Small Stream Risk Score Aims and Objectives

1. Small Stream Risk Score – Aims and Objectives Martin McGarrigle EPA, Castlebar 15 December 2005

2. Talk Outline SSRS What it can do What it can’t do Advantages of the Approach Monitoring Programmes Programmes of Measures (PoM) Logistics Example River Water Body Costs and Benefits Rolling it out beyond the WRBD?

3. Small Stream Risk Score - Capabilities The SSRS Can: tell if a stream is at risk of failing to meet ‘Good Status’ on the basis of its macroinvertebrates Benthic Invertebrates are one of four key biological quality elements for rivers listed in Annex V The One Out – All Out rule states that if just one BQE fails then the site fails as a whole If a number of small tributaries of a larger water body fail on the basis of macroinvertebrates then the water body as a whole is ‘at risk’ Measures are then required to improve water status

4. Small Stream Risk Score - Capabilities The SSRS Cannot: State that a stream is ‘not at risk’ Benthic Invertebrates are only one of four key biological quality elements for rivers listed in Annex V It’s a simple assessment and even if the Macroinvertebrates appear satisfactory other elements may not be satisfactory It should not be used to assess Status (sensu WFD) Assessment of Status requires a wider suite of biological and physico-chemical elements – PS, nutrients, hydromorphology

5. Advantages of the SSRS Approach – Monitoring WFD ‘Further Characterisation’ of river water bodies 2/3 of all RWBs do not have current monitoring data Our Risk assessment here is based on models Surveillance Monitoring is required in part to ‘supplement and validate’ these risk assessments BUT all sites in SM require Priority Substance Analysis (€20k per site) Reducing requirements for ‘Supplementing and Validating Risk Assessment in Characterisation Report (WFD Art 5) Improved Surveillance Monitoring Programme

8. Advantages of the SSRS Approach - Monitoring ALL SM sites must have Priority Substances Analysis (monthly in one year of 3-year cycle) Cost of ~€20k per site just for PS Distorts SM Programme which has other important purposes too: Long-term trend monitoring Providing a representative network of overall surface water status SSRS can provide further characterisation to reduce the need for SM to ‘supplement and validate’ risk assessments A technical quasi-legal point but the EU can be very strict on the legal niceties of directives SSRS provides a method of further characterisation to legitimately reduce the burden of SM and help to focus it on more productive purposes.

9. Advantages of the SSRS Approach - SM EU requires supplementing and validation of risk assessments in SM Programme Uncertain risk => a need for surveillance monitoring By reducing uncertainty we can reduce the number of sites to be included in the SM Programme for this purpose SSRS can place many ‘probably at risk’ water bodies into the ‘definitely at risk’ category with a single sample The alternative approach is to undertake considerable chemical monitoring But June 2006 deadline for Monitoring Programme Design National Regulations require EPA to submit programme design on 22 June EU Reporting Sheets by 22 March 2007

10. Advantages of the SSRS Approach - PoM SSRS surveys can support PoMs Accurate pinpointing of problem areas in River Waterbodies Assisting with water quality surveys - pinpointing areas of diffuse & point source pollution in catchments In the long term this is a more important objective of SSRS Success of WFD critically dependent on PoM success Poorly focussed or vague general PoMs will result in failure of main aims of WFD Accurate pinpointing of sources of problems is the key to success SSRS potential to provide highly focussed results

12. Advantages of the SSRS Approach - PoM Stream order breakdown HA34 Moy Catchment

14. SSRS Logistics – select a water body of uncertain risk

15. SSRS Logistics – Depict Stream Network

16. SSRS Logistics – Intersect Road and Stream Network

17. SSRS Logistics – Select Potential Sampling Points

18. SSRS Logistics – SSRS Assessment puts some ‘at risk’

22. SSRS Logistics - Nationally 4000+ RWBs in total If say an average of 6 sites to be surveyed in each 6 x 4000 = 24,000 samples 20 people trained in WRBD I average 8 to 10 full Q-Value Assessments per day When up to speed operators of SSRS should be able to do 10 to 12 sites per day – say two water bodies per day Thus 4000 water bodies will require approx 2000 man days Thus each of the 7 RBDs will require ~ 300 person-days to complete the SSRS survey of ALL RWBs If we only concentrate on 1b and 2a perhaps 200 days required per RBD If 10 people per RBD trained four to five weeks between now and April required - plus time to become proficient with SSRS

23. SSRS Logistics - WRBD There are ~822 risk category1b and 2a RWBs in the WRBD Thus, 82 days required = 4 days work for 20 people if each person does 10 sites per day - to cover just the 1b and 2a RWBs 8 days required if working in teams of two If 10 people taking part it will take longer

24. SSRS Logistics - Timescale Most useful done in Winter/Spring months Expect most sensitive macroinvertebrates If stoneflies missing from stoney streams => at risk June 22 Deadline for Monitoring Programme Definition Initial SSRS survey should be completed by late April Can we train sufficient people to undertake the survey? Aisling Walsh has trained 20+ people for WRBD in last 6 weeks Allow time to become familiar with the SSRS and taxonomy before they will be fully productive – say two to three weeks depending on the operator Train Trainers and repeat process in other RBDs?

25. SSRS Logistics - Costs Time is required in the field – staff availability Equipment costs not excessive Most should be standard in LAs and Fisheries Boards GPS, pond nets and some other items may have to be purchased but not excessively expensive Investigative teams should already be familiar with pollution surveys QC costs – one in 25 samples initially to be returned to QC Co-ordinator for confirmation of identifications Taxonomic requirement not that onerous compared with full Q-Values, for example, but it’s essential that stoneflies separated from mayflies, etc. Long term value in adding SSRS to pollution control armory

26. SSRS Logistics - Safety Safety Issues should be covered by normal Safety Statements Small streams Road access Gloves – leptospirosis, etc. Life jackets if working alone Eye protection for access in overgrown streams Mobile phone

27. SSRS Rollout? If RBDs convinced that SSRS can benefit them How do we roll it out to meet the initial June 2006 deadline for the Monitoring Programme design? Train trainers Nominate one or more experienced biologists to become trainers They train staff from LA, Fisheries, NPWS, etc If sufficient people programme can be completed rapidly Not a once off programme SSRS can be used on an ongoing basis in support of PoMs Also useful in Investigative Monitoring Need to prioritise the time for staff Costs for SM will be reduced and PoMs will be more effective