The Characterisation and Analysis of
Ireland’s River Basin Districts
in accordance with Section 7(2 & 3) of the European Communities
(Water Policy) Regulations 2003 (SI 722 of 2003)
National Summary Report
(Ireland)
2005
FOREWORD
This Summary Characterisation and Analysis Report marks the completion of tasks assigned to the
competent authorities in Ireland responsible for implementing the Water Framework Directive
(2000/60/EC). These tasks have been set out in Sections 7(2) and 7(3) of the European Communities
(Water Policy) Regulations 2003 (SI 722 of 2003), which transpose the Water Framework Directive into
Irish legislation. By 22nd December 2004 the following were completed for each River Basin District in
Ireland and a summary report submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency:
(a) An analysis of its characteristics
(b) A review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters and of groundwater, and
(c) An economic analysis of water use
The designated competent authorities in Ireland prepared a single combined National Summary
Characterisation Report for the purpose of reporting by the statutory deadline of 22nd December 2004.
That report was intended to provide an opportunity for public and stakeholder comment prior to
completion and submission to the European Commission on 22nd March 2005 by the Environmental
Protection Agency. This report represents the completion of this process and is largely based on the
December report together with additional data collected for the report submitted to the European
Commission on 22nd March 2005. Comments and submissions received on the December 2004 report are
summarised in Section 1.7.4 of Chapter One.
The accompanying maps and background documents referred to in this report are available on the
www.wfdireland.ie website.
The completion of this initial Characterisation and Analysis task now provides us with the firm baseline
necessary to begin the next phase of the process of river basin management aimed at achieving "good
status" for all waters by 2015.
page iii
The Environmental Protection Agency and
The River Basin District coordinating authorities
Carlow County Council (South Eastern River Basin District),
Cork County Council (South Western River Basin District),
Donegal County Council (North Western International River Basin District),
Dublin City Council (Eastern River Basin District),
Galway County Council (Western River Basin District),
Limerick County Council (Shannon International River Basin District),
Monaghan County Council (Neagh Bann International River Basin District),
On behalf of all local authorities.
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi
1.0
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
2.0
PURPOSE OF THIS CHARACTERISATION REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
OVERVIEW OF THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
TRANSPOSITION OF THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
INTO IRISH LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
1.3.1 Legislation Transposing the WFD into Irish Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
1.3.2 Legislation Transposing the WFD into Northern Irish Law . . . . . . . . . .6
1.3.3 River Basin Management Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
1.3.4 National Coordination Group (NCG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
1.3.5 National Technical Coordination Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
1.3.6 Technical Sub-groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
RIVER BASIN DISTRICTS WITHIN IRELAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
INTERNATIONAL RIVER BASIN DISTRICTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
THE CHARACTERISATION REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
1.6.1 Register of Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
REPORTING FORMAT AND SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
1.7.1 EU Commission Reporting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
1.7.2 Reporting the Impact of Human Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
1.7.3 Overall Characterisation Reporting Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
1.7.4 Submissions on Characterisation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
1.7.5 Submissions received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
1.7.6 Summary of Submissions and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
1.7.7 Further information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
ANALYSIS OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICT
CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
2.1
page iv
2.2
2.3
GROUNDWATERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
2.1.1 Physical characterisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
2.1.2 Location and boundaries of the groundwater bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
2.1.3 Description of groundwater bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
2.1.4 Description of groundwater bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
2.1.5 Groundwater bodies for which there are directly dependent
surface water ecosystems or terrestrial ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
SURFACE WATER (RIVERS, LAKES, TRANSITIONAL
AND COASTAL WATERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
2.2.1 Characterisation of surface water body types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
2.2.2 Type-specific reference conditions and maximum
ecological potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
2.2.3 Reference network for water body types with high
ecological status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
2.2.4 Identification of water bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
2.2.5 Identification of Artificial and Heavily Modified Water Bodies . . . . .43
REGISTER OF PROTECTED AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
2.3.1 Areas designated for the abstraction of water intended
for human consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
2.3.2 Areas designated for the protection of economically significant
aquatic species (fish, shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
2.3.3 Areas designated as recreational and bathing waters . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
2.3.4 Nutrient-sensitive areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
