Our Approach to Delivering Successful Catchment Management

Jenny Deakin & Donal Daly

WFD Integration and Coordination Unit, EPA

Overview of Presentation

• Our framework – Integrated Catchment Management (ICM)

• Our Vision

• Characterisation and catchments

• Setting environmental objectives and goals

• Identifying & evaluating management strategies

• Designing our implementation programme

• Producing the River Basin Management Plan

Our Framework - Integrated Catchment Management (ICM)

Why use ICM as our framework?

ICM provides a coherent basis for water resources management

ICM includes ALL the relevant and essential elements

Successful implementation of ICM successful implementation of the WFD

The Vital Components of Integrated Catchment Management (ICM)

Partnerships with local communities & citizen engagement

“Bottom up” as well as “top down” approaches

Linkages, cooperation & networks, while maintaining the good elements of silos.

Emphasis on pollutant pathways and CSAs

Seeing catchments in 3-D

Consideration of “ecosystems”, geosystems and human-social systems in a holistic process

A broader range of tools in the “toolkit” ranging in a continuum from local participation and partnership to enforcement

Steps in the Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) Process

(adapted from USEPA (2008)

Step 1: Create & communicate a VISIONStep 2: Build Partnerships

Step 3: Characterise the catchmentStep 4: Undertake Further CharacterisationStep 5: Finalise goals

Step 6: Identify & evaluate possible management strategies

Step 7: Design an implementation programme

Step 8: Implement the programme

Step 9: Measure progress and make adjustments

We do a lot of this already, but ………….

ICM

Step 1: Create & communicate a VISION

ICM

Steps in the Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) Process

(adapted from USEPA (2008)

Our WFD I&C Unit Team Vision“Working together to achieve healthy, resilient, productive and valued water

resources, that support vibrant communities”.

Step 2: Build PartnershipsICM

Steps in the Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) Process

(adapted from USEPA (2008) Marie Archbold will

outline our approach on this

Step 3: Characterise the catchment

Step 4: Undertake Further Characterisation

ICM

Steps in the Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) Process

(adapted from USEPA (2008)

Lough Guitane, Co Kerry.

Kilmaine Spring, Co. Mayo.

Catchment characterisation(knowing and understanding our

catchments) is the foundation of water

resources management

Doovilra strand, Killary Harbour, Co Galway. Source: Shane O’Boyle, EPA.

Lough Guitane, Co Kerry.

Kilmaine Spring, Co. Mayo.

In order to manage the water resources in a catchment, we must:

UNDERSTAND (characterise) the movement and attenuation (where relevant) of water and pollutants along the pathways from the pressure to the receptor,UNDERSTAND the impacts, and UNDERSTAND the role of mitigation measures

Doovilra strand, Killary Harbour, Co Galway. Source: Shane O’Boyle, EPA.

And…, we can now do it really well (1)

Monitoring

And…, we can now do characterisation really well (2)

Licensing & Enforcement information, knowledge and expertise, especially locally

And…, we can now do it well (3)

Geoscientific and pathways information

Soils

Source: Teagasc

Subsoils

15Source: Teagasc

Subsoil Permeability

Source: Geological Survey of Ireland

Bedrock Geology

17Source: Geological Survey of Ireland

Aquifers

Source: Geological Survey of Ireland

Groundwater Vulnerability

Source: Geological Survey of Ireland

Pressures

Houses with DWWTSs

+ LPIS info

+ UWWTP info

Nutrient loads can be estimated

Source: An Post Geodirectory

Characterisation?

