17/02/2016

1

1

Evidence + Measures Phase 3: Tidal Ribble Water Bodies

Measures Workshop, 14 August 2012

Evidence Pack Introduction

pjHYDRO

Identifying causes of failure and selecting measures operationally

Prepared by P Hulme and N Rukin

By Victor Aguilera, Anne-Marie Quibell, Paul Hulme, Natalie Phillips & Nick Rukin

For more details contact:

Victor.Aguilera@defra.gsi.gov.uk

enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk

paul.hulme@pjhydro.co.uk

rukin@rukhydro.co.uk

2

Copyright

This document (set of slides) contains data and information licensed to Environment Agency and provided by the Environment

Agency to pjHYDRO Limited and to RUKHYDRO Limited.

© Environment Agency – February, 2016. All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the

Environment Agency.

Document Status

Produced by pjHYDRO Limited for Defra and released to the Environment Agency for use at the Evidence + Measures Phase 3,

Measures Workshop, 14 August 2012.

Working document provided for the use of stakeholders at workshop. (Hence there may be minor errors, e.g. errors in figure

numbering.)

Reviewed by the Environment Agency 2016.

Dissemination Status

Reviewed and approved for external release by Defra and the Environment Agency 2016.

Copyright and status

17/02/2016

2

3

1. Introduction: Tidal Ribble Water BodiesFig 1.1 Location

Ribble catchment: ~90% of catchment area

contributing to Tidal Ribble is upstream of the trial

catchments

Tidal Ribble catchments (pink): Lytham to Preston;

Total catchment area ~150 km2

Water Body boundaries have changed subtly and we

are focussing on area to North of Ribble Estuary

Tidal Ribble

catchments

OS maps:

© Environment Agency copyright and/or

database rights 2015.

© Crown copyright and database rights 2011

Ordnance Survey 100024198.

4

The problem Fig 1.2 WFD classification

Liggard (ID ...5650)

HMWB, Bathing Water

Inv HydrolFish

NH3 PO4DO

NA Good

Mod BadPoor

Wrea (ID ...5680)

HMWB, Wild Birds

Inv HydrolFish

NH3 PO4DO

Pool (ID ...5660)

(

?HMWB, Wild Birds

Inv HydrolFish

NH3 PO4DO

Main Drain (??)

??

Inv HydrolFish

NH3 PO4DO

Dow (ID ...5670)

HMWB, NVZ

Inv HydrolFish

NH3 PO4DO

Deepdale (ID ...5460)

NVZ

Inv HydrolFish

NH3 PO4DO

Savick (ID ...5470)

HMWB, Freshwater

Fish, NVZ

Inv HydrolFish

NH3 PO4DO

Ribble Link (ID ...0217)

HMWB, Canal

Inv HydrolFish

NH3 PO4DO

WFD ecological quality

1. Biology: Fish (Savick), Inverts fail in most WBs

2. Supporting phys-chem elements: DO, Ammonia, Phosphate fail or unknown in most WBs

Source: easiWFD & Screening reports (EA)

None of the WBs are considered at risk due to point source metals so

these have not been considered (EA EasiWFD reports)

17/02/2016

3

5Fig 1.3 WFD river water bodies (WBs) & monitoring points (MPs)

River WBs (blue)Catchment outline,

Apr 2012 (red dots)

Catchment outline,

October 2011(grey)

ID numbers shown for

WFD monitoring points

6Start up telecon notes (3 Aug 2011)

Suspected causes of WFD failure

– Agriculture & land management

– Water Companies - should be ok, work being done (CSOs)

– A lot of water bodies heavily modified.

– Industry

– Nuclear industry – probably ok (heavily regulated)

– Leisure and tourism

o Wrong sewage connections

o Caravan parks – some have no consents

o Need to be able to go to sector and say ‘Here’s the reason why we think something is causing a

problem and here’s the evidence’.

