Jenny Deakin and Donal Daly,Environmental Protection Agency present on the Water Framework Directive Integration and Coordination Unit's approach to delivering successful catchment management in Ireland.

1. Our Approach to Delivering
Successful Catchment Management
Jenny Deakin & Donal Daly
WFD Integration and Coordination Unit, EPA

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. ICM
Steps in the
Integrated
Catchment
Management
(ICM) Process
(adapted from USEPA
(2008)
Step 1: Create & communicate a
VISION
Step 2: Build Partnerships
Step 3: Characterise the
catchment
Step 4: Undertake Further
Characterisation
Step 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 ………….

6. Step 1: Create & communicate a
VISION
ICM
Steps in the
Integrated
Catchment
Management
(ICM) Process
Our WFD I&C Unit Team Vision
(adapted from USEPA
(2008)
“Working together to achieve healthy,
resilient, productive and valued water
resources, that support vibrant
communities”.

7. ICM Step 2: Build Partnerships
Steps in the
Integrated
Catchment
Management
(ICM) Process
(adapted from USEPA
(2008) Marie Archbold will
outline our approach
on this

8. Step 3: Characterise the
catchment
Step 4: Undertake Further
Characterisation
ICM
Steps in the
Integrated
Catchment
Management
(ICM) Process
(adapted from USEPA
(2008)

9. Kilmaine Spring, Co. Mayo.
Lough Guitane, Co Kerry.
Doovilra strand, Killary Harbour, Co Galway. Source: Shane O’Boyle, EPA.
Catchment characterisation
(knowing and understanding our
catchments)
is the foundation of water
resources management

10. 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
Lough Guitane, Co Kerry.
Doovilra strand, Killary Harbour, Co Galway. Source: Shane O’Boyle, EPA.

11. And…, we can now do it really well (1)
 Monitoring

12. And…, we can now do
characterisation really well (2)
 Licensing & Enforcement
information, knowledge and
expertise, especially locally

13. And…, we can now do it well (3)
 Geoscientific and pathways
information

14. Soils
Source: Teagasc

15. Subsoils
15
Source: Teagasc

16. Subsoil
Permeability
Source: Geological Survey of Ireland

17. Bedrock
Geology
17
Source: Geological Survey of Ireland

18. Aquifers
Source: Geological Survey of Ireland

19. Groundwater
Vulnerability
Source: Geological Survey of Ireland

20. Pressures
Houses with
DWWTSs
+
LPIS info
+
UWWTP info
Nutrient loads
can be
estimated
Source: An Post Geodirectory

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. Characterisation Approach
Three TIERS of
risk characterisation
so that the level of assessment is
commensurate with the risk posed

25. WFD Characterisation Tiers
Screening
At Risk’
bodies
Risk WBs
susceptible
potential
Susceptible areas
significant
issues, and
specific measures
Not At Risk
Objectives met
Increasing scale and level of detail
Increasing focus on site specific supplementary
measures, enforcement and engagement with
landholders. Increasing resources
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?
Status
Capacity
Trends
Investigative monitoring, modelling
Catchment walks, inspections
Measures
Additional measures
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
Surveillance and/or
Operational
Monitoring
Increasing
cost,
resources,
confidence
Tier 1: Screening
Tier 2: Susceptible
areas, potential
pressures
Tier 3: Significant
pressures, site specific
measures

26. 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

27. Not at Risk
0.035 mg/l P as P
Good Status
0.025 mg/l P as P
0.035 mg/l P as P
Trend

28. At risk
0.035 mg/l P as P
Good Status
0.025 mg/l P as P
0.035 mg/l P as P
Trend

29. 0.025 mg/l P as P
Trend Good Status
Review
0.035 mg/l P as P
0.025 mg/l P as P

30. Not at Risk Review

31. Not at Risk At Risk

32. Distance Assigning risk to threshold high 1 to prioritise measures
Tier 1 screening for SW bodies
Previous
Reported
Status3
Significant
pressures
mitigated?
Significant trend4 in
concentration or
ecological metric
Distance to threshold low2
Achieve Good
status
WFD Objectives WFD Objectives
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

33. Groundwater body risk
Assigning risk to prioritise measures
GW bodies Tier 1 screening
Previous
Significant
reported
pressures
Status
mitigated?
Significant trend in
concentration or level
Achieve Good
status
Distance Distance to threshold low to threshold high
WFD Objectives WFD Objectives
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

34. 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

35. Receptor
Poorly productive aquifer
(70% of country)
Free-draining soils & subsoils

36. Receptor
Characterisation
Helps decide “what” and “where”
and “how”.
PO4 CSA
Poorly productive aquifer
(70% of country)
PO4 CSA

37. 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

38. Source: Jenny Deakin Mattock catchment
Pollution Impact
Potential (PIP) Maps
Nitrate to GW
Nuenna catchment
Nitrate to GW

39. 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.

40. Characterisation Timelines
Characterisation
process
Start Finish
Tier 1 Now Q2 2015
Tier 2 mid 2015 Q2 2016
Tier 3 Q4 2015 Ongoing
SWMI and Article 5 reports by Q4 2015
Draft RBMPs by Q4 2016
Final RBMPs by Q4 2017

41. 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
Input and contribution
from others is essential
• 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

42. A word on catchments and scale …
What is a catchment?
The catchment is the appropriate
land-based organising unit for
water management
A basic tenet of catchment
Demo outside!
 It is a coherent topographically-based
management is that feature
what happens in
one part of the catchment, as an
interconnected system, affects people
 It is defined by the natural hydrology and
hydrogeology

 and It environments ‘connects’ all relevant in other elements,
parts.
including pressures, receptors and the
people living there.
 Communities can relate to it.
(Everyone lives in a catchment!)

43. 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

44. 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

45. N
Bad status
Poor status
Moderate status
Group and
public
groundwater
supplies
Sub-catchment (Tullamore River) scale = where (the real) work is
undertaken
WWTP
Groundwater water
body boundary
Hydrometric
Station

46. Catchment Scale
(Water Management Units)
 100s km2 (46 in RoI)
 “From the mountains to the sea”
 Integrate WB types
 Evaluate issues
 Prioritise measures
 Organise delivery
 Reports and plans

47. 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

48. 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

49. 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 ecosystems
 Modelling as a means of evaluating management strategies
 Linkages with physical planning
 Review and amendment, as necessary, of the monitoring
programme
49

50. ICM - Step 7: Design an
Implementation Programme (2)
Includes:
This one will be
challenging/difficult
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

51. ICM - Step 8: Implement the
Programme
Template River Basin Management Plan
(RBMP) by EPA
Completion of plan by WFD Offices/LAs
Measures – what & where
Implementation schedule
Approval by DEHLG/Minister
Reporting to the Commission by EPA
51

52. 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. 53
Four Final Summary Thoughts
1. Catchments, connecting all
relevant elements
2. Hard work
3. Working together

54. “It’s people who save
rivers, not plans ……”
(quote from: “Saving Eden: A Manifesto”)