1. Understanding water bodies Physical, chemical and biological aspects Functioning, ‘Source-pathway-receptor’ Linkages with other water bodies Impacts of human activities

2. Assigning the level of risk (of not meeting WFD objectives), for the purposes of prioritising and targeting measures

Approach for 2nd RBMP Cycle

Characterisation will be a critical step in the WFD implementation process

Characterisation will be aligned more closely to influencing and targeting monitoring and measures

Analysis will be more robust based on the improved monitoring, pressures and geoscientific information

Will consider both protection and restoration objectives

Approach for 2nd RBMP Cycle

• Groundwater and surface water body characterisation will be analogous and combined to encourage common understandings and approaches

• Information from licensing and enforcement activities will be used to improve characterisation, via the EPA Informatics systems (source apportionment)

• Greater use will be made of GIS and automation tools. Informatics systems are a crucial element of our work

Characterisation Approach

Three TIERS of

risk characterisation

so that the level of assessment is commensurate with the risk posed

WFD Characterisation Tiers

Tier 1: ScreeningIdentifies ‘At Risk’ water bodies

Tier 2: At Risk WBsIdentifies susceptibleareas and potential pressures

Tier 3: Susceptible areasIdentifies significant pressures, issues, and site specific measures

Objectives met

Incr

easi

ng s

cale

and

leve

l of

deta

ilIn

crea

sing

focu

s on

sit

e sp

ecif

icsu

pple

men

tary

m

easu

res,

enf

orce

men

t and

eng

agem

ent w

ith

land

hold

ers.

Incr

easi

ng r

esou

rces

Status

Capacity

Trends

Investigative monitoring, modelling

Catchment walks, inspections

Measures

What is the WB condition? Have significant pressures been mitigated?

Where and why are the measures not working?

What needs to be done to improve the situation?

Are the measures working and the objectives being met?If yes, continue surveillance and/or operational monitoring (status, trends, capacity) for next cycle.If not, further characterise and select new measures. Measures can be implemented at any Tier as appropriate, but greater confidence, i.e. Tier 3, is required as the cost of measures increases.

Not At RiskA

dd

itio

nal

me

asu

res

Surveillance and/or Operational Monitoring

Increasingcost,resources,confidence

Tier 1: Screening

Tier 2: Susceptibleareas, potentialpressures

Tier 3: Significantpressures, site specificmeasures

Tier 1 Risk Characterisation

• Takes account of:– Existing status

– Whether significant pressures have been mitigated or not

– Trends in concentrations or ecological condition

– The capacity of the water body to absorb extras pressures

– The resilience and sensitivity of the associated aquatic ecosystems

– The value of having a combined approach for characterisation of both SWBs and GWBs

Not at Risk

0.025 mg/l P as P

0.035 mg/l P as P

Good Status Trend

0.025 mg/l P as P

0.035 mg/l P as P

Good Status

Trend

0.025 mg/l P as P

0.035 mg/l P as P

Good Status

Trend

At risk

0.025 mg/l P as P

0.035 mg/l P as P

Good Status Trend

0.025 mg/l P as P

0.035 mg/l P as P

Good Status

Trend

0.025 mg/l P as P

0.035 mg/l P as P

Good Status

Trend

Review

0.025 mg/l P as P

0.035 mg/l P as P

Good Status Trend

0.025 mg/l P as P

0.035 mg/l P as P

Good Status

Trend

0.025 mg/l P as P

0.035 mg/l P as P

Good Status

Trend

Not at Risk Review

Not at Risk At Risk

Previous

Reported

Status3

Significant

pressures

mitigated?

Significant trend4 in

concentration or

ecological metric

Achieve Good

status

No

deterioration

of Status

Objectives

combined 5 -

low capacity

Achieve Good

status

No

deterioration

of Status

Objectives

combined -

high capacity

High Improving Not applicable Not at risk Not at risk Not applicable Not at risk Not at risk

Yes None/stable/don't know Not applicable Review Review Not applicable Not at risk Not at risk

Disimproving Not applicable Review Review Not applicable Review Review

No or Improving Not applicable Not at risk Not at risk Not applicable Not at risk Not at risk

Don't know None/stable/don't know Not applicable Review Review Not applicable Not at risk Not at risk

Disimproving Not applicable At risk At risk Not applicable At risk At risk

Good Improving Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk

Yes None/stable/don't know Not at risk Review Review Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk

Disimproving Not at risk Review Review Not at risk Review Review

No or Improving Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk

Don't know None/stable/don't know Not at risk Review Review Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk

Disimproving Review At risk At risk Review At risk At risk

Moderate Improving Review Not at risk Review Review Not at risk Review

Yes None/stable/don't know At risk Review At risk At risk Not at risk At risk

Disimproving At risk Review At risk At risk Review At risk

No or Improving Review Not at risk Review Review Not at risk Review

Don't know None/stable/don't know At risk Review At risk At risk Not at risk At risk

