Presentation to Steering Group

1
Presentation to Steering Group June 2005
2

• Further Characterisation Phase

3
The WFD Programme
Location and boundaries of surface waters and
groundwaters Characterisation of surface
waters Reference conditions for surface
waters Characterisation of groundwater
bodies Analysis of pressures and
impacts Economic analysis of water use Register
of protected areas
Publish RBMP
Publish overview of significant water management
issues
Directive Entered into Force
2003
2009
2008
2006
2000
2004
2007
Monitoring programmes Annex V
operational Publish RBMP works programme
Location and boundaries of RBDs Competent
Authorities Administrative provisions
Publish draft RBMP
Source P. Duggan (DEHLG)
4
Risk Assessment The Next Steps
NOT AT RISK
AT RISK
2b Water Body not at risk and available
information is comprehensive and / or conclusive
2a Water Body probably not at significant
risk but available information could be improved
1b Water Body probably at significant risk
1a Water Body at significant risk
5
What is Further Characterisation?

• Develop the risk assessment process into rigorous
  scientific tools which support decision making
  (ie establish relationship between pressures
  status)
• Address the Gap Analysis issues
• Examine at risk water bodies so that
  scientifically based decision making tools can be
  developed that will stand up to scrutiny
• Refine low confidence category assessments

6
What is Further Characterisation?

• Provide input to the significant water issues
  report
• Inform monitoring requirements
• Provide more quantitative rationale for POM

7
Further Characterisation

• Further characterisation will include special
  studies equivalent to the anticipated
  agricultural mini-catchment studies (eg fieldwork
  and modelling exercises)
• Additional external studies can be funded from
  agricultural studies budgets
• RBD projects will champion aspects to develop the
  characterisation process
• RBD projects will apply further characterisation
  within their own RBD
• Further characterisation activities to be
  co-ordinated via NTCG (or sub group if necessary)

8
Tasks Assigned to SWRBD for Further
Characterisation

• Dangerous Substances
• Industries
• Municipal Regulation
• Marine Morphology
• AWBs and HMWBs
• Quarrying

9
Proposed Further Characterisation
Studies Coordination with other RBDs
10
Meeting with NTWG Carlow 23th May

• EPA, DEHLG, EHS-NI, CB, RBDs
• RBDs to prepare detailed ToR
• Small select steering groups for each element
• Appropriate Stakeholders to be identified
• Further characterisation will be used to
  classify waterbodies which in turn will lead to
  programmes of measures which will most likely
  impact stakeholders financially. Further
  Characterisation to be based on robust scientific
  research verified where possible by monitoring
  data

11

• FURTHER CHARACTERISATION
• SWRBD APPROACH

12
Objectives

• Investigate the uncertainty which exists
  concerning the designation of water bodies at
  risk
• Define a relationship between pressure and impact
  on water quality
• Redefine baselines/thresholds for water bodies at
  risk
• Optimise the design of the monitoring programme
• Optimise the programme of measures
• Identify possible special study areas

13
General Methodology
Article 5 Initial Characterisation
Stakeholders
Additional Data
Monitoring Programme
Classify Water Bodies
Establish Baselines
FURTHER CHARACTERISATION
Further Characterisation Tool
Steering Group Stakeholders
Programme of Measures
Monitoring Programme
Impact on Water Quality
14
Dangerous Substances

• Review Data / Data Gaps
• National Monitoring Programme
• Review information held on the EU-EPER
• Review info from EU in identifying Article 16
  priority hazardous substances
• Review IPC licence applications, Section 4
  licences, waste licences to compile inventory
• Verify inventory through questionnaire
• Review / Update existing data sets (Corine,
  FIPS,etc)

15
Dangerous Substances

• Review Data / Data Gaps
• Obtain sample results from AER submitted as a
  condition of IPC licensing
• Obtain results from sampling at LA landfill sites
• Obtain information from WTP and WWTp on chemical
  usage and chemicals in sludges.
• Obtain information on chemical usage in
  agriculture, forestry and aquaculture
• Obtain monitoring information from the MI from
  the OSPAR sites

