our approach to delivering sucessful catchment management - jenny deakin and donal daly
DESCRIPTION
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.TRANSCRIPT
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”)