WSNTG Annual Conference September 2007 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

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 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.

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. Water Framework Directive

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

Likely StatusQ Rating Equivalent HighQ4-5, Q5 GoodQ4 ModerateQ3-4 PoorQ3, Q2-3 BadQ2, Q1-2, Q1

Ecological Status algae plants invertebrates fish D.O. Phosphate etc Organo- Organo- etc halogens phosphate Biology (Annex V) General conditions (Annex VIII) Specific pollutants (Annex VIII) Hydromorphology elements (Annex VIII) Chemical Status compliance with standards for Annex X substances and other EC Directives listed in Annex IX hydrology continuity morphology high good moderate poor bad high good moderate pass fail pass fail high good Arachlor Atrazine etc one out all out rule WFD Surface Water Classification Systems

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

Biological Hydromorphological Dangerous substances Chemical Quantitative Surface Water Monitoring (Rivers, Lakes, Transitional & Coastal) Groundwater Monitoring Protected Areas Monitoring In accordance with various Directives Physio-chemical WFD Monitoring EPA, MI, CFBLA, EPA EPA LA EPALA, EPA LA, EPA, NPWS

Monitoring Surveillance Operational Investigative - overall trend

Monitoring Surveillance Operational Investigative - performance of measures

Monitoring Surveillance Operational Investigative - address problems and uncertainties

Surveillance monitoring 180 River monitoring sites and 76 Lake monitoring sites RBD ERBDNBIRBDNWIRBDSERBDSHIRBDSWRBDWRBD River monitoring sites Lake monitoring sites

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

Operational monitoring RBDERBDNBIRBDNWIRBDSERBDSHIRBDSWRBDWRBD River biological monitoring sites River physico- chemical monitoring sites Lake monitoring sites

WFD monitoring –v– previous monitoring – SWRBD 3, No. of samples analysed per annum No. of sampling sites Pre WFD

WFD monitoring –v– previous monitoring – SWRBD 3, No. of samples analysed per annum No. of sampling sites ~2, No. of samples to be analysed per annum No. of sampling sites Pre WFDWFD

WFD monitoring –v– previous monitoring – SWRBD 3, No. of samples analysed per annum No. of sampling sites ~2, No. of samples to be analysed per annum No. of sampling sites ~6,000~4,000 Total no. of samples to be analysed per annum Investigative monitoring samples Pre WFDWFD

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

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. Investigative monitoring

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. Small Streams Risk Score

1,400 samples or SSRS tests / year Sampling time – 580 hours Analytical time – 1,300 hours Management & reporting time – 680 hours Staff costs €73,200 Mileage – 10,000 miles = €12,100 Consumables €17,700 Total Annual Cost €103,000 Investigative monitoring

Issues Staff time Laboratory capacity Cost Lifetime of programme Investigative monitoring

Suggested approach: Desktop study & brief for fieldwork Fieldwork & presentation of results Interpretation of results & recommendation on measures in house contract in house Investigative monitoring

Monitoring will be more effective. Significant demand on local resources RBD projects can assist investigative monitoring programmes. Summary

Thanks Rita McEvoy – Mott McDonald Dr Bernadette Ní Chatháin – RPS