 3), COD (26,3 mg 3 O2/dm ) 89 ‘goo At risk Cd ‚good’ ES d’ ES (1,5 µg/dm 3), NH 4 (1,08 Vereb mg/dm 3) , Vereb UA011306 UA011807 32.6 209 2 SW4 Cu (0,004 µg/dm 3), COD (32,3 mg 3 O2/dm ) № Risk Risk Risk Risk asses- asses- assess- assess- Len- sment sment on ment on ment on Cri- Area, Group River Group Code DelName DelCode gth on HM HM HCH HB, MZB teria km2 Type km ecological status

90 UA011808/0 UA011307/01 1 Rudka Rudka 1 13.7 43 91 UA011808/0 UA011307/02 2 Rudka Rudka 2 2.5 149 92 UA01180801 1 Zheved' UA01130701/01 Zheved /01 6 43 93 UA01180801 2 Zheved' UA01130701/02 Zheved /02 11.1 102 94 Smolyank Smolyan 2 a UA011308 ka UA011809 15.7 258 95 ‘goo At risk Good d’ ES Cd potential (2µg/dm 3) , hexachloro benzene (0,08 µg/dm 3) , DDT (0,0687 Desna 869 Desna UA0113/03 UA0118/10 29.9 4 µg/dm 3), SW 10 05 NH 4 (1,35 mg/dm 3), BOD5 (1,09 mg/dm 3), Cu (0,003 µg/dm 3) , COD (26,0 mg 3 O2/dm ) 96 UA011810/0 1 Mesha UA011309/01 Mesha 1 13.8 67 97 Channel- UA01181001 AWB 2 Channel UA01130901 4 /02 31.6 125 98 At risk , ‘Moderat ‘mod NH 4 (0,96 e’ ES erate’ mg/dm 3) , ES BOD5 (3,34 Mesha UA011810/0 mg/dm 3) , Mesha UA011309/02 19.1 271 2 SW 23 2 Cu (0,002 µg/dm 3) , suspended matter (33,4 mg/dm 3) 99 ‘goo At risk d’ ES BOD5 (1,82 874 3 UA0113/04 Desna 7.8 4 mg/dm ), UA0118/11 99 PO4 (0,7 Desna SW 32 mg/dm 3) 100 Desna UA0118/12 101 UA011811/0 1 Gastusha UA011310/01 Gastusha 1 7.8 68 102 Gastusha Gastusha UA01181101 UA01131001 28.5 143 2 pritok pritok /03 103 UA011811/0 2 Gastusha UA011310/02 Gastusha 2 14.8 303 № Risk Risk Risk Risk asses- asses- assess- assess- Len- sment sment on ment on ment on Cri- Area, Group River Group Code DelName DelCode gth on HM HM HCH HB, MZB teria km2 Type km ecological status

104 Channel- AWB 2 Channel UA011311 5 UA011812 19.4 124 105 Not 877 4 at Desna UA0113/05 Desna UA0118/13 12.5 04 risk 106 ‘poor HMWB Cd (2,0 MEP ’ ES µg/dm 3), hexachloro benzene (0,08 µg/dm 3) , NH 4 (1,33 Oster Oster UA011312 UA011813 29.3 194 2 mg/dm 3), SW3 BOD5 (1,1 mg/dm 3) , Cu (0,002 µg/dm 3) , COD (34,0 mg 3 O2/dm ) 107 ‘good’ At Risk Oster Oster UA011312 UA011813 29.3 194 2 ES point SW 15 source 108 ‘goo At risk d’ ES BOD5 (3,15 mg/dm 3), PO 4 (0,68 mg/dm 3), 4 Cd (2,0 µg/dm 3), Fe (17 µg/dm 3), Desna 879 Zn (24,5 Desna UA0113/06 SW 26 UA0118/14 13.8 86 µg/dm 3) 109 Channel- AWB 2 Channel UA011313 6 UA011818 21.3 139 110 Desna UA0118/15 884 UA0113/07 Desna 26.1 4 111 Desna UA0118/16 71 112 UA011814/0 Lubich 1 UA011314/01 Lubich 17.7 147 2 113 UA011814/0 Lubich 2 114 At Several At risk ‚good’ ES risk impound NH 4 (1,56 ‘mod ments are mg/dm 3) , erate’ in place BOD5 Lubich ES and affect (4,45 Lubich pritok UA01131401 pritok UA01181402 12.1 67 1 >30% of mg/dm 3), SW 16 the COD (46,0 overall mg 3 water O2/dm ) , body Cu (0,003 length µg/dm 3) 115 UA011814/0 2 Lubich UA011314/02 Lubich 3 2.4 217 116 Desha Desha 1 pritok UA011315 pritok UA011815 14.6 71 117 UA0118/17 889 At more than At risk Cd ‘good’ES Desna UA0113/08 Desna 25.6 4 SW 17 01 risk 70% of (1µg/dm 3), № Risk Risk Risk Risk asses- asses- assess- assess- Len- sment sment on ment on ment on Cri- Area, Group River Group Code DelName DelCode gth on HM HM HCH HB, MZB teria km2 Type km ecological status