16
Dangerous Substances

• Monitoring
• Expert review of output from the National
  monitoring programme
• Direct the work of the National Monitoring
  Programme review scheduled in November 05

17
(No Transcript)
18
Dangerous Substances

• Characterisation Tool
• Expert opinion
• Devise mechanism to obtain info on usage of
  Dangerous Substances ( AER data )
• Historical and contemporary research and
  publications ( COMMPS, REBECCA AQCESS )
• Monitoring
• GiS Mapping
• Special Studies if appropriate

19
Dangerous Substances

• Steering Group
• National Dangerous Substances Working Group
  members
• Department of Agriculture and Food, Pesticide
  Control Service
• EPA
• DEHLG
• EHS NI
• RBD Coordinator (CB)
• RBD Projects (SERBD, ShRBD)
• Stakeholders
• IBEC, Commercial Fisheries, IFA, Port
  Authorities, Forestry Service, LAs

20
General Methodology
21
Industry

• Point Source Discharges (IPC, Section 4 )
• Abstractions - ERBD
• Diffuse Source (Disposal of WWTp Sludge)- WRBD
• Discharges to Groundwaters

22
Industry

• Data Review / Data Gaps
• Review compliance monitoring information from
  existing licences (IPC and Section 4)
• Review existing impact data for the receiving
  waters
• Review information on hydrometric network

23
Industry

• Characterisation Tool
• Impact based on assimilative capacity
• Predictive models (SIMCAT)
• Establish study area
• Monitoring to verify impact

24
Industry

• Steering Group
• EPA
• Local Authorities
• Stakeholders
• IBEC

25
General Methodology
26
Municipal Regulations

• Point Sources
• Waste Water Treatment Plants
• Water Treatment Plants
• Section 4 Licences
• CSOs (ERBD)
• Untreated Discharges
• Diffuse Sources
• Landfill Sites
• Sewage Sludge (WRBD)
• Water Works Sludge (WRBD)
• Septic Tanks (WRBD)
• Hydrology
• Control of discharges from dams and impoundments
  (ERBD)

27
Municipal Regulations

• Data Review / Data Gaps
• Review monitoring information from WWTP WTP
• Review monitoring data from landfill sites (waste
  licences)
• Identify significant untreated discharges
• Review existing impact data of receiving waters
• Review information on hydrometric network
• Review sewage sludge registers

28
Municipal Regulations

• Characterisation Tool
• Impact based on assimilative capacity
• Predictive models (SIMCAT)
• Establish study area

29
Municipal Regulations

• Steering Group
• EPA
• Local Authorities
• Stakeholders
• EPA
• Local Authorities

30
Municipal Regulation - Methodology
31
Marine Morphology - Methodology

• Data Review / Data Gaps
• Examination of impacts of morphological pressures
  (EISs, Foreshore Licences, Dumping at Sea
  Licences)
• Review MI data on water and sediment quality
• MI infra-red coastline survey

32
Marine Morphology

• Characterisation Tool
• Literature Research
• Baseline surveys
• Expert Opinion on interpretation of survey data.
• Examine the role of coastal modelling
• Establish study area

33
Marine Morphology

• Steering Group
• EPA
• Marine Institute
• Stakeholders
• Port Authorities
• OPW

34
HMWBs AWB

• Article 5 Characterisation Report cHMWB cAWB
• Further Characterisation to confirm status
• assessment of restorative measures
• alternative means test
• assessment of MEP GEP

35
HMWBs AWB

• Data Review / Data Gaps
• Review of water quality Data
• Initial risk assessment output - (ie length of
  dredged channel)
• Other EU member state designations