Savick Brook – whole range of issues

– Agriculture: intensive dairy, pigs and poultry, land drainage

– Urban: manufacturing, urban drainage, transport, contaminated land

– Water: Water Co sludge recycling, non-Water Co sewers, intermittent discharges (CSOs

& PSs)

– Leisure: caravan sites

17/02/2016

4

7Fig 1.4 Problems identified by Environment Agency staff

Liggard Brook: sewage

Main Drain: agriculture, geomorphology, septic tanks (incl. caravan parks), landfill

Wrea Brook: agriculture, sewage

Pool Stream: agriculture, sewage

Dow Brook: sewage

Deepdale Brook: ?sewage

Savick Brook: sewage, urban, geomorphology

DeepdaleDow

Pool

Savick

Liggard

Main Drain

Wrea

Problems identified by EA staff in initial project

meetings of 6th and 7th September 2011

8List of suspected causes

Use available evidence to identify most likely causes from the following:

Agriculture runoff

– Livestock areas

– Inorganic fertiliser on arable crops

– Manure & UU treated sewage spreading applied to grassland

Sewage discharge

– Non UU, treated sewage effluents / package treatment plans

– Intermittent, high rainfall discharges: CSOs, PSOs

– Septic tanks (poorly maintained or discharge within ?100 m of stream)

– Wrong connections (CSWs)

Landfill leachate

Geomorphological changes

– Straightening

– Barriers

– ?? Silt

Industrial pollution

17/02/2016

5

9

Change in invertebrate & fish communities

Sources:

Pressures:

Effects:

Nutrients

(N & P)

Total

ammonia

Arable fertiliser

& manure

CSOs &

PSs

3. Landfill

Misconnections

(CSWs)

Livestock

excreta

Poor septic

tanks

Algal

growth*

BOD

DO

Food

supply

Interactions:

Fig 1.5 Simple Conceptual DiagramPotential pathways between sources, pressures & biology (5 suspected causes numbered)

pH Un-ionised

ammonia (NH3)

severe

*Note: two ways that algae can affect inverts: a) if algal growth is severe, it becomes a source of BOD, reducing DO; b) if growth is modest, algae

can provide increased food supply for some invertebrates and so species diversity would change – check with Dan

1. Agricultural

runoff

2. Discharge of

sewage

4. Geomorphological

changes

5. Industrial

Estates

?septic tanks

Toxic

chemicals

Directly

toxic

Woody debris,

sinuosity, diversity of

flow & depth.

Max flow & sediment

N

10Four Main Lines of Evidence

The Causes Workshops presented four independent lines of evidence:

Variations from water body to water body (Approach A / Line of Evidence A)

Variations in time (Approach B / Line of Evidence B)

Variations within a water body, i.e. Changes upstream (u/s) or downstream (d/s) of a monitoring

point (Approach C / Line of Evidence C)

Source apportionment, ie the relative contribution that a source is contributing to the problem

(Approach D / Line of Evidence D)

17/02/2016

6

11

Line of Evidence A (Approach A)

Variations across Water Bodies

12Fig1.6 4a(iii). WQ Monitoring Points (recent)

South Fylde Drain Sites (2010 onwards)

17/02/2016

7

13

21

21 1

4

2 21

2 2

5

3

2

3

3

1

4

2

4

43

2

43

3

34

2

2

1

2

2 2

2

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

LiggardBrook

(SPT 8)

MainDrain

(SPT 6)

MainDrain

(SPT 32)

Trib WreaBrook

(SPT 12)

WreaBrook

(SPT 13)

WreaBrook

(SPT 15)

PoolStream

(SPT 19)

PoolStream

(SPT 22)

CarrBrook

(SPT 23)

SpenBrook

(SPT 25)

DowBrook

(SPT 27)

DeepdaleBrook

(SPT 31)

WF

D S

co

re (

Hig

h =

5, G

oo

d =

4, M

od

era

te =

3, P

oo

r =

2 &

Ba

d =

1)

WFD Water Quality Status (Feb 2010- Jan 2011)

Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score

90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score

90%ile BOD WFD Score

10%ile DO% WFD score

Note: No BOD data available

Dow BrookNote: Sample points arranged in upstream (left) to downstream (right) order

Fig 1.7 4a(iv). WFD WQ Status (2010-11)

PO4 a variable problem

Deepdale is Good

DO is generally a problem

Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project

14Fig1.8 2a(i). WQ Monitoring Points (past)

Sample Locations for Column Charts on Next Slide

17/02/2016

8

15

12

45

45 5

5

52

3

2

4 43

23

3

2

4 43 3

2

2

2

2 2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

88009773 88009772 88009768 88003583 88003580 88003568 88003571

Liggard Brook Main Drain Wreay Brook Pool Stream Dow Brook Deepdale Brook Savick Brook