‘mod overall DDT erate’ water (0,074 ES body µg/dm 3) , length is Cu (0,002 allocated µg/dm 3), to Phenol Morpholo (0,0017 gical mg/dm 3), Quality NH 4 (0,47 Class 3-5 mg/dm 3), Zn (16 1µg/dm 3), Cr (7 µg/dm 3), Mn (44 µg/dm 3) 118 At more than At risk risk 70% of BOD5 ‘mod overall (4,25 erate' water mg/dm 3), body PO 4 (0,67 UA0118/18 length is mg/dm 3), Desna SW 35 allocated Fe (14 to µg/dm 3) Morpholo gical Quality Class 3-5 119 Channel- 2 Channel-7 UA011316 7 UA011816 17.4 108 AWB 120 At At risk risk BOD5 (4,2 ‘mod mg/dm3), erate’ NH 4 (0,43 Dnieper BY/UA01/06 UA01/16 4 mg/dm 3), PO 4 (0,48 mg/dm 3), Dnieper 4252 Zn (11,5 SW 36 13.1 91 mg/dm 3) 121 Possibly At Risk Dnieper point source

Upper Dnieper lakes WBs

Surface DelName Group DelCode Category DelCode Criteria Depth, m area, km 2

Pakulka Reservoir UAL020102 HMWB 2.35 3-15 UAL020101 Pakulka Reservoir UAL020103 HMWB 1.10 3-15

Pakulka Lake UAL020101 Possible art risk 1.23 3-15 UAL020102 zaliv Chertoroy Lake UAL020117 At risk 3.70 3-15 Surface DelName Group DelCode Category DelCode Criteria Depth, m area, km 2

Voropaevsky zaliv Lake UAL020111 At risk 1.20 3-15

Almaznoe Lake UAL020113 At risk 2.10 3-15 zaliv Verblud Lake UAL020114 At risk 1.20 3-15

Kievskoe UAL020103/01 Reservoir UAL020104/01 HMWB, R 30.30 <3

Kievskoe UAL020103/02 Reservoir UAL020104/02 HMWB, R 68.40 3-15

Kievskoe UAL020103/03 Reservoir UAL020104/03 HMWB, R 62.70 3-15

Staraya Desna Lake UAL020108 At risk 0.80 <3 UAL020104 Ovrut Lake UAL020112 0.50 <3

Zhavinka Pond UAL020106 AWB 1.00 <3 UAL020105 Zhavinka Pond UAL020107 AWB 1.00 <3

Chernoe UAL020106 Lake UAL020105 1.30 <3

Annex 2.2.

Schematic map of the destruction of the shores of the Kiev reservoir

2.3.

Radioactive condition of surface water

Радіаційний стан поверхневих вод На території зони відчуження і зони безумовного ( обов ’язкового ) відселення , розповсюдження радіонуклідів за межі ЗВ відбувається переважно водним шляхом (близько 90 %), моніторинг за радіаційним станом поверхневих вод здійснюється більш ніж у 40 пунктах . Особлива увага приділяється р. Прип ’ять , через яку здійснюється надходження радіонуклідів з території ЗВ до Київського водосховища . Середні та максимальні значення вмісту 90Sr у воді р. Прип ’ять у створі м. Чорнобиль склали 110 Бк /м3 та 390 Бк /м3 відповідно , 137Cs – 50 та 150 Бк /м3, що не перевищує встановлені нормативним документом ДР -2006 допустимі рівні вмісту радіонуклідів для питної води (2000 Бк /м3). Винос 90Sr з водою р. Прип ’ять у створі м. Чорнобиль в 2000-2009 роках складав від 1,4 до 3,7 ТБк за рік , 137Cs – від 0,5 до 1,7 ТБк . В 2010 р. значення виносу цих основних дозостворюючих радіонуклідів склали : 90Sr – 2,21 ТБк , 137Cs – 0,87 ТБк . За межами ЗВ сформувалось 43 % виносу 90Sr та 84 % – 137Cs. У воді малопроточних та замкнених водойм вміст 90Sr досягав 56000-100000 Бк /м3 ( оз . Азбучин , Глибоке ), 137Cs – до 100000 Бк /м3 ( відвідний канал ІІІ черги ЧАЕС ). Регулярно проводився відбір проб на вміст радіонуклідів у стічних водах КОС м. Чорнобиль ( випуск в р. Уж ). За результатами моніторингу , сумарна питома активність 137Cs та 90Sr в стічних водах була близькою до результатів останніх років і не перевищувала контрольне значення для сум iші цих рад iонукл iдiв, встановлене на рівні 3700 Бк /м3. Переважали значення 200-400 Бк/м3, а максимальне значення не перевищило 1200 Бк /м3. Моніторинг вмісту радіонуклідів проводиться по трьох водоносних комплексах – четвертинному (138 свердловин ), еоценовому ( водозабір ЧАЕС , м. Прип ’ять ) та сеноман - нижньокрейдовому ( водозабір м. Чорнобиль та міський водопровід ). Забруднення еоценового та сеноман -нижньокрейдового комплексів достовірно не зафіксовано . Вміст 137Cs та 90Sr у воді водозаборів ЧАЕС та м. Чорнобиль не перевищувала 10 Бк /м3 ( ДР -2006 для питної води становить 2000 Бк /м3). Суттєвими локальними джерелами радіоактивного забруднення підземних вод четвертинного водоносного комплексу залишаються пункти тимчасової локалізації радіоактивних відходів ( ПТЛРВ ). В підземних водах цих районів спостерігається постійне перевищення ДКВ для 90Sr у 20-50 разів ( ДКВ становить 10000 Бк /м3) – фактично водовміщуючі породи наповнені водою з характеристиками рідких радіоактивних відходів ( ОСПУ -2005, додаток 15). Як і в минулі роки , максимальні значення об ’ємної активності 90Sr зафіксовані спостережними свердловинами на ПТЛРВ “ Рудий ліс ” в межах старої Будбази та району озера Азбучин – відповідно 240000 Бк /м3 та 87000 Бк /м3. При цьому значення 137Cs досягали 100-500 Бк /м3. Поза площами захоронень радіоактивних відходів переважна більшість значень вмісту 90Sr знаходяться в межах 100–400 Бк /м3, 137Cs – 20–40 Бк /м3. Радіаційний стан ґрунтових вод в межах ПЗРВ “ Буряківка ”, “ Підлісний ”, “3-я черга ЧАЕС ” відзначається певною сталістю без виражених тенденцій зростання вмісту 90Sr як основного забруднювача . У виміряних пробах вміст 90Sr змінювався від 200 до 900 Бк /м3. На ПЗРВ Буряківка в окремих свердловинах зафіксовано підвищення вмісту 90Sr.

Annex 3.1

Recreation areas in Kyiv (according to municipal enterprise "Pleso")

Annex 4.1 Recommended List of Standards and Guidelines ISO 10870: 2012 Water quality - Guidelines for the selection of sampling methods and devices for benthic macroinvertebrates in fresh waters (ISO 10870:2012).

ISO 5667-1: 2007 – Water quality - Sampling - Part 1: Guidance on the design of sampling programmes and sampling techniques (ISO 5667-1:2006)

ISO 14996: 2007 – Water quality - Guidance on assuring the quality of biological and ecological assessments in the aquatic environment.

ISO 8689-1: 2000 – Water quality - Biological classification of rivers - Part 1: Guidance on the interpretation of biological quality data from surveys of benthic macroinvertebrates. (ISO 8689- 1:2000).

ISO 16150:2012 – Water quality - Guidance on pro-rata Multi-Habitat sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates from wadeable rivers.

ISO Project AQEM, 2002. Manual for the application of the AQEM System (Asterics 3.3.1, www.aqem.de)

EC, 2003. Guidance Document No. 7 Monitoring under the Water Framework Directive, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

ISO 15843:2010 Water quality. Guidance standard on determining the degree of modification of river hydromorphology, CEN, 2010.

ISO 14614:2004 Water Quality - Guidance standard for assessing the hydromorphological features of rivers, CEN, 2004.

ISO Water Sampling Standards 5667 (series).

Annex 7.1. Basic and additional measures due to different groups of water bodies and environmental objectives

The combination of basic and Water status– 2021 Environmental objectives additional measures Water bodies that have Need for setting environmental • Identify key actions on the basis of high (excellent) or objectives and determining measures other EU Directives and national good status in 2021 to maintain water status on six-year legislation that would ensure the cycle of planning until 2033 and maintenance of water status without beyond further deterioration Water bodies that Need for setting environmental goals • Definition of soft additional measures have: in the first planning cycle (= by to ensure the compatibility of the WFD (i) the risk of failing 2027) : by 2027, particularly in relation to the environmental (i) have the WFD-compliant monitoring and assessment of status, objectives in 2021 or assessment of the status or but also in respect of other aspects (ii) a moderate status (ii) to achieve good status by 2027 which provide the WFD- compatibility in 2021 (for example, technical capabilities; legal framework; inter calibration). • Focus on the basic measures of the high priority that are feasible financially and technically, with a focus on EU Directives: on urban waste water treatment, nitrates, drinking water and habitats Water bodies that Need for setting environmental goals • Identification of the main measures to have: in the first planning cycle (= by achieve environmental objectives by (i) the risk of failing 2027) : 2033. the environmental (i) have the WFD-compliant • Further identification of soft and other objectives in 2021 or assessment of the status or additional measures to ensure the (ii) poor status in (ii) to achieve moderate status by WFD-compatibility except those that 2021 2021and good status by 2027 have been implemented by 2027

Water bodies that Need for setting environmental goals • Identification of the basic measures to have: in the first planning cycle (= by achieve these environmental objectives (i) the risk of failing 2027) : • Further identification of soft and other the environmental (i) have the WFD-compliant additional measures to ensure the objectives in 2021 or assessment of the status or WFD-compatibility except those that (ii) bad status in (ii) to achieve poor status by 2027; have been implemented by 2033 2021 moderate or good by 2033 and to ensure good status in 2039