36
HMWBs AWB

• Characterisation Tool
• - Consult EHS,SEPA,EA to establish trial
  protocols
• - Review output from existing research projects
  and
• Best Practice studies
• - Identify economic baseline data
• - Select test cases (one port, one hydro, one
  abstraction)
• - undertake identification of restorative
  measures
• - apply alternative means test
• - support EPA expert panel on setting ecological
  potential standards

37
HMWBs AWB

• Steering Group
• - EPA, DCMNR, EHS-NI
• Stakeholders
• - OPW
• - ESB Power Generation
• - Bord na Mona
• - Port Authorities
• - Local Authorities
• - Regional Fisheries Boards

38
Quarries

• Data Review / Data Gaps
• Consult with EPA, GSI, LAs on data sets on
  quarries
• LAs Register of Quarries (Section261 of PD Act
  2000)
• GSI list of quarries and mines
• IPC Licences
• Review information on water quality

39
Quarries

• Characterisation Tool
• - Develop procedure for identification and
  collection of
• relevant monitoring data (chemical and
  quantitive )
• - Further Develop conceptual model (link to SW,
  GDTE )
• - Trial on selected sites
• - Verify by monitoring data.

40
Quarries
Steering Group - Groundwater National Working
Group Stakeholders - Irish Concrete
federation - DCMNR (Exploration Mining
Division)
41
Further Characterisation - Summary

• - Terms of Reference
• Methodology for rigorous scientific tools
• Identify key experts
• Set programme
• Identify stake holders/steering groups
• - RBD projects to
• undertake scoping studies, data collection
  literature review
• identify study options models - fieldwork
• estimate study costs
• develop procedures
• Stakeholder consultation
• Application in all RBDs

42
Further Characterisation - Summary

• Objective
• - confirm classification of water bodies
• optimise monitoring programme
• substantiate the PoM

43
(No Transcript)
44

• Review of Laboratory Capacity

45
Lab Capacity Questionnaire

• General Information Staffing Details
• Analytical Capabilities
• - Biological
• - Hydromorphological
• - Physio-chemical
• - Others
• Equipment
• Quality Assurance
• Lab Capacity
• Any Further Details

46
Lab Capacity List
Cork County Council Kerry County
Council Waterford County Council South Tipperary
County Council Limerick County Council Cork City
Council EPA Consult-Us Ltd. Public
Analysts Laboratory Bord na Mona Lab-Check
Ltd. Advanced Micro Services Teagasc En-Forc
e Laboratories Ltd. Southern Scientific Services
Ltd. Water Technology Ltd. Department of
Chemistry, UCC Marine Institute Aquatic Services
Unit General Analytical Laboratories Coastal
Marine Resources Centre
47
Review of Lab Capacity - Progress

• 21 questionnaires were sent out to Commercial,
  Local Authority and State (EPA, Marine Inst.)
  labs
• 5 labs chose not to participate
• 14 Reponses have been received to date, and of
  these 12 labs have been visited
• 2 questionnaires are awaited and site visits will
  follow were applicable
• All regions within the catchment were represented
  in the review including
• Kerry Tralee and Killarney
• Cork City and County
• A lab in each of Waterford, Limerick and South
  Tipperary

48
Preliminary Findings

• Most LA and EPA labs are running at, or close to,
  capacity based on current set-up but some are
  keen to develop
• Commercial labs very keen to be involved in work
• Abundance of very highly qualified personnel and
  hi-tech equipment available to be tapped in to
• Summary of limitations of labs visited
• Staff for Sampling and Analysis
• Time and staff required to prepare for, and
  maintain, INAB Accredited systems
• Little experience of (due to little demand for)
  analysis for more complex organic compounds
• Sample tracking and data management can be overly
  simplex

49
Planned Work

• Complete remaining lab visits
• Establish weighting system based on overall
  strengths and weakness identified in lab visits
• Complete Draft Report for internal review by the
  end of June

50
Lab Capacity Time Line
51
Presentation to Steering Group June 2005