This presentation was given on 26.11.15 at the Catchment Management Network Meeting in Tullamore. The day included presentations on the approach to characterisation for the 2nd Cycle of the Water Framework Directive and how this would involve both the EPA and Local Authorities, along with other public bodies. A key focus was the new Local Authority Water and Communities Office and its role in the 2nd cycle. Presentations on integrating planning and the WFD, the UK 'Love Your River Telford' project and 'The Living Loobagh' from Limerick were also included.

1. Characterising
catchments
A shared approach
J. Deakin, M. Archbold and D. Daly
Catchment Science and Management Unit
With assistance from EPA colleagues and RPS consultants

2. Overview
1. Characterisation refresher
2. Preliminary risk screening results
3. Initial characterisation
- Process, data sources, outcomes
- 2 case studies
4. Outcomes of the Suir pilot assessment
- subcatchment scale
- catchment scale
4. National progress, looking forward

3. 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

4. Steps in the Integrated Catchment Management Process 1
1. Build Partnerships
• Identify key stakeholders
• Identify issues of concern
• Conduct public outreach
2. Create and communicate a vision of ICM
• For example: A healthy, resilient, productive and valued water
resource, that supports vibrant communities.
3. Characterise the Catchment
• Gather existing data and create a catchment inventory
• Identify data gaps & collect additional data, if needed
• Analyse data
• Identify causes and sources of pollution
• Estimate pollutant loads
• Evaluate hydromorphological pressures
• Undertake risk assessments
4. Undertake Further Characterisation
• Collect and evaluate local information
• Locate critical source areas (CSAs)
• Undertake investigative monitoring
• Undertake catchment walks
• Estimate load reductions needed
5. Identify & Evaluate Possible Management Strategies
• Evaluate existing measures
• Get stakeholder input
• Take account of ecosystem and geosystem services, water value,
pollution sources and CSAs
• Develop possible management options
• Undertake SEA and Habitats Directive Assessment, as appropriate
• Undertake economic analysis
• Rank the measures
6. Design an Implementation Programme
• Set environmental objectives
• Select appropriate mitigation measures
• Develop an implementation schedule with milestones
• Develop the monitoring component
• Develop an engagement strategy
• Identify technical & financial assistance needed
• Prepare RBMP
7. Implement the River Basin Management Plan
• Prepare a work plan with short- and long-term outcomes
• Implement the measures
• Use metrics to track progress
• Integrate with planning process
• Conduct engagement, including awareness raising, consultation &
collaboration
8. Measure Progress and Make Adjustments
• Analyse trends and outcomes
• Give feedback to stakeholders
• Make adjustments, if necessary
Characterisation &
Analysis Tools
 GIS
 Databases
 Statistical
packages
 Numerical
models
 Flow estimations
 Load estimations
 Monitoring
Catchment
Information
Tool
River
Basin
Management
Plan
Step 4: Further Characterisation
Step 3: Characterise the catchment
ICM
Steps in the
Integrated
Catchment
Management
(ICM) Process
(adapted from USEPA
(2008)

5. Characterise
catchments
Identify
measures, plan
Implement
measures
Monitor and
evaluate
Report
WFD cycle
WFD 6-year cycle
What?
Where?
Why?
How?

6. Characterisation Approach
Three TIERS of
risk characterisation
so that the level of assessment is
appropriate for the risk posed
1: Preliminary risk screening
2: Initial characterisation
3: Further characterisation

7. WFD Characterisation Tiers
Objectivesmet
NotAt Risk
Additionalmeasures
d/or
Increasing
cost,
resources,
detail,
confidence
1st : Preliminary
Screening
2nd : Initial
characterisation
3rd : Further
characterisation

8. 4933 Water
bodies
590
Subcatchments
46 Catchments
1 National
River Basin
District
2 International
RBDs
Monitor
Report status
Assess
risk
Prioritise
measures
Plan
Report to EU
Water management unit scales

9. Preliminary
risk
screening
Status Trend +
Distance
to
threshold
Risk
GW SW
At Risk
Review
Not at Risk

10. 1. Subcatchment
delineation
• 590 subcatchments
• 100-200 km2
• 3-15 WBs in each
• Reviewed with LAs
Initial
characterisation
2. Subcatchment
stories
• Work has commenced
• Trialled the approach in
the Suir catchment

11. DRISH subcatchment
13 waterbodies
• 5 At Risk
• 5 Review
• 2 Not at Risk
• 1 Unassigned
CASE STUDY EXAMPLE

12. IE_SE_16D020100
Drish_040
(07-09) (10-12) T1 Pressures
Bio & Eco Poor Poor At risk Lisheen
Moyne WWTP
S4 Maher
Quarry
Chem Status Trend Value T1
Ortho-P High D (N/N) 0.013 (F) H Not at risk
TON (N) Mod D (N/N) 2.764 (F) M
T Am (N) Good D (N/N) 0.187 (F) M
Tier 1 outcome At risk Change? No
Action Follow up on Peat and Lisheen
Measures
Waterbody storyboard