WF

D S

co

re (

Hig

h =

5, G

oo

d =

4, M

od

era

te =

3, P

oo

r =

2 &

Lo

w =

1)

Average WFD Water Quality Status (2000-2005)

Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score

90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score

90%ile BOD WFD Score

10%ile DO% WFD score

Fig 1.9 2a(ii). WFD WQ Status (Average 2000-2005)

Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project

Phosphate is a common problem

DO poor but BOD good in Liggard and Main Drain

Dow Brook and Wrea Brook worst for BOD

16

9%3% 4% 7% 4% 7%

16%

41%

3%9%

16%

11% 6%

29%

30%

50%

62%

66%

60% 61%

41%

7%

41%

22%

10%

24% 20%6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

Liggard Brook Main Drain Wrea Brook Pool Stream Dow Brook &Middle Pool

DeepdaleBrook

Savick Brook

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f To

tal L

an

d U

se

in

Wa

ter

Bo

dy (

%)

Land Use - Summary CategoriesSea/Estuary

Saltmarsh

Inland Water

Woodland

Semi Natural

Arable

Grass

Suburban/rural development

Urban

Fig 1.10 4b. Simplified Land Use

Source of Data: Environment Agency Statistics based on CEH (2000) Land Use Mapping

(1) Includes BNFL

Springfield

Most Urban / Suburban: Liggard & Savick Brooks

Least Urban / Suburban: Main Drain

Most Arable: Main Drain

Most Grassland: Pool Stream

17/02/2016

9

17

5.2

21.8

11.1

9.1

12.4

7.99.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

17.0 22.0 16.7 5.4 28.0 9.5 49.5

Liggard Main Drain Wrea Brook Pool Stream Dow Brook &Middle Pool

DeepdaleBrook

Savick Brook

Nu

mb

er

of

Se

pti

c T

an

ks

pe

r k

m2

Density of Septic Tanks

Septic Tank Density

Fig 1.11 4c. Septic Tanks (No. / km2)

Lowest Density: Liggard and Deepdale Brooks

Source of Data: Environment Agency based on properties >100 m from a sewer.

Highest Density: Main Drain and Dow Brook

18

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

17.0 22.0 16.7 5.4 28.0 9.5 49.5

Liggard Brook Main Drain Wrea Brook Pool Stream Dow Brook &Middle Pool

DeepdaleBrook

Savick Brook

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

ns

en

ted

Dis

ch

arg

es

pe

r k

m2

Consented Discharges (2005-2009) per km2 - Main Categories

Sewerage Network - Sewers - water company

Sewerage Network - Pumping Station - water company

Sewage Disposal Works - water company

Sewage disposal works - other

Other Tourist/Short Stay Accommodation

Mixed Farming

Domestic Property (Multiple)

Domestic Property (Single)

Fig 1.12 4d. Consented Discharges (Active 2005-9)

Lowest Density: Liggard and Deepdale Brooks

Highest Density: Wrea, Main Drain and Savick

17/02/2016

10

19

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

17.0 22.0 16.7 5.4 28.0 9.5 49.5

Liggard Brook Main Drain Wrea Brook Pool Stream Dow Brook &Middle Pool

DeepdaleBrook

Savick Brook

No

of

Re

po

rte

d I

nc

ide

nts

(2

00

1-2

01

0)

pe

r k

m2

NIRS Pollution Incidents for Water per km2 (2001-2010)

Specific Waste Materials

Sewage Materials

Pollutant Not Identified

Organic Chemicals/Products

Oils and Fuel

General Biodegradable Materials and Wastes

Contaminated Water

Atmospheric Pollutants and Effects

Agricultural Materials and Wastes

Category 1 (Major)

Category 2 (Significant)

Category 3 (Minor)

Fig 1.13 4e. NIRS Pollution Events (2001-2010)

Lowest Density: Liggard and Deepdale Brooks

Highest Density: Wrea, Main Drain and Savick

Sewage

?