Disimproving At risk At risk At risk At risk At risk At risk

Poor Improving At risk Not at risk At risk At risk Not at risk At risk

Yes None/stable/don't know At risk Review At risk At risk Not at risk At risk

Disimproving At risk Review At risk At risk Review At risk

No or Improving At risk Not at risk At risk At risk Not at risk At risk

Don't know None/stable/don't know At risk Review At risk At risk Not at risk At risk

Disimproving At risk At risk At risk At risk At risk At risk

Bad Improving At risk Not at risk At risk At risk Not at risk At risk

Yes None/stable/don't know At risk Review At risk At risk Not at risk At risk

Disimproving At risk Review At risk At risk Review At risk

No or Improving At risk Not at risk At risk At risk Not at risk At risk

Don't know None/stable/don't know At risk Review At risk At risk Not at risk At risk

Disimproving At risk At risk At risk At risk At risk At risk

WFD Objectives WFD Objectives

Distance to threshold highAssigning risk1 to prioritise measuresTier 1 screening for SW bodies

Distance to threshold low2

Groundwater body risk

Assigning risk to prioritise measures

GW bodies Tier 1 screening

Previous

reported

Status

Significant

pressures

mitigated?

Significant trend in

concentration or level

Achieve Good

status

No

deterioration

Reverse

upward trend

Objectives

combined -

low capacity

Achieve Good

status

No

deterioration

Reverse

upward trend

Objectives

combined -

high capacity

Good Improving Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk

Yes None/stable/don't know Not at risk Review Not at risk Review Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk

Disimproving Not at risk Review Review Review Not at risk Review Review Review

No or Improving Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk

Don't know None/stable/don't know Not at risk Review Not at risk Review Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk

Disimproving Review At risk At risk At risk Review At risk At risk At risk

Poor Improving Review Not at risk Not at risk Review Review Not at risk Not at risk Review

Yes None/stable/don't know At risk Review Not at risk At risk At risk Not at risk Not at risk At risk

Disimproving At risk Review Review At risk At risk Review Review At risk

No or Improving Review Not at risk Not at risk Review Review Not at risk Not at risk Review

Don't know None/stable/don't know At risk Review Not at risk At risk At risk Not at risk Not at risk At risk

Disimproving At risk At risk At risk At risk At risk At risk At risk At risk

WFD Objectives WFD Objectives

Distance to threshold high Distance to threshold low

Tier 2 Risk Characterisation

Undertaken on “At Risk” WBs and “Review” WBs

To identify what pressure is causing the WBs to be “At Risk”. (The “WHAT” question).

To locate the Critical Source Area (CSA), i.e., the areas contributing more pollutants than other parts. (The “WHERE” question).

Uses the Pathways Project tools, load apportionment techniques, other modelling tools, LA input

Receptor

Poorly productive aquifer(70% of country)

Free-draining soils & subsoils

Receptor

Characterisation

Helps decide “what” and “where” and “how”.

Poorly productive aquifer(70% of country)

PO4 CSAPO4 CSA

Receptor

Characterisation

Helps decide “what” and “where” and “how”.

Poorly productive aquifer(70% of country)

measures

measures

Knowing and understanding (i.e., characterising) the

pathway is vital

Pollution Impact Potential (PIP) Maps

Source: Jenny Deakin Mattock catchmentNitrate to GW

Nuenna catchmentNitrate to GW

Tier 3 Risk Characterisation

• Further investigates the CSAs from the Tier 2 assessment.

• Site specific investigations, such as catchment walks, investigative monitoring, licence reviews, compliance checks, etc.

• Use of modelled scenarios using CMSTs, etc.

• Identifies significant pressures, i.e. those causing the impact that need mitigation.