2.3.5 Areas designation for the protection of habitats (including birds) . .45
3.0
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF HUMAN ACTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.0
ARTIFICIAL & HEAVILY MODIFIED WATER BODIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
4.1
4.2
5.0
IDENTIFICATION OF AWBS & HMWBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
ESTABLISHMENT OF GEP FOR AWBS & HMWBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
6.0
DENTIFICATION OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
3.1.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
3.1.2 Step 1 – Identification of Human Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
3.1.3 Step 2 – Risk Assessment of Human Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
3.1.4 Significant pollution pressures on surface waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
3.1.5 RBMP Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
GROUNDWATER RISK ASSESSMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
3.2.1 Overview of Groundwater Risk Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
3.2.2 Groundwater Risk Assessments Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
3.2.3 Identification of groundwater bodies for which lower objectives
are to be specified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
RIVER RISK ASSESSMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
3.3.1 Overview of River Risk Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
3.3.2 River Risk Assessment Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
LAKE RISK ASSESSMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
3.4.1 Overview of Lake Risk Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
3.4.2 Lake Risk Assessment Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
TRANSITIONAL & COASTAL RISK ASSESSMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
3.5.1 Overview of Transitional and Coastal Risk Assessments . . . . . . . . . . .93
3.5.2 Transitional and Coastal Risk Assessment Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
UNCERTAINTIES & DATA GAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
3.6.1 Key Data Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
3.6.2 Monitoring Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
3.6.3 Further Characterisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123
OVERVIEW OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF WATER USE . . . . . . . . .123
5.2.1 Economic Impacts of Water Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124
5.2.2 Values of Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS AND COSTS RECOVERY OF
WATER SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
5.3.1 Financial Costs and Costs Recovery for Water Services . . . . . . . . . . . .128
5.3.2 Environmental/Resource Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
PROJECTIONS OF DEMAND, SUPPLY CAPACITY, AND COSTS
OF WATER SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
5.4.1 Projected Water Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
5.4.2 Future Supply Capacity of Water Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
5.4.3 Projected Costs of Water Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
SUMMARY OF WORK COMPLETED TO ESTABLISH BASELINE
SCENARIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
INFORMATION TO SUPPORT FUTURE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
6.1
6.2
6.3
OVERVIEW OF IDENTIFICATION OF WATER BODIES 'AT RISK' . . . . . . . . . . . .141
6.1.1 Groundwater bodies for which lower objectives
are to be specified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146
6.1.2 Waterbodies at risk from hydromorphological pressures
and their further consideration as AWBs or HMWBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147
FINDINGS OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147
UNCERTAINTIES, DATA GAPS AND NEXT STEPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148
page v
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This initial Characterisation and Analysis Report represents a further important milestone for Ireland in
implementing the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for
Community action in the field of water policy). The Directive has already been transposed into national
legislation (the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003, S.I No. 722 of 2003). The EU
Commission has been provided with information on the competent authorities and a description of the
geographical coverage of each River Basin District (RBD) within Ireland, including four national and
three international RBDs. The process has involved extensive and detailed collaboration between a wide
range of public authorities in collating the substantial body of existing datasets. A significant number of
new datasets have also been generated through commissioned work and research programmes.
The designated competent authorities in Ireland prepared a single National Summary Characterisation
Report and submitted it to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the statutory deadline of 22nd
December 2004, in compliance with S.I. 722 of 2003. Public and stakeholder comment was invited up to
16th February 2005 prior to finalisation and submission to the European Commission on 22nd March 2005
by the Environmental Protection Agency. This report represents the conclusion of this process and is
largely based on the December report together with additional data collected for the report submitted to
the European Commission on 22nd March 2005. Comments and submissions received on the December
2004 report are summarised in Chapter One.
This report provides an analysis of the characteristics of river basin districts, undertakes a review of the
impact of human activity on the status of waters and provides an economic analysis of water use in
accordance with the requirements of Article 5 of the Directive. The report serves as a comprehensive
assessment of all waters (groundwater, rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters), establishes a baseline
and identifies priority actions for subsequent stages in the river basin planning cycle.
page vi
All waters have been grouped into types (e.g. different types of lakes) and further divided into individual
management units called water bodies. The identified range of individual water bodies includes 757
groundwater, 4,468 river, 210 lake (above 50 hectares), 196 transitional and 113 coastal water bodies.
Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE) or Groundwater Dependent Surface Waters
(GWDSW) have been found to be associated with 266 of the above groundwater bodies.
Reference conditions established for each surface water type describe ‘unimpacted’ conditions and,
together with an EU-wide intercalibration exercise, will provide the basis for establishing classification
systems for surface waters in 2006.
A baseline risk assessment of human pressures and impacts on all water bodies is presented. In terms of
environmental objectives, the Directive aims to ensure that there is no further deterioration in the status of
any waters and that, by 2015, all waters achieve at least good status or such higher status as is appropriate
in the case of protected areas. The status of waters will be determined by water pollution indicators plus a
wide range of new criteria based on pressures and impacts arising from aspects such as abstractions,
hydromorphological alterations (e.g. navigations, hydropower, flood control), commercial marine fishing
activities and invasive aquatic alien species. The assessment identifies those waters which, by reference to
present circumstances and based on the best information currently available, might not meet all of the new
criteria being established for good status. These waters are assessed as being at risk i.e. they may not
comply with all the criteria for good status by 2015 unless measures are taken in the meantime.
This initial assessment of risk does not address future changes in pressure management. For example, at
this early stage it has not been possible to take account of forthcoming changes due to implementation of
the National Spatial Strategy, investment in wastewater treatment facilities or agricultural sector reform.
As the availability and detail of information improves during the River Basin Management Planning
(RBMP) process the implications of future changes in pressures and management measures will be taken
into account.
The water bodies identified by the initial characterisation as being at risk include (by number): 5% of
groundwater bodies, 29% of river water bodies, 18% of lake water bodies, 30% of transitional water
bodies and 12% of coastal water bodies. Management measures will be implemented for these water
bodies. Water bodies identified as being probably at risk include: 56% of groundwater bodies, 35% of
river water bodies, 20% of lake water bodies, 23% of transitional water bodies and 15% of coastal water
bodies. Further characterisation will be focussed on these water bodies to confirm risk.
In broad terms the Neagh-Bann IRBD, Eastern RBD, South Eastern RBD and the Shannon IRBD have the
highest proportion of water bodies across all water types at risk from pressures. The most significant
pressures on these water bodies were 1. diffuse pollution sources particularly from urban and agricultural
land use and 2. morphological alterations particularly channel drainage associated with rivers,
impoundments on lakes and activities associated with ports in transitional and coastal waters.
The South Western RBD followed by the North Western IRBD and the Western RBD show the lowest
proportions of water bodies identified as at risk across all water types from pressures. However, in the
South Western RBD a significant proportion of groundwater bodies were identified as probably at risk
from diffuse agricultural and urban land use pollution. This will require further characterisation to verify.
In the North Western IRBD the most significant issue is the pressure from diffuse source pollution and
morphological alterations on rivers. In the Western RBD the most significant issue is the pressure from
diffuse source pollution and morphological alterations on rivers and diffuse source pollution on
groundwater.
page vii
Risk assessments were also undertaken to assess the impact of alien species, fishing pressures and bathing
water compliance to provide an overview on these issues for comment. These risk assessments are treated
as shadow assessments since they were heavily reliant on expert opinion and provide risk comment for
water bodies rather than determining overall risk category. These assessments will require more
development during further characterization.
Due to the creation of new water bodies and the physical alterations to existing water bodies in the past
(e.g. construction of canals, ports, flood protection structures, navigation channels, etc.) 37 provisional
Artificial Water Bodies (pAWB) and 37 provisional Heavily Modified Water Bodies (pHMWB) have been
identified as part of this assessment. Further investigation will be required to validate if these provisional
designations are warranted or indeed justified within the rules of the Directive. Where this is the case,
appropriate environmental quality objectives will be developed for these water bodies in keeping with
their current physical nature.
Certain groundwater bodies have been identified as possibly requiring less stringent environmental
objectives on the basis that they are likely to be so impacted by human activity that the achievement of
good status might not be technically feasible or might be disproportionately expensive. These include
groundwater bodies associated with nineteen coalfield areas/significant mines, eleven groundwater bodies
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
affected by contaminated lands and groundwater bodies associated with five major urban centres. These
groundwater bodies will be further investigated to determine the appropriateness of this provisional
designation.
A baseline economic analysis has been completed with a preliminary assessment of the value and costs
associated with water resources in Ireland. Key information gaps have been identified along with a
proposed strategy to address them by 2008.
The next phase of the RBMP cycle will focus on the further characterisation of water bodies at risk to
improve the information available and to increase the confidence in the risk assessments. Details of the
planned actions to address these data gaps and uncertainties during the next planning phase (2005-2008)
are provided. A targeted and efficient monitoring programme will be put in place. A precautionary
approach has been adopted and it is very probable, when further characterisation is completed, that some
waterbodies currently deemed at risk will ultimately be classified to be at good status.
Achieving at least good status for all waters by 2015 will be a considerable challenge. Significant effort
and resources will be required to ensure sustainable water management is implemented on schedule as
required by the Directive. The completion of this initial characterisation and analysis provides the baseline
necessary to begin the next phase of the process of river basin management.
page viii
chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHARACTERISATION REPORT
One of the first major milestones required of European Union Member States by the Water Framework
Directive (WFD) is the preparation of Summary Characterisation Reports (Article 5) for all River Basin
Districts in their jurisdiction. This requires:
an analysis of River Basin District characteristics,
a review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters and on groundwater, and
an economic analysis of water use
The principle objective of this report is to provide summary information on the initial characterisation at
River Basin District (RBD) level. This initial assessment serves to identify those waterbodies that are
either at risk or not at risk of achieving the Directives objectives by 2015. Following this initial Report
in 2005 further characterisation of waterbodies designated as at risk or probably at risk will be
undertaken leading up to the production of the draft River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) in 2008.
Final reporting on Characterisation to the EU Commission will take place in 2010 when RBMPs are
finalised.
The designated competent authorities in Ireland prepared a single combined National Summary
Characterisation Report for the purpose of reporting by the statutory deadline of 22nd December 2004.
That report was intended to provide an opportunity for public and stakeholder comment prior to
finalisation and submission to the European Commission in March 2005. This report represents the
finalisation of this process and is largely based on the December report together with additional data
collected for the report submitted to the European Commission on 22nd March 2005. Comments and
submissions received on the December 2004 report are summarised in Section 1.7.4.
1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
As part of a substantial restructuring of EU water policy and legislation, a Directive establishing a new
framework for Community action in the field of water policy (2000/60/EC)Ref 1 was agreed by the
European Parliament and Council in September 2000 and came into force on 22nd December 2000. The
Directive, generally known as the Water Framework Directive (WFD) rationalises and updates existing
water legislations and provides for water management on the basis of River Basin Districts (RBD's).
The WFD is a wide ranging and ambitious piece of European environmental legislation setting clear
objectives to ensure that "good status" is achieved for all European Waters by 2015.
It is a European wide initiative that applies to all Europe’s groundwaters, rivers, lakes, transitional waters
(estuaries) and coastal waters.
The overall objective of the Directive is to bring about the effective co-ordination of water environment
policy and regulation across Europe in order to:
page 1
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
protect and enhance the status of aquatic ecosystems (and terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands
directly dependent on aquatic ecosystems)
promote sustainable water use based on long-term protection of available water resources
provide for sufficient supply of good quality surface water and groundwater as needed for
sustainable, balanced and equitable water use
provide for enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment by reducing / phasing
out of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances
contribute to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts
protect territorial and marine waters
establish a register of 'protected areas' e.g. areas designated for protection of habitats or species.
The directive rationalises and updates existing water legislation by setting common EU wide objectives
for water. It provides for a new, strengthened system for the protection and improvement of water quality
and dependent ecosystems. It aims at maintaining "high status" of waters where it exists, preventing any
deterioration in the existing status of waters and achieving at least "good status" in relation to all waters
by 2015.
The Directive requires water quality management to be based on natural river catchments i.e. by reference
to the natural, environmental unit rather than by reference to administrative or legal boundaries, which
often fragment river basins.
page 2
Management must be planned and implemented, through Management Plans, in a way that achieves the
best possible balance between the protection and improvement of the water environment and the interests
of those who depend on it for their livelihood and quality of life.
Central to the Water Framework Directive is a requirement for Member States to encourage the active
involvement of all interested parties in its implementation. The key to this is involving all stakeholders.
Public Participation is a key element of the Directive required under Article 14. It is particularly important
that information supply and consultation shall be ensured and that active participation is encouraged
particularly with respect to Management Plans and Programmes of Measures. These must be made
available for comment throughout their development to final acceptance.
The Directive sets a demanding timescale for implementation. The Irish Legislative milestones are
provided in Table 1.1.
It requires transposition into National Legislation, the preparation of Characterisation Reports (the subject
of this report), establishment of environmental objectives, Programmes of Measures and Management
Plans coupled with comprehensive Monitoring Programmes and an overview of the economic benefits and
costs associated with water resources.
"Characterisation Reports" must be prepared for every River Basin District. The Reports, based on readily
chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
available information, are a description and scientific assessment of each basin based on identified
pressures and impacts arising from human activity acting on the water bodies within the basin. The
assessment is required to ascertain whether such impacts are likely to prevent the achievement of the
required "status" by 2015. The assessment informs the design of "Programme of Measures" required to
reduce the risk to such water bodies.
The "Programme of Measures" will be a combination of policies and management actions designed to
prevent further deterioration of water quality and achieve the required status in the most cost effective
manner.
Based on the Characterisation Report comprehensive monitoring programmes must be prepared and
implemented to fill information gaps, clarify issues and demonstrate response to measures implemented.
Overall planning for each basin will be undertaken through River Basin Management Plans which must
be drafted and published for consultation before final adoption by the Local Authorities and
implementation. Once adopted these Plans must be reviewed every six years.
A draft version of the Programmes of Measures and Management Plans must be published and consulted
on for a period of six months before final adoption in December 2009. Any person may make comments
in writing within the six month period.
The aims of the WFD present major challenges to everyone involved in protection, use and management
of the aquatic environment. Significant resources have been mobilised to meet the challenges and meet the
tight time schedule for the activities, which must be undertaken. Guidance on the implementation is
provided through guidance documents Ref 2 produced by the European Union and through consultation
with the UK, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
page 3
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Table 1.1: Implementation of the WFD as scheduled in Irish legislation (S.I. 722, 2003)
Key Date
Key tasks
22nd December
2003
22nd June 2004
Implementation of the WFD on a National level
22nd
December 2004
Submission of National Summary Report on the Characterisation of
the River Basin Districts to the European Commission
22nd June 2006
Develop Classification systems for surface water and groundwater
22nd June 2006
Establishing and maintaining appropriate
Monitoring Programmes - Such monitoring must cover both surface
and groundwater and must be operational by 22nd December 2006.
Prepare and publish a work Programme and Timetable for the
production of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP).
Prepare and publish an overview of the significant water
management issues identified in each river basin.
Prepare and publish draft RBMPs and allow six months for written
comment.
Publish a draft Programmes of Measures for comment by any person
for a six month period.
22nd June 2007
22nd June 2008
22nd June 2008
22nd June 2009
Establish environmental objectives and final Programmes of
Measures and developing RBMPs for their implementation
22nd June 2009
Making of RBMPs
2010
Water Pricing Policies that take into account the
principle of ‘cost recovery’ for water services
2012
Latest date for making operational the Programme of Measures
2015
Meet environmental objectives of first RBMP and adopt the Second
RBMP
Public Information and Consultation (ongoing)
22nd March 2005
22nd June 2006
page 4
Establishing of River Basin Districts as the
fundamental unit for applying and co-ordinating the Directive’s
provisions
Characterisation of River Basin Districts.
chapter 1
1.3
INTRODUCTION
TRANSPOSITION OF THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE INTO IRISH LEGISLATION
AND IMPLEMENTATION
The following sections describe the transposition into Irish legislation and the mechanisms and activities
currently underway to implement the directive.
Delivery of the main tasks required by the Regulations is being pursued by local authorities, the EPA, the
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and other authorities, including
authorities in Northern Ireland, in the context of inter-authority river basin management projects, research
projects and other activities.
Implementation in Ireland is being undertaken through River Basin District Projects by the Local
Authorities, supported by consultants appointed to prepare the Characterisation Reports, Monitoring
Programmes and Programmes of Measures which will lead into the River Basin Management Plans.
Project Steering Committees and Management Groups have been established in each RBD to guide project
development. Guidance is provided by a National Coordinating Group and National Technical
Coordination Group to ensure a consistent approach to characterisation of all river basin districts. To
support the implementation a number of research activities have been undertaken under the Environmental
Research, Technological Development and Innovation Programme (ERTDI) managed by the EPA.
Overall coordination of WFD related activities is provided by the EPA.
1.3.1 Legislation Transposing the WFD into Irish Law
The Water Framework Directive was transposed into Irish Legislation by the European Communities
(Water Policy) Regulations 2003, (Statutory Instrument 722) on 22nd December 2003 Ref 3.
In brief the legislation provides for the protection of the status of all waters, the establishment of "river
basin districts" (RBDs), co-ordination of actions by all relevant public authorities for water quality
management in an RBD including cross-border RBDs, characterisation of each RBD, establishment of
environmental objectives and the development of programmes of measures and river basin management
plans (RBMP). The legislation also assigns specific and new functions mainly to the Minister, the EPA and
local authorities. It provides for participation by interested parties and their facilitation in this process by
the Local authorities.
The Legislation specifically identifies the EPA as the competent authority for coordination and reporting
nationally, the relevant local authorities acting jointly for RBMP and Programme of Measures (POM) and
also identifies the co-ordinating authority for each individual basin district.
Eight RBDs have being established on the island of Ireland, North and South (see Map 1.1). The
delineation of RBDs has been developed in consultation with authorities in Northern Ireland and interested
parties generally. The Regulations identify the seven RBDs established in relation to areas in the South,
including cross-border areas. One further RBD is wholly internal to Northern Ireland.
page 5
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Map 1-1: River Basin Districts on the island of Ireland
The designated co-ordinating local authorities for each river basin in the Irish Republic are provided in
Table 1.2.
Table 1.2: Coordinating Local Authorities
page 6
River Basin District
Co-ordinating local authority
Eastern
South Eastern
South Western
Western
Shannon (International)
North Western (International)
Neagh Bann (International)
Dublin City Council
Carlow County Council
Cork County Council
Galway County Council
Limerick County Council
Donegal County Council
Monaghan County Council
To facilitate public participation River Basin District Advisory Councils (RBDAC) will also be established
during 2005 to consider matters relating to the preparation of the river basin management plan and other
matters relevant to the protection and use of the aquatic environment and water resources in each district
and to advise and make recommendations on these matters to the relevant public authorities.
1.3.2 Legislation Transposing the WFD into Northern Irish Law
The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 (SR No.
544)Ref 4 were made by the competent authorities in Northern Ireland on 22 December 2003 and provide
for transposition of the Water Framework Directive in relation to Northern Ireland, including provisions
in relation to cross-border river basins.
chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.3.3 River Basin Management Projects
The main activities for the implementation of the WFD in the Irish Republic are taking place in the context
of River Basin Management Projects led by local authorities. The Department of the Environment,
Heritage and Local Government has promoted the establishment by local authorities of such projects to
address all inland and coastal waters and has provided funding through the National Development Plan to
the Local Authorities to implement the projects.
The projects are facilitating participation by all stakeholders, and will lead to the identification and
implementation of effective measures for improved water management.
A project office has been established in each of the river basin districts by the coordinating local authority.
The project implementation is supported by a Project Co-ordinator and by a project consultancy team.
Additionally a Project Steering Group and a Project Management (or Technical) Group have also been
established in each of the river basin districts to direct and advise on project implementation.
1.3.4 National Coordination Group (NCG)
The Department of Environment and Local Government has established a WFD co-ordination group to coordinate and promote, at national level, implementation of the Directive. The national group is supported
by a number of advisory/technical working groups in specialist topics.
The participants in the group include officials of relevant government departments, their related technical
agencies and local authorities. These include:
The River Basin District Coordinating Authorities
Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government
page 7
Environmental Protection Agency
Environment & Heritage Service, Northern Ireland
Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources
Marine Institute
Geological Survey of Ireland
Department