Small Stream Risk Score – Aims and Objectives

Martin McGarrigle

EPA, Castlebar

15 December 2005

Talk Outline

SSRS What it can do What it can’t do

Advantages of the Approach Monitoring Programmes Programmes of Measures (PoM)

Logistics Example River Water Body

Costs and Benefits Rolling it out beyond the WRBD?

Small Stream Risk Score - Capabilities

The SSRS Can:

tell if a stream is at risk of failing to meet ‘Good Status’

on the basis of its macroinvertebrates Benthic Invertebrates are one of four key biological quality elements for

rivers listed in Annex V

The One Out – All Out rule states that if just one BQE fails then the site

fails as a whole

If a number of small tributaries of a larger water body fail on the basis of

macroinvertebrates then the water body as a whole is ‘at risk’

Measures are then required to improve water status

Small Stream Risk Score - Capabilities

The SSRS Cannot: State that a stream is ‘not at risk’

Benthic Invertebrates are only one of four key biological quality

elements for rivers listed in Annex V

It’s a simple assessment and even if the Macroinvertebrates

appear satisfactory other elements may not be satisfactory

It should not be used to assess Status (sensu WFD)

Assessment of Status requires a wider suite of biological and

physico-chemical elements – PS, nutrients, hydromorphology

Advantages of the SSRS Approach – Monitoring

WFD ‘Further Characterisation’ of river water bodies 2/3 of all RWBs do not have current monitoring data

Our Risk assessment here is based on models Surveillance Monitoring is required in part to ‘supplement and validate’

these risk assessments BUT all sites in SM require Priority Substance Analysis (€20k per site)

Reducing requirements for ‘Supplementing and Validating Risk Assessment in Characterisation Report (WFD Art 5)

Improved Surveillance Monitoring Programme

Overall RWB Risk Assessment

National Overall Rivers Risk Assessment (%)

At risk (1a)29%

not at risk (2b)16%

probably not at risk (2a)

20%

Probably at Risk (1b)35%

National Overal Rivers Risk Assessment

1297

1557

879734

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

At risk (1a) Probably at Risk(1b)

probably not atrisk (2a)

not at risk (2b)

Risk category

No

. of

wat

er b

od

ies

A major focus for Surveillance Monitoring

National Overal Rivers Risk Assessment

1297

1557

879734

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

At risk (1a) Probably at Risk(1b)

probably not atrisk (2a)

not at risk (2b)

Risk category

No

. o

f w

ate

r b

od

ies

Overall RWB Risk Assessment

If we succeed in reducing number of proposed SM sites by 70 to 80: Savings of €1.5M pa nationally

If we assume that 5 or 6% of 1b and 2a sites have to be included in SM Programme for Supplementing and Validating Risk Assessment

What if? - SSRS Reduces Number of 1b and 2a RWBs

2585

664484

734

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

At Risk (1a) Probably at Risk (1b) Probably not at Risk (2a) Not at Risk (2b)

Risk Category

What if SSRS can place many more RWB into 1a ‘definitely at risk’?

Advantages of the SSRS Approach - Monitoring

ALL SM sites must have Priority Substances Analysis (monthly in one year of 3-year cycle)

Cost of ~€20k per site just for PS Distorts SM Programme which has other important purposes too:

Long-term trend monitoring Providing a representative network of overall surface water status

SSRS can provide further characterisation to reduce the need for SM to ‘supplement and validate’ risk assessments

A technical quasi-legal point but the EU can be very strict on the legal niceties of directives

SSRS provides a method of further characterisation to legitimately reduce the burden of SM and help to focus it on more productive purposes.

Advantages of the SSRS Approach - SM

EU requires supplementing and validation of risk assessments in SM Programme

Uncertain risk => a need for surveillance monitoring By reducing uncertainty we can reduce the number of sites to be

included in the SM Programme for this purpose SSRS can place many ‘probably at risk’ water bodies into the

‘definitely at risk’ category with a single sample The alternative approach is to undertake considerable chemical

monitoring But June 2006 deadline for Monitoring Programme Design

National Regulations require EPA to submit programme design on 22 June EU Reporting Sheets by 22 March 2007

Advantages of the SSRS Approach - PoM

SSRS surveys can support PoMs Accurate pinpointing of problem areas in River Waterbodies Assisting with water quality surveys - pinpointing areas of

diffuse & point source pollution in catchments In the long term this is a more important objective of SSRS Success of WFD critically dependent on PoM success Poorly focussed or vague general PoMs will result in failure

of main aims of WFD Accurate pinpointing of sources of problems is the key to

success SSRS potential to provide highly focussed results

Grid-based P loading modelby grid cell (Produced by ERBD Henning Moe)

Athboy

•Darker shades imply greater ‘risk’ of P Loss.

•Meath CoCo propose to ‘walk’ these streams.

•SSRS could be very useful in a case like this in confirming that they are ‘at risk’

Example from ERBD - Meath

Advantages of the SSRS Approach - PoM

Stream order breakdown HA34 Moy Catchment

Order Length % Length Cumulative %1 2058 51.6 51.62 1028 25.8 77.43 493 12.4 89.84 220 5.5 95.35 143 3.6 98.96 23 0.6 99.47 22 0.6 100.0

Total: 3987 100.0

Order Length % Length Cumulative %1 2058 51.6 51.62 1028 25.8 77.43 493 12.4 89.84 220 5.5 95.35 143 3.6 98.96 23 0.6 99.47 22 0.6 100.0

Total: 3987 100.0

•If the risk of pollution is proportional to length of river bank

•1st and 2nd Order Streams comprise >77% of bank length in Moy Catchment

•PoM which ignore smaller streams are gravely at risk of failing to meet WFD requirements

•Even though we don’t have to monitor in catchments <10km2 we may fail to deliver on ultimate objective.

•Proposition/Hypothesis:

SSRS Logistics – select a water body of uncertain risk

‘Probably At Risk’ RWB near Foxford:

Code 34_3552

SSRS Logistics – Depict Stream Network

Stream Network

SSRS Logistics – Intersect Road and Stream Network

Stream Network

+

Road Network

SSRS Logistics – Select Potential Sampling Points

Approx. 17 road access points to 1st and 2nd order streams in this water body

5km

SSRS Logistics – SSRS Assessment puts some ‘at risk’

If 12 sites are sampled and e.g. 3 Sites are at risk -Then the Water Body as a whole is at risk.

5km

Another Example: Lough Talt Catchment Waterbody

~16 access points to 1st and 2nd Order Streams

A Lough Conn Tributary

A Lough Conn Tributary

~ 12 Access points

SSRS Logistics - Nationally

4000+ RWBs in total If say an average of 6 sites to be surveyed in each 6 x 4000 = 24,000 samples 20 people trained in WRBD I average 8 to 10 full Q-Value Assessments per day When up to speed operators of SSRS should be able to do 10 to 12

sites per day – say two water bodies per day Thus 4000 water bodies will require approx 2000 man days Thus each of the 7 RBDs will require ~ 300 person-days to complete

the SSRS survey of ALL RWBs If we only concentrate on 1b and 2a perhaps 200 days required per

RBD If 10 people per RBD trained four to five weeks between now and April

required - plus time to become proficient with SSRS

SSRS Logistics - WRBD

There are ~822 risk category1b and 2a RWBs in the WRBD Thus, 82 days required = 4 days work for 20 people if each

person does 10 sites per day - to cover just the 1b and 2a RWBs

8 days required if working in teams of two If 10 people taking part it will take longer

SSRS Logistics - Timescale

Most useful done in Winter/Spring months Expect most sensitive macroinvertebrates If stoneflies missing from stoney streams => at risk June 22 Deadline for Monitoring Programme Definition Initial SSRS survey should be completed by late April Can we train sufficient people to undertake the survey? Aisling Walsh has trained 20+ people for WRBD in last 6 weeks Allow time to become familiar with the SSRS and taxonomy before

they will be fully productive – say two to three weeks depending on the operator

Train Trainers and repeat process in other RBDs?

SSRS Logistics - Costs

Time is required in the field – staff availability Equipment costs not excessive

Most should be standard in LAs and Fisheries Boards

GPS, pond nets and some other items may have to be purchased but not excessively expensive

Investigative teams should already be familiar with pollution surveys

QC costs – one in 25 samples initially to be returned to QC Co-ordinator for confirmation of identifications

Taxonomic requirement not that onerous compared with full Q-Values, for example, but it’s essential that stoneflies separated from mayflies, etc.

Long term value in adding SSRS to pollution control armory

SSRS Logistics - Safety

Safety Issues should be covered by normal Safety Statements Small streams Road access Gloves – leptospirosis, etc. Life jackets if working alone Eye protection for access in overgrown streams Mobile phone

SSRS Rollout?

If RBDs convinced that SSRS can benefit them How do we roll it out to meet the initial June 2006 deadline for the

Monitoring Programme design? Train trainers Nominate one or more experienced biologists to become trainers They train staff from LA, Fisheries, NPWS, etc If sufficient people programme can be completed rapidly Not a once off programme

SSRS can be used on an ongoing basis in support of PoMs Also useful in Investigative Monitoring

Need to prioritise the time for staff Costs for SM will be reduced and PoMs will be more effective