13. Subcatchment storyboard

14. P concentrations
low
Ammonia
concentrations
high
Biological Status
Poor 2007-09
Poor 2010-12
(Poor 2013-15)
Information from
the WFD App

15. Subsoils and risk Peat extraction

16. Preliminary load apportionment modelling
Southern tributary
N load
P load

17. Pollution Impact Potential Maps
(CSAs) GWSW

18. DRISH Actions
 Ammonia from the peat
 Likely to be Less Stringent Objectives necessary
 Further characterisation in the Breagagh (P)
 WWTP scheduled for upgrade Nov 2015
 Investigative assessment: river channel; to look for key
pollution impacts and likely pressures
 Investigative assessment: High PIP P areas; to look for
agricultural pressures
 Load reduction calculations for WWTP improvements
 Will the improvement in the plant achieve Good Status?
 What is needed upstream of the plant?

19. CLASHAWLEY
subcatchment
7 waterbodies
• 1 At Risk
• 5 Review
• 1 Not at Risk
CASE STUDY 2

20. Waterbody storyboard
16K050200
Killenaule_010
(07-09) (10-12) T1 Pressures
Bio Poor Poor At Risk WWTP
Eco Poor Poor
Chem Status Trend Value T1
Ortho-P (P) Poor
Mod
D (N/N)
D (N/N)
0.082 (F)
0.045 (F)
At Risk
TON (N) Mod
Mod
D (N/N)
D (N/N)
3.318 (F)
1.878 (F)
Tot Am (N) Good
High
U (N/N)
U (N/N)
0.042 (F)
0.02 (F)
T1 Risk At Risk Change No – At Risk
Actions Review with LAs (focus on WWTP)

21. CLASHAWLEY
High Pollution Impact
Potential (PIP) for P
being delivered via
surface water pathways
to the stream.
Pollution Impact
Potential Map
(CSAs for
P to SW)

22. CLASHAWLEY Summary/actions
 LA had upstream and downstream monitoring
which showed impacts upstream
 High PIP P to SW in the area
 Tertiary treatment at the WWTP plant since 2002
 Need to focus investigative assessment on
agricultural / small point source pressures.

23. Outcomes of the Suir assessment
Key actions:
• 5 (of 29) main subcatchments need action
• 39 (of 196) WBs flagged for investigative
assessments (many in the same subcatchments)
• Specific issues highlighted, all related to P
• Some measures already underway (e.g. WWTP
upgrades, liaising with farmers, etc)
Key pressures implicated:
• Not distinguishable (15), agriculture (11), forestry
(10), WWTPs (9), small point sources (7), industry (3)
and diffuse urban (2)

24. Old RWB RiskPreliminary Risk Screening
Total 196 SW bodies
Not at risk 17 (9%)
Review 80 (41%)
At risk 68 (34%)
Unassigned 31 (16%)

25. New RWB RiskUpdated Risk
(following initial characterisation)
Total 196 SW bodies
Not at risk 78 (40%) 
Review 44 (22%) 
At risk 58 (30%) 
Unassigned 16 (8%) 

26. Repeat at catchment scale for groundwaters,
transitional/coastal, protected areas

27. Transitional and Coastal WB story
• Eutrophication in the upper Suir estuary, impacting
on Suir middle estuary. Others ok.
• P the limiting factor, but already < EQS
• Significant P load reduction in the catchment in the
last 20 years
• Further modelling work being undertaken at present
to quantify further load reductions needed, and
identify possible source reduction options to target.
• 2027 objective likely
Groundwater and Protected Areas assessments still underway

28. Role of LAs (and other public bodies)
• Critical part of the process (the shared approach)
• Contribute expertise, additional data and local knowledge
• Provide the ‘boots on the ground’ for investigative
assessments
• Liaise with local communities
• Contribute the planning and enforcement frameworks
needed where necessary to achieve improvements
• Have achieved, and are achieving, successes which
need to be counted as part of the wider WFD objectives
Therefore its important that we work together

29. National scale progress
 110 subcatchments have been assessed
 Processes have been refined
 Meetings with 3 LAs to discuss Suir subcatchments
 Abstractions and discharges project underway
 Improved version of the PIP maps almost complete
 Improved version of the LAM in January
 Phase II WFD App development end Nov
 Turning our attention in the new year to objectives
and measures

30. Looking forward…
 Building for the long term
 Targeted, weight of evidence approach
 The right measure in the right place
 Cooperation amongst public bodies, joint decisions
 Further development of models and tools
 Sharing information publically
 New community water engagement officers to
encourage community initiatives