Characterisation Timelines

SWMI and Article 5 reports by Q4 2015Draft RBMPs by Q4 2016Final RBMPs by Q4 2017

Characterisation process

Start Finish

Tier 1 Now Q2 2015

Tier 2 mid 2015 Q2 2016

Tier 3 Q4 2015 Ongoing

Benefits

• Links existing and new knowledge in a structured, holistic way for multiple purposes

• Provides a means of focussing work already being carried out across a number of agencies

• Integrates assessments for all water body types• Uses an automated risk based approach in Tier 1 –

reduced time, repeatable, defensible• Helps prioritise areas/issues for measures and

monitoring • Supports SWMI, Article 5 reports and RMBPs

Input and contribution from others is essential

What is a catchment?

Demo outside!

A word on catchments and scale …

A basic tenet of catchment management is that what happens in

one part of the catchment, as an interconnected system, affects people

and environments in other parts.

The catchment is the appropriate land-based organising unit for

water management It is a coherent topographically-based

feature It is defined by the natural hydrology and

hydrogeology

It ‘connects’ all relevant elements, including pressures, receptors and the

people living there.

Communities can relate to it.(Everyone lives in a catchment!)

Water Body (WB) Scale

WBs are the water features referred to in the WFD

We have to report on WBs to the COM

Tier 1 characterisation (Risk screening on water bodies into: ‘at risk’, ‘not at risk’ and ‘review’)

Range in size from a few km long (rivers)

to 100s km2 in size (groundwater)

However: Numerous (~5000) in total for 2nd cycle

Minimal integration of WB types

Not suitable for assessing PoMs properly

Sub-catchment Scale(the scale for local involvement)

Approx. 100 km2 each (~700)

Tier 2 & Tier 3 characterisation (All WBS ‘at risk’

aggregated into sub-catchments for more detailed assessment.)

Catchment walks

Modelling (e.g., CCT)

Investigative monitoring

Involve stakeholders

Measure results

N

Sub-catchment (Tullamore River) scale = where (the real) work is undertaken

Bad status

Poor status

Moderate status

WWTP

Group and public groundwater supplies

Groundwater water body boundary

Hydrometric Station

100s km2 (46 in RoI)

“From the mountains to the sea”

Integrate WB types

Evaluate issues

Prioritise measures

Organise delivery

Reports and plans

Catchment Scale (Water Management Units)

ICM - Step 5:Set Overall Goals

Objectives & targets need to be set to guide the process, taking account of:WFD (and all associated Directives) & Drinking Water

Directive requirements.

Standards & thresholds in Irish regulations.

Requirements of sensitive ecosystems

Risk and status results, incl. load apportionment

Lag times for reductions in nutrient removal from soils and subsoils.

47

ICM - Step 6: Identification & Evaluation of Possible Management Strategies

Evaluate existing measures

Review other potential mitigation measures

Take account of main pollution sources, impacts and pathways, including critical source areas (CSAs)

Stakeholder input critical

Develop and rank the measures needed

48

ICM - Step 7: Design an Implementation Programme (1) EPA will lead/facilitate this. But, LA ++ input essential

Includes: Local community awareness and engagement process Outputs of characterisation Analysis of FH2020 implications Climate change adaptation measures Ecological flows & levels (E-flows & E-levels) Resilience & sensitivity of ecosystemsModelling as a means of evaluating management strategies Linkages with physical planning Review and amendment, as necessary, of the monitoring

programme

49

ICM - Step 7: Design an Implementation Programme (2)

Includes:Measures analysis

Economic analysis

Finalisation of objectives

Selection of final management strategies

Measures – what & where

Implementation schedule

Provision of training, technical assistance and follow-up support

50

This one will be challenging/difficult

ICM - Step 8: Implement the Programme

Template River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) by EPA

Completion of plan by WFD Offices/LAsMeasures – what & where

Implementation schedule

Approval by DEHLG/Minister

Reporting to the Commission by EPA

51

ICM – Step 9: Measure Progress & Make Adjustments

Analyse trends and outcomes

Give feedback to stakeholders

Make adjustments, as necessary

Commence the 3rd cycle work!

52

53

1. Catchments, connecting all relevant elements

2. Hard work

3. Working together

Four Final Summary Thoughts

“It’s people who save rivers, not plans ……”

(quote from: “Saving Eden: A Manifesto”)