Environmental Evaluation –

a SEPA Perspective

Dr Chris J Spray MBE

Director of Environmental Science

Glasgow University

13th September 2007

Outline of Presentation

a. Who are SEPA and what do we do?

b. How do we use data and statistics?

c. Current challenges?

a. Who are SEPA and what do we do?

Non-departmental public body set up by Environment Act 1995

Budget of £57m (05/06) 54% from Scottish

Executive Grant in Aid 46% from charging

schemes

22 offices

1150 staff

SEPA’s Corporate Vision

“To be an excellent environmental

regulator and a recognised and influential

authority on the environment”.

To be an excellent environmental regulator

What does it mean? Effective and efficient – fit for

purpose Apply regulations in a

proportionate, balanced, fair

and legally correct way Effective enforcement Responding to complaints/ incidents Base advice and decisions on sound science

and monitoring of the environment Promote best practice and influence operator performance Engagement and openness Provide guidance that is both flexible and consistent

To be a recognised and influential authority on the environment

What does it mean? Sample, monitor and assess

Scotland’s environment Provide clear, easy to understand,

consistent and accessible information Be credible, visible, effective and

efficient Provide expert advice based on

sound science and understanding of the environment

Build our internal knowledge Influence policy makers Leading to an improved Scottish

environment

Authority on the environment

State of Scotland’s

Environment Report Many good news stories Scotland has a fantastic

environment! Major challenges – human

health, biodiversity, local air quality, waste and resource use, climate change …present major opportunities

How we work: process and drivers

Sampling/monitoring

Analysis &verification

Interpretation

Reporting

External Internal

State of the environment

Drivers formonitoring

EU/ legislation

What? Why? Where? When? How?

Programme

How we work: complexity of science needed in decision making

Run off

Aqueousdischarge

Increased streptococci:

Strep throat, steptococcal

toxic shock syndrome, flesh

eating bacteria

Increased faecal coliforms:

Gastro-intestinal illnesses

SOURCERECEPTOR

PATHWAY

IMPACT

Economic – closing down of beaches, tourism affected, businesses affected.

Social – human casualties, loss of recreation.

Environmental – ecosystem affected.

Issues: % source apportionment, the cost of regulation, carrying capacity, precautionary principle

BATHING WATERS

b. How do we use (and abuse!) data and statistics

1. State of the Environment – Monitoring Networks

2. Compliance with regulatory standards – industrial performance

3. Investigations and projects – specific issues

4. KPI’s – monitoring and performance

5. Setting Boundaries – WFD targets

6. Reporting on Trends – to EU, to general public, to academia.

1. Monitoring Networks

National Environmental Monitoring System (NEMS)

Deals with 350,000 determinands per yearProgramme of planning, monitoring and reportingDeals with compliance, regulation and environmental samples

Environmental samples analysed

Freshwater Chemistry 15,900

Freshwater Biology 4,800

Marine Chemistry 5,800

Marine Biology 1,270

Microbiology 4,500

2. Compliance with Regulatory Standards

Bathing Beaches Industrial discharge consents Water abstraction Fish Farms

Marine Science in SEPADEPOMOD OUTPUT for FISH

CAGE CONSENTS

Continuous data Measurements

Advantages

Good Horizontal Resolution. System Can be Undulated to Give

Reasonable Horizontal and Vertical Resolution.

Can Cover a Large and Representative Area Easily and Efficiently

Disadvantages

Water Sampling and Electronic Measurements Difficult to Obtain Simultaneously.

Accuracy of Measurements Cannot be Confirmed Easily.

Cannot Obtain Good Vertical Resolution

Generates Large Data Sets

Marine Science in SEPA

3. Investigations and Projects

Chirnside Papermill

- location of the Papermill

ADMS 3.2 (Air Dispersion Modelling System)

ADMS 3.2 is a practical air dispersion model which allows a wide range of buoyant and passive releases to the atmosphere to be modelled either individually or in combination.

ADMS 3.2 uses an up to date description of the atmospheric boundary layer and can model short time scale fluctuations. This allows ADMS 3.1 to model odours.

The effect of buildings, terrain, and coastlines on dispersion can be taken into account.

ADMS 3.2 links to other software packages, such as SURFER, for easy and effective display.

ADMS 3.2 has been extensively validated against field data sets.

ADMS 3.2 REQUIREMENTS

Setup – General site details

Source – Stack dimensions and release

conditions

Meteorology – Weather conditions

Grids – Type and size of grid for output data

Output – Source averaging times

SETUP

Stack Height (m) Diameter (m) X(m) Y(m)

E1 18.0 0.05 385108 656310

E2 11.6 0.50 385098 656320

E5 16.7 0.46 385032 656293

E6 16.7 0.76 385026 656295

E7 17.4 1.20 385011 656292

E9 17.4 0.90 384978 656303

SOURCE

Stack Temp (°C) Vel (m s-1) Vol flow (m3 s-1)

E1 22 12 0.024

E2 22 12 2.356

E5 76 10.3 1.36

E6 72 8.6 3.799

E7 304 14.8 16.738

E9 53 10.9 6.185

Meteorology

ADMS formatted hourly sequential meteorological data was provided by the Met Office for the Boulmer weather station located in northern England (1999-2003).

f:\modell~1\ahlstr~1\boul9903.met

0

0

3

1.5

6

3.1

10

5.1

16

8.2

(knots)

(m/s)

Wind speed

0° 10°20°

30°

40°

50°

60°

70°

80°

90°

100°

110°

120°

130°

140°

150°160°

170°180°190°200°

210°

220°

230°

240°

250°

260°

270°

280°

290°

300°

310°

320°

330°340°

350°

1000

2000

3000

4000

The Model Grid

384600 384700 384800 384900 385000 385100 385200 385300 385400 385500 385600655900

656000

656100

656200

656300

656400

656500

656600

656700

656800

656900

RockcliffChestnut_Lodge

Chirnside_M ill

1279 561*

2

3 45

7

39

40G as_Boilerhouse

Com bo

G rid

Specified point

Build ing

Point or je t source

Results

384600 384700 384800 384900 385000 385100 385200 385300 385400 385500 385600 655900

656000

656100

656200

656300

656400

656500

656600

656700

656800

656900

1 2 7 9 5 6 1*

2

3 4 5 7

39

40 Gas_Boilerhouse Combo

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

384600 384700 384800 384900 385000 385100 385200 385300 385400 385500 385600655900

656000

656100

656200

656300

656400

656500

656600

656700

656800

656900

1279 561*

2

3 45

7

39

40G as_Boilerhouse

C om bo

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Long Term (annual average) (OUE m-3) odour concentrations from all stacks.

100% tile odour (daily average) (OUE m-3) from all stacks.

Results cont…

655900

656000

656100

656200

656300

656400

656500

656600

656700

656800

656900

384600 384700 384800 384900 385000 385100 385200 385300 385400 385500 385600

1 2 7 9 5 6 1*

2

3 4 5 7

39

40 Gas_Boilerhouse Combo

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

100.0% tile odour (15 minute average) (OUE m-3) from all stacks.

DiscussionFrom the results it can be seen that with all stacks operating odour concentrations of 19 OUE can be found immediately south west of the site. Near to Rockcliffe cottage the odour concentrations are around 6-7 OUE

Casella Stanger were contracted to carry out an odour survey at the site. They concluded that the six emission points released distinct odour (hedonic tone and intensity) at very low concentrations i.e. below 10 OUE.

No monitoring data available to validate the model results apart from odour observations made by residents at Rockcliffe Guesthouse.

By linking the odour observations made at Rockcliffe Guesthouse with the findings made by Casella Stanger it was possible to validate the model results.

Conclusions

The buildings and terrain do have an effect on the dispersion of the emissions at the site. Building effect and downwash was observed during a site visit.

With all stacks operating odour concentrations well in excess of the odour concentration of 1 OUE occurred at the site and at surrounding properties.

The predominant wind direction is from the south west with low velocity winds from the north east so maximum odour concentrations occurred to the SW of the site.

This modelling study has confirmed that E7 and E6 are the main contributors to the odour nuisance in the area and these stacks are currently in the process of being replaced.

These changes have already reduced the odour nuisance surrounding the site. This will bring the site more in line with the EC regulations where odourous emissions must be controlled.

4. KPI’s

Making sense from too much data Required response to indication trends,

infrastructure.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jan-06

Feb-06

Mar-06

Apr-06

May-06

Jun-06

Jul-06

Aug-06

Sep-06

Oct-06

Nov-06

Dec-06

Jan-07

Feb-07

Mar-07

Apr-07

May-07

Jun-07

Jul-07

Aug-07

Sep-07

Oct-07

Nov-07

Dec-07

% Formal <=14 days rolling average (12 Month)

% Formal <=14 days rolling average (6 Month)

% Formal <=14 days rolling average (3 Month)

% Formal <=14 days rolling average (TARGET)

FORMAL Within 14 Days

5. Setting Regulatory Boundaries and targets

WFD - Standards

- Intercallibration across Europe

- Intercallibration between different

data sets

WFD - the reason for it

WFD requires all our water bodies to be of good ecological status by 2015

No water bodies should deteriorate in status

Whole process must be based on sound science

For each surface For each surface water body; water body; ecologicalecologicalstatusstatus

HIGHIGHH

GOODGOOD

MODERATEMODERATE

POORPOOR

BADBAD

Pre

vent

det

erio

ratio

nGood status

Res

tore

WFD Objectives

Pre

ven

t

de

teri

ora

tio

n

Re

sto

re

GOODGOOD

BADBAD

GroundwaterGroundwaterstatusstatus

Quality element Transitional Coastal Rivers Lochs Groundwater

Priority substances and specific pollutants X X X X X

Angiosperms X X

Macroinvertebrates X X X X

Macroalgae X X

Physico-chemical parameters X X X X X

Phytoplankton X X X

Saltmarsh X X

Fish X tbc tbc

Diatoms X X

Macrophytes X X

Hydrology X X X X X

Morphology X X X X

What’s monitored where

Achievements

Environmental standards

For the first time, we have standards which:

- Are agreed at a UK level

- Have been widely consulted on with stakeholders

- All the standards have been designed to be relevant to ecological health and normative definitions

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

02

04

06

08

01

00

EQI

%

Type 1Type 1

High

PO4-P (ug/l)

N

0 50 100 150

01

02

03

04

0

Good

PO4-P (ug/l)

N

0 50 100 150

02

46

81

0

Achievements

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

FRP (mg l-1)

TD

I

Middle of high -proportion sensitive exactly as expected. Proportion sensitive exactly as expected.

EQI Proportions Sensitive and Insensitive Adjusted vs. ASPT EQI

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

11.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.9

22.12.22.32.42.52.62.72.82.9

3

0 0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1 1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

ASPT EQI

Ad

just

ed E

QI P

ropo

rtio

n

EQI_prop_sens_adj

EQI_prop_insens_adjusted

Linear (EQI_prop_sens_adj)

Linear (EQI_prop_insens_adjusted)

Ratio Sensitive/Insensitive Macroinvertebrate Taxa

6000+ sites in GB

Zone of overlap of proportions of sensitive and insensitive taxa =

GOOD

EQI Proportions Sensitive and Insensitive Adjusted vs. ASPT EQI

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

11.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.9

22.12.22.32.42.52.62.72.82.9

3

0 0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1 1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

ASPT EQI

Ad

just

ed E

QI P

rop

ort

ion

EQI_prop_sens_adj

EQI_prop_insens_adjusted

Linear (EQI_prop_sens_adj)

Linear (EQI_prop_insens_adjusted)

IS classification

WBMap

WBMap

WB Map

CCS(Central Classification System)

Phytoplankton Tool(Phytoplankton)

DALES(Phytobenthos)

LEAFPACS(Macrophytes)

WFD60(Benthic

InvertebrateFauna)

CPET(Chironomid

pupae Exuviae)

NS SHARE(Benthic Invertebrate Fauna)

HIFI(Fish Fauna)

DARES(Phytobenthos)

LEAFPACS(Macrophytes)

RIVPACS (Revised)(Benthic Invertebrate Fauna)

ARTIFICIALINTELLIGENCE

(BenthicInvertebrate

Fauna not until2009)

FAME(Fish Fauna)

HIFI(Fish Fauna)

RIVERS

GROUNDWATERQUANTITATIVE

GROUNDWATERCHEMICAL

(QUALITATIVE)

MImAS(MORPHOLOGY

Type andPressure)

CANAL

Composition andAbundance

BloomCharacteristics

PhytoplanktonBiomass

Composition/Abundance

AcceleratedGrowth

UndesirableDisturbance

BacterialTufts

Composition andAbundance

Composition/Abundance

DisturbanceRatio

Diversity ProfundalInverts

Acidification Chironomid pupalExuviae

NS SHARE(Fish Fauna)

SpeciesCompositionAbundance

DisturbanceSens. species Age

structure

SpeciesComposition

Composition /Abundance

AcceleratedGrowth

UndesirableDisturbance

BacterialTufts

Composition/Abundance

Composition/Abundance

Disturbance ratio

sensitive /insensitive taxa

Diversity

??????

Composition /Abundance

Type specificdisturbance

sensitivespecies

Agestructure

of fish

SpeciesComposition

WATERCHEMISTRY

EQS forpriority substances

ChemistryAnalysis

Priority Substances

HYDROLOGY(WFD48 Bands)

LF2K

CLAS LicensedAbstraction

Nitrate/phosphate data (WQ50)

Groundwatergroup recharge data

Groundwater groupreference data

LF2K

Pressures

Types

Macrophytes

WISE

GIS Lake Biological Status

HighGood

ModeratePoorBad

GW QuantitativeStatusGoodPoor

River Biological StatusHighGood

ModeratePoorBad

SW Chemical StatusGood

Failing to Achieve Good

ManualIntervention

Chemistry Surface Waterbody StatusHigh, Good, Moderate, Poor, Bad

GW ChemicalStatusGoodPoor

Hydro-Morphological

StatusHighGood

ModeratePoorBad

Overide Optionson Classification

Phytoplankton

Marine PlantToolkit

(Macroalgae,Angiosperms

Saltmarsh

BenthicInvertebrate

Fauna

Fish fauna(Estuaries Only

Hydromorphological

MARINE (Coastand Estuarine)

MarineBiological Status

HighGood

ModeratePoorBad

Composition andAbundance

BloomCharacteristics

PhytoplanktonBiomass

Composition andAbundance

Species Richness

Composition /Abundance

Type specificdisturbance

sensitivespecies

Agestructure

of fish

Composition /Abundance

Ration insensitive/sensitive taxa

Diversity

MorphologicalConditions

TidalRegime

LHS Data

HeavilyModified

Water Body

LAKES

OUTPUTS

‘Expert’Interpretation

Phase(Expected butloosely defined

at present)

Ecology Physico-chem EQSCanalType

latitudeFish, diatoms, phytoplankton

Canal EcologicalStatusHighGood

ModeratePoorBad

Canals

GROUNDWATER

WFD66 Wetlands

WFD66 EQS

Ground Waterbody Chemical StatusGood,Poor

WBMap

WBMap

WB Map (Monitoring Point/WB Conversion)

WBMap

WBMap

Ground Waterbody Quantative StatusGood, Poor

Hydrology Data

Ecology Surface Waterbody StatusHigh, Good, Moderate, Poor, Bad

Overall Surface Waterbody StatusHigh, Good, Moderate, Poor, Bad

Ecology Physico-chemical EQS

Ecological Physico-Chemical

StatusHigh, Good, Moderate,

Poor,Bad

WBMap

Common toall Surface Water

Media

WBMap

WBMap

WB Map

CCS(Central Classification System)

Phytoplankton Tool(Phytoplankton)

DALES(Phytobenthos)

LEAFPACS(Macrophytes)

WFD60(Benthic

InvertebrateFauna)

CPET(Chironomid

pupae Exuviae)

NS SHARE(Benthic Invertebrate Fauna)

HIFI(Fish Fauna)

DARES(Phytobenthos)

LEAFPACS(Macrophytes)

RIVPACS (Revised)(Benthic Invertebrate Fauna)

ARTIFICIALINTELLIGENCE

(BenthicInvertebrate

Fauna not until2009)

FAME(Fish Fauna)

HIFI(Fish Fauna)

RIVERS

GROUNDWATERQUANTITATIVE

GROUNDWATERCHEMICAL

(QUALITATIVE)

MImAS(MORPHOLOGY

Type andPressure)

CANAL

Composition andAbundance

BloomCharacteristics

PhytoplanktonBiomass

Composition/Abundance

AcceleratedGrowth

UndesirableDisturbance

BacterialTufts

Composition andAbundance

Composition/Abundance

DisturbanceRatio

Diversity ProfundalInverts

Acidification Chironomid pupalExuviae

NS SHARE(Fish Fauna)

SpeciesCompositionAbundance

DisturbanceSens. species Age

structure

SpeciesComposition

Composition /Abundance

AcceleratedGrowth

UndesirableDisturbance

BacterialTufts

Composition/Abundance

Composition/Abundance

Disturbance ratio

sensitive /insensitive taxa

Diversity

??????

Composition /Abundance

Type specificdisturbance

sensitivespecies

Agestructure

of fish

SpeciesComposition

WATERCHEMISTRY

EQS forpriority substances

ChemistryAnalysis

Priority Substances

HYDROLOGY(WFD48 Bands)

LF2K

CLAS LicensedAbstraction

Nitrate/phosphate data (WQ50)

Groundwatergroup recharge data

Groundwater groupreference data

LF2K

Pressures

Types

Macrophytes

WISE

GIS Lake Biological Status

HighGood

ModeratePoorBad

GW QuantitativeStatusGoodPoor

River Biological StatusHighGood

ModeratePoorBad

SW Chemical StatusGood

Failing to Achieve Good

ManualIntervention

Chemistry Surface Waterbody StatusHigh, Good, Moderate, Poor, Bad

GW ChemicalStatusGoodPoor

Hydro-Morphological

StatusHighGood

ModeratePoorBad

Overide Optionson Classification

Phytoplankton

Marine PlantToolkit

(Macroalgae,Angiosperms

Saltmarsh

BenthicInvertebrate

Fauna

Fish fauna(Estuaries Only

Hydromorphological

MARINE (Coastand Estuarine)

MarineBiological Status

HighGood

ModeratePoorBad

Composition andAbundance

BloomCharacteristics

PhytoplanktonBiomass

Composition andAbundance

Species Richness

Composition /Abundance

Type specificdisturbance

sensitivespecies

Agestructure

of fish

Composition /Abundance

Ration insensitive/sensitive taxa

Diversity

MorphologicalConditions

TidalRegime

LHS Data

HeavilyModified

Water Body

LAKES

OUTPUTS

‘Expert’Interpretation

Phase(Expected butloosely defined

at present)

Ecology Physico-chem EQSCanalType

latitudeFish, diatoms, phytoplankton

Canal EcologicalStatusHighGood

ModeratePoorBad

Canals

GROUNDWATER

WFD66 Wetlands

WFD66 EQS

Ground Waterbody Chemical StatusGood,Poor

WBMap

WBMap

WB Map (Monitoring Point/WB Conversion)

WBMap

WBMap

Ground Waterbody Quantative StatusGood, Poor

Hydrology Data

Ecology Surface Waterbody StatusHigh, Good, Moderate, Poor, Bad

Overall Surface Waterbody StatusHigh, Good, Moderate, Poor, Bad

Ecology Physico-chemical EQS

Ecological Physico-Chemical

StatusHigh, Good, Moderate,

Poor,Bad

WBMap

Common toall Surface Water

Media

Achievements

­0 25 50 75 10012.5

Miles

SEPA South West Area2002 River Water Classification

(Based on SEPA's Digital Rivers Network)

(c).Crown Copyright.SEPA licence GD0313G0019

Legend

OVERALL

Unclassified (Assumed A)

A1

A2

B

C

D

6. Reporting and Trends

EU, General Public, Academia, In-house.

Flood Watch issued at

18:28

Flood Warning issued at

12:50

Severe Flood Warning issued at

20:30

Peak at 15:45

c. Challenges 1

Are our networks representative?

20062007

Monitoring sites used for classification

Achievements

c. Challenges 1

Are our networks representative? What are real discriminatory powers? Are we measuring the right things? Can we tell trends from noise (climate or weather?)

Trends and Noise

c. Challenges 2

How to deal with changes in measurements and standards?

How to link data sets between organisations? Length of the records and variation over time? How best to deal with trends?

90 years Scotland Air Temp

c. Challenges 2

How to deal with changes in measurements and standards?

How to link data sets between organisations? Length of the records and variation over time? How best to deal with trends? How to deal with extremes?

Lossie Hydrograph 1990-2003

How to deal with Extreme Values?

Severe Flood Warning

Flood Warning

c. Challenges 2

How to deal with changes in measurements and standards?

How to link data sets between organisations? Length of the records and variation over time? How best to deal with trends? How to deal with extremes? How to deal with increasing variability and

uncertainty?

River Dee (Aberdeenshire)

c. Challenges 2

How to deal with changes in measurements and standards?

How to link data sets between organisations? Length of the records and variation over time? How best to deal with trends? How to deal with extremes? How to deal with increasing variability and

uncertainty? How to communicate all of this to those we

regulate and the public?

Flow Frequency Analysis and Return Periods