Oils & Fuel

20

88003570 -88003571

Sharoe Brook(Lot of Grey Water)

3571-3575(+0.55 wrong connections as

"contaminated water")

WreaBrook

Pool Stream

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Se

wa

ge M

ate

ria

ls N

IRS

Po

llu

tio

n I

nc

ide

nts

(2

00

1-2

01

0)

(No

/km

2)

Sewage Related Consented Discharges (No per km2) 2005-9

Sewage Materials: Discharge Consents and NIRS

Savick Brook Subcatchments

South Fylde Drains

Fig 1.14 4g(iv). Sewage Pollution from Consents

Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project

Broad correlation between sewage

NIRS and consented sewage

related discharges = Failure rate?

Failure rate = 1 in 10 yrs

per consent

Failure rate = 1 in 20 yrs

per consent

(CSOs, PS EOs & STWs)

Wrea Brook and Pool

Stream (and Sharoe

Brook on Savick Brook)

have higher failure rate

17/02/2016

11

21

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

17.0 22.0 16.7 5.4 28.0 9.5 49.5

Liggard Brook Main Drain Wrea Brook Pool Stream Dow Brook &Middle Pool

DeepdaleBrook

Savick Brook

No o

f R

eport

ed In

cid

ents

(2001

-2010) p

er km

2

Sewage Material NIRS Pollution Incidents for Water per km 2 (2001 -2010)

Storm Sewage

Other Sewage Material

Grey Water

Final Effluent

Crude Sewage

Category 1 (Major)

Category 2 (Significant)

Category 3 (Minor)

Fig1.15 4e. NIRS Pollution Events (2001-2010)

CSOs, PSOs for Liggard and Main Drain

Source of Data: Environment Agency based on properties >100 m from a sewer.

Wrong Connections in Wrea Brook and Savick

Storm Sewage

Other Sewage Material

Grey Water

Final Effluent

Crude Sewage

CSOs, PSOs

CSOs, PSOs

STWs, septic tanks ?

CSWs

STWs, septic tanks in Main and Wrea Brook

22Fig 1.16 Rough geomorphological classification

Based on a desk based assessment and expert judgement (DW)

OS maps:

© Environment Agency copyright and/or database rights 2015.

© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100024198.

17/02/2016

12

23Fig 1.17 2b(i). General WQ & Flows (Sept 1997)

WQ deteriorates at higher flows, but not badly as some of the S Fylde Drains

Site Name Site Name

104 Savick Brook 108 Liggard Brook

105 Deepdale Brook 109 Main Drain

106 Dow Brook 110 Wrea Brook

107 Pool Stream 111 Middle Pool

Monitored some inorganic water quality and bacteriological quality for 5-6 weeks in

Sep 1997. Also measured flows in Wrea Brook and Savick Brook over this period.

From: Faecal indicator budgets discharging to the

Ribble Estuary (CREH, 1998 for EA) (see slide 1b)

24Table 1.1 Land Use and Pollution Pressures across WBs

Liggard Main Wrea Pool Dow Deepdale Savick

Geomorphology Minor & major

straightening /

modification

% Managed Grassland

(Fig 1.10)

30% 50% 62% 66% 60% 61% 41%

Arable

(Fig 1.10)

7% 41% 22% 10% 24% 20% 6%

Urban / Suburban

Fig 1.10)

50% 6% 13% 23% 15% 23% (BNFL) 45%

Septic Tanks

(no. / km2) (Fig 1.11)

5.2 21.8 11.1 9.1 12.4 7.9 9.0

Landfills (authorised)

Area (% of catchment

area)

None 197,900 m2

(0.6%)

None None None

Landfills (historic)

Area (% of catchment

area)

59,400 m2

(0.4%)

775,100 m2

(2%)

3,400m2

(0.04%)

None 85,200 m2

(0.3%)

Industry No industrial

estates

Industrial

Estates – see

Savick detail

17/02/2016

13

25Table 1.2 Pollution, NIRS (no. / km2) across WBs (Fig 1.13)

Liggard Main Wrea Pool Dow Deepdale Savick

Total NIRS (/km2) 0.29 1.0 1.44 2.04 1.14 0.74 2.91

Agricultural Materials

and Wastes

0.00 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.11 0.21 0.04

Pollutant Not Identified 0.06 0.14 0.12 0.37 0.21 0.00 0.20

Total Sewage Materials 0.00 0.23 0.96 1.11 0.36 0.11 0.97

Storm Sewage + Crude

Sewage (CSOs &

PSOs?)

0.00 0.05 0.66 0.37 0.29 0.11 0.70

Grey Water (CSWs) 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.32

Final Effluent (STWs

and septic tanks?)

0.00 0.14 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02

26

Table 1.3 PO4-P source apportionment estimates across WBs

(All estimates from SAGIS unless otherwise stated)

Liggard Main Wrea Pool Dow Deepdale Savick

Compare SAGIS

estimate of In stream

concentration vs.

observed

SAGIS

concentration

close to

observed

Agriculture

Livestock

Arable

~20%

<5%

No SAGIS

results so no

total

~60% 30% - 40%

<5%

40% - 50%

~5%

40% - 50%

~1%

CSOs 15% - 35% Ditto 5% - 15% 20% - 40% 13% - 30% 10% - 30%

CSWs

Local estimate

~5% Ditto <1% 2% ~3% 4% - 6%

Septic tanks

SAGIS

Local estimate**Assumed generic

(conservative) reduction

to 20% of raw output load

for nutrients (same as

SAGIS)

~3%

~5%

No SAGIS

results

7% – 15%

2% - 10%

(mostly in

Main)

1% – 2%

~3%

3% - 6%

8%

2% - 3%

2% - 3%

Urban 45% - 55% No SAGIS

results

~10% 25% - 35% ~25% 25% - 35%

17/02/2016

14

27Table 1.4 WFD Water Quality concentration thresholds

Standard WQ thresholds from EA

(Rachel Haigh)

WFD WQ Thresholds

WFD Status

DO Sat%

(10%ile)

Tot NH4_N

mg/l (90%ile)

BOD mg/l

(90%ile)

PO4-P mg/l

(Annual Mean)

Score

assigned to

plots on on

E&M project

High 70 0.3 4 0.05 5

Good 60 0.6 5 0.12 4

Moderate 54 1.1 6.5 0.25 3

Poor 45 2.5 9 1 2

Bad 1

28Appendix

Figures not used in evidence tables

17/02/2016

15

29Fig 1.18 Phosphate concentrations

30

Site Water Course Area (m2)

Geometric

Mean

Log10

Std.Dev.

Geometric

Mean

Log10

Std.Dev.

b b h h h/b

101 River Ribble 2.90E+03 0.812 6.70E+03 0.577 2.3

103 River Darw en (Roach Bridge) 1.50E+04 0.278 8.10E+04 0.419 5.4

104 Savick Brook 1.20E+07 2.90E+03 0.339 1.50E+05 0.696 51.7

105 Deepdale Brook 3.30E+06 2.00E+03 0.317 2.40E+04 0.269 12.0

106 Dow Brook 1.70E+07 3.70E+03 0.891 8.10E+04 0.520 21.9

107 Pool Stream 8.00E+06 4.70E+03 0.432 3.50E+04 0.270 7.4

108 Liggard Brook (a) 1.20E+07 3.10E+03 0.345 1.50E+05 1.100 48.4

109 Main Drain 2.40E+07 2.00E+03 0.533 9.20E+03 0.735 4.6

110 Wrea Brook 5.22E+07 2.10E+03 0.371 2.00E+04 0.292 9.5

111 Middle Pool 5.90E+06 4.60E+02 0.845 3.20E+04 0.500 69.6

Notes:

a) excluding inputs from Ballam Road Pumping Station

Red numbers are calculated.

From Table 5

Faecal Coliforms (cfu/100ml)

2b(ii). Bacteriological WQ & Flows

In 1997 Savick Brook had one of biggest deteriorations at

higher flows

From: Faecal indicator budgets discharging to the

Ribble Estuary (CREH, 1998 for EA) (see slide 1b)

Results from monitoring for 5-6 weeks from the start of Sep1997.

17/02/2016

16

31

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Liggard Brook Main Drain Wrea Brook Pool Stream Dow Brook DeepdaleBrook

Savick Brook

Lo

g1

0 G

eo

me

tric

Me

an

Fa

ec

al C

oli

form

s (

No

pe

r 1

00

ml)

Variation in Faecal Coliforms (01/09/1997 - 06/10/1997)

Low Flows

High Flows

2b(iii). Bacteriological WQ (Sept 1997)

In 1997, Savick Brook showed one of highest

responses in bacterial contamination during high flows.

Data from: Faecal indicator budgets discharging

to the Ribble Estuary (CREH, 1998 for EA)

* Upstream of UU STWs

See Slide 1b for Sample Locations