Water Services National Training Group

11 th Annual Conference 6 th September 2007 WSNTG Annual Conference September 2007

Water Framework Directive Monitoring Implications for Local Authorities

Seán Ó Breasail Project Co-ordinator South Western River Basin District WSNTG Annual Conference September 2007

Water Framework Directive

Maintain “high status” of waters where it exists, preventing any deterioration in the existing status of waters and achieving at least “good status” in all waters by 2015.

Manage water bodies in a way that protects ecosystems and habitats.

Involve stakeholders – community groups, public representatives, state agencies, trade organisations, and the general public.

Water Framework Directive

For surface waters • “high ecological status” means that “quality elements show little or no effects of human activity compared to undisturbed conditions” • “good ecological status” means “quality elements show only slight changes caused by human activity compared to undisturbed conditions”.

Water Framework Directive

• For groundwater good status must be achieved for quantity and water chemistry .

Good surface water status equals good ecological status and good chemical status HUMAN IMPACT pass WFD fail WFD Any WFD Monitoring site with Q < 4 requires investigative monitoring

Likely Status High Good Moderate Poor Bad Q Rating Equivalent Q4-5, Q5 Q4 Q3-4 Q3, Q2-3 Q2, Q1-2, Q1

Ecological Status

Biology (Annex V) General conditions (Annex VIII) Specific pollutants (Annex VIII) Hydromorphology elements (Annex VIII)

algae plants invertebrates fish high good moderate D.O. Phosphate etc pass fail Organo Organo halogens phosphate etc high good hydrology continuity morphology Chemical Status compliance with standards for Annex X substances and other EC Directives listed in Annex IX Arachlor Atrazine etc WFD Surface Water Classification Systems high good moderate poor bad pass fail one out all out rule

Water Framework Directive – Article 8 Monitoring of surface water status, groundwater status and protected areas

Member States shall ensure the establishment of programmes for the monitoring of water status in order to establish a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each river basin district:

Water Framework Directive – Article 8

- for surface waters such programmes shall cover: the

volume and level or rate of flow

to the extent relevant for ecological and chemical status - the

ecological and chemical status

Water Framework Directive – Article 8

- for groundwaters such programmes shall cover monitoring of the chemical and quantitative status,

Water Framework Directive – Article 8

- for protected areas the above programmes shall be supplemented by those specifications contained in Community legislation under which the individual protected areas have been established.

Water Framework Directive – Article 8

Protected areas include areas designated for

(i) abstraction of water

human consumption,

(ii)

protection of economically significant aquatic species

, e.g. shellfish, (iii)

recreational waters,

bathing waters, (iv)

nutrient-sensitive areas,

(v) protection of habitats or species

Water Framework Directive – Article 8 Monitoring of surface water status, groundwater status and protected areas Monitoring programme started on 22 nd December 2006

WFD Monitoring Monitoring of Surface Water, Groundwater & Protected Areas - WFD

Article 8: programmes shall cover -

Surface Water Monitoring

(Rivers, Lakes, Transitional & Coastal) Biological EPA, MI, CFB Hydromorphological LA, EPA Dangerous substances EPA Physio-chemical LA

Groundwater Monitoring

Quantitative LA, EPA Chemical EPA

Protected Areas Monitoring

In accordance with various Directives LA, EPA, NPWS

Monitoring

Surveillance - overall trend Operational Investigative

Monitoring

Surveillance Operational - performance of measures Investigative

Monitoring

Surveillance Operational Investigative- address problems and uncertainties

Surveillance monitoring

RBD

180 River monitoring sites and 76 Lake monitoring sites ERBD NBIRBD NWIRBD SERBD SHIRBD SWRBD WRBD

River monitoring sites Lake monitoring sites 15 6 5 1 20 20 33 46 17 30 7 31 25

Surveillance monitoring

Selection of sites and the wide range of parameters were determined by the text of the WFD. Biological quality elements General physico-chemical (12 times / year) Priority substances (12 times / year for one year in the cycle) EPA undertaking surveillance monitoring

Operational monitoring

Monitoring to check effectiveness of Programmes of Measures (PoMs)  Point Source Measures  Diffuse Source Measures Measures to protect High and Good Status Measures to bring rivers back to Good Status

Operational monitoring

Rivers ~ 2,500 sites ~ 1,300 biology only sites ~ 300 physico-chemical only ~ 900 physico-chemical and biological Lakes 226 sites

Operational monitoring

Frequency  General Chemistry times / year

minimum

of 4  Reduce frequency to free resources for Investigative Monitoring  Biology – once in three years but ‘bad status’ sites to be done annually

Operational monitoring

RBD

ERBD

River biological monitoring sites River physico chemical monitoring sites Lake monitoring sites 63 181 16

NBIRBD

31 35 5

NWIRBD

208 54 63

SERBD

126 409 5

SHIRBD

384 212 50

SWRBD

297

WRBD

202 94 24 221 63

WFD monitoring –v– previous monitoring –

SWRBD

Pre WFD No. of sampling sites No. of samples analysed per annum 503 3,380

WFD monitoring –v– previous monitoring –

SWRBD

Pre WFD WFD No. of sampling sites No. of samples analysed per annum No. of sampling sites No. of samples to be analysed per annum 503 3,380 124 ~2,000

WFD monitoring –v– previous monitoring –

SWRBD

Pre WFD WFD No. of sampling sites No. of samples analysed per annum No. of sampling sites No. of samples to be analysed per annum Investigative monitoring samples Total no. of samples to be analysed per annum 503 3,380 124 ~2,000 ~4,000 ~6,000

• • Operational monitoring sites • Surveillance monitoring sites Pre WFD physico-chemical sites

Investigative monitoring

Pollution Incidents Rolling catchment programmes  Biological risk assessment (SSRS)  Physico-chemical sampling EPA advises that one quarter of physico-chemical resources should be assigned to this programme

Investigative monitoring

Electronic networks to look at temporal variations in e.g. conductivity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen Remote sensing using aerial photography or satellite images

Investigative monitoring

Likely level of investigative monitoring required  There are approximately 2,700 WFD monitoring sites nationally located on main-stem rivers  1,015 sites designated < “good status”  ~230 impacted by diffuse pollution,  ~260 impacted by point sources  remainder no definite cause identified.

Investigative monitoring

Case Study – Cork County Council – rivers and lakes

 76 sites were identified as being < “good status”  28 impacted by point sources  26 impacted by diffuse pollution  22 had mixed sources of pollution.

Investigative monitoring

Investigative monitoring required upstream of diffuse and mixed sources of pollution Investigative monitoring also required upstream of sites impacted by multiple point sources

Investigative monitoring

Next steps following identification of areas requiring investigative monitoring  Undertake detailed desk study; gather data on water quality, farm surveys, IPPCs, Section 4s, planning files, etc.

 Using GIS, identify the probable source(s) of pollution.

 Develop micro-projects for each site, i.e. identify locations to be sampled (physico chemical / biological) upstream of the problematic site.

Investigative monitoring

• It was estimated, that for each problematic site, there would be a need to locate 10 I.M. sites upstream.

• IM sites for diffuse pressures require biological monitoring (one visit to each of 10 sites required) • IM sites for point sources and mixed pressures require physico-chemical monitoring, up to 8 site visits to get meaningful data.

Investigative monitoring

It was calculated that approximately 4,200 (some biological and some physico-chemical) samples would be required as part of the investigative monitoring programme. These are to be spread out over the 3 year RBMP period.

Small Streams Risk Score

SSRS was developed by EPA and WRBD as a quick biological tool. It uses invertebrates to make a rapid assessment in the field. It is not a method of determining water status.

Investigative monitoring

1,400 samples or SSRS tests / year  Sampling time – 580 hours  Analytical time – 1,300 hours  Management & reporting time – 680 hours     Staff costs Mileage – 10,000 miles = Consumables

Total Annual Cost

€73,200 €12,100 €17,700

€103,000

Investigative monitoring

Issues

• • • •

Staff time Laboratory capacity Cost Lifetime of programme

•

Investigative monitoring

Suggested approach:

• •

Interpretation of results &

in house

recommendation on measures

Summary

Monitoring will be more effective.

Significant demand on local resources RBD projects can assist investigative monitoring programmes.

Thanks

Rita McEvoy – Mott McDonald Dr Bernadette Ní Chatháin – RPS