2 - Characterising Catchments - a shared approach. Jenny Deakin

Characterising catchments

A shared approach

J. Deakin, M. Archbold and D. Daly Catchment Science and Management Unit

With assistance from EPA colleagues and RPS consultants

Overview

1. Characterisation refresher 2. Preliminary risk screening results 3. Initial characterisation - Process, data sources, outcomes - 2 case studies 4. Outcomes of the Suir pilot assessment - subcatchment scale - catchment scale 4. National progress, looking forward

Characterisation?

1. Understanding water bodies Physical, chemical and biological aspects Functioning, ‘Source-pathway-receptor’ Linkages with other water bodies Impacts of human activities

2. Assigning the level of risk (of not meeting WFD objectives), for the purposes of prioritising and targeting measures

Steps in the Integrated Catchment Management Process 1 1. Build Partnerships

• Identify key stakeholders • Identify issues of concern • Conduct public outreach

2. Create and communicate a vision of ICM • For example: A healthy, resilient, productive and valued water

resource, that supports vibrant communities. 3. Characterise the Catchment

• Gather existing data and create a catchment inventory • Identify data gaps & collect additional data, if needed • Analyse data • Identify causes and sources of pollution • Estimate pollutant loads • Evaluate hydromorphological pressures • Undertake risk assessments

4. Undertake Further Characterisation • Collect and evaluate local information • Locate critical source areas (CSAs) • Undertake investigative monitoring • Undertake catchment walks • Estimate load reductions needed

5. Identify & Evaluate Possible Management Strategies • Evaluate existing measures • Get stakeholder input • Take account of ecosystem and geosystem services, water value,

pollution sources and CSAs • Develop possible management options • Undertake SEA and Habitats Directive Assessment, as appropriate • Undertake economic analysis • Rank the measures

6. Design an Implementation Programme • Set environmental objectives • Select appropriate mitigation measures • Develop an implementation schedule with milestones • Develop the monitoring component • Develop an engagement strategy • Identify technical & financial assistance needed • Prepare RBMP

7. Implement the River Basin Management Plan

• Prepare a work plan with short- and long-term outcomes • Implement the measures • Use metrics to track progress • Integrate with planning process • Conduct engagement, including awareness raising, consultation &

collaboration 8. Measure Progress and Make Adjustments

• Analyse trends and outcomes • Give feedback to stakeholders • Make adjustments, if necessary

Characterisation & Analysis Tools

GIS Databases Statistical

packages Numerical

models Flow estimations Load estimations Monitoring

Catchment Information

Tool

River Basin

Management Plan

Step 4: Further Characterisation

Step 3: Characterise the catchment

ICM Steps in the Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) Process (adapted from USEPA (2008)

Characterise catchments

Identify measures, plan

Implement measures

Monitor and evaluate

Report

WFD cycle

WFD 6-year cycle

What? Where? Why? How?

Characterisation Approach

Three TIERS of

risk characterisation so that the level of assessment is

appropriate for the risk posed

1: Preliminary risk screening 2: Initial characterisation 3: Further characterisation

WFD Characterisation Tiers

Objectives met

Not At RiskAd

ditio

nal m

easu

res

d/or

Increasing cost, resources, detail, confidence

1st : Preliminary Screening 2nd : Initial characterisation

3rd : Further characterisation

4933 Water bodies

590 Subcatchments 46 Catchments

1 National River Basin

District 2 International

RBDs

Monitor Report status

Assess risk

Prioritise measures

Plan Report to EU

Water management unit scales

Preliminary risk screening

Status Trend + Distance

to threshold Risk

GW SW

At Risk Review Not at Risk

1. Subcatchment delineation

• 590 subcatchments • 100-200 km2 • 3-15 WBs in each • Reviewed with LAs

Initial characterisation

2. Subcatchment stories • Work has commenced • Trialled the approach in

the Suir catchment

DRISH subcatchment 13 waterbodies • 5 At Risk • 5 Review • 2 Not at Risk • 1 Unassigned

CASE STUDY EXAMPLE

IE_SE_16D020100 Drish_040

(07-09) (10-12) T1 Pressures

Bio & Eco Poor Poor At risk Lisheen Moyne WWTP S4 Maher Quarry

Chem Status Trend Value T1

Ortho-P High D (N/N) 0.013 (F) H Not at risk

TON (N) Mod D (N/N) 2.764 (F) M

T Am (N) Good D (N/N) 0.187 (F) M

Tier 1 outcome At risk Change? No

Action Follow up on Peat and Lisheen Measures

Waterbody storyboard

Subcatchment storyboard

P concentrations low

Ammonia concentrations high

Biological Status Poor 2007-09 Poor 2010-12 (Poor 2013-15)

Information from the WFD App

Subsoils and risk Peat extraction

Preliminary load apportionment modelling Southern tributary

N load

P load

Pollution Impact Potential Maps (CSAs) GW SW

DRISH Actions

Ammonia from the peat Likely to be Less Stringent Objectives necessary

Further characterisation in the Breagagh (P) WWTP scheduled for upgrade Nov 2015 Investigative assessment: river channel; to look for key

pollution impacts and likely pressures Investigative assessment: High PIP P areas; to look for

agricultural pressures

Load reduction calculations for WWTP improvements Will the improvement in the plant achieve Good Status? What is needed upstream of the plant?

CLASHAWLEY subcatchment 7 waterbodies • 1 At Risk • 5 Review • 1 Not at Risk

CASE STUDY 2

Waterbody storyboard

16K050200 Killenaule_010

(07-09) (10-12) T1 Pressures

Bio Poor Poor At Risk WWTP Eco Poor Poor Chem Status Trend Value T1

Ortho-P (P) Poor Mod

D (N/N) D (N/N)

0.082 (F) 0.045 (F)

At Risk

TON (N) Mod Mod

D (N/N) D (N/N)

3.318 (F) 1.878 (F)

Tot Am (N) Good High

U (N/N) U (N/N)

0.042 (F) 0.02 (F)

T1 Risk At Risk Change No – At Risk Actions Review with LAs (focus on WWTP)

CLASHAWLEY High Pollution Impact Potential (PIP) for P being delivered via surface water pathways to the stream.

Pollution Impact Potential Map

(CSAs for P to SW)

CLASHAWLEY Summary/actions

LA had upstream and downstream monitoring which showed impacts upstream

High PIP P to SW in the area Tertiary treatment at the WWTP plant since 2002 Need to focus investigative assessment on

agricultural / small point source pressures.

Outcomes of the Suir assessment

Key actions: • 5 (of 29) main subcatchments need action • 39 (of 196) WBs flagged for investigative

assessments (many in the same subcatchments) • Specific issues highlighted, all related to P • Some measures already underway (e.g. WWTP

upgrades, liaising with farmers, etc) Key pressures implicated: • Not distinguishable (15), agriculture (11), forestry

(10), WWTPs (9), small point sources (7), industry (3) and diffuse urban (2)

Old RWB Risk Preliminary Risk Screening

Total 196 SW bodies Not at risk 17 (9%) Review 80 (41%) At risk 68 (34%) Unassigned 31 (16%)

New RWB Risk Updated Risk (following initial characterisation)

Total 196 SW bodies Not at risk 78 (40%) Review 44 (22%) At risk 58 (30%) Unassigned 16 (8%)

Repeat at catchment scale for groundwaters, transitional/coastal, protected areas

Transitional and Coastal WB story

• Eutrophication in the upper Suir estuary, impacting on Suir middle estuary. Others ok.

• P the limiting factor, but already < EQS • Significant P load reduction in the catchment in the

last 20 years • Further modelling work being undertaken at present

to quantify further load reductions needed, and identify possible source reduction options to target.

• 2027 objective likely

Groundwater and Protected Areas assessments still underway

Role of LAs (and other public bodies)

• Critical part of the process (the shared approach) • Contribute expertise, additional data and local knowledge • Provide the ‘boots on the ground’ for investigative

assessments • Liaise with local communities • Contribute the planning and enforcement frameworks

needed where necessary to achieve improvements • Have achieved, and are achieving, successes which

need to be counted as part of the wider WFD objectives

Therefore its important that we work together

National scale progress

110 subcatchments have been assessed Processes have been refined Meetings with 3 LAs to discuss Suir subcatchments Abstractions and discharges project underway Improved version of the PIP maps almost complete Improved version of the LAM in January Phase II WFD App development end Nov Turning our attention in the new year to objectives

and measures

Looking forward…

Building for the long term Targeted, weight of evidence approach The right measure in the right place Cooperation amongst public bodies, joint decisions Further development of models and tools Sharing information publically New community water engagement officers to

encourage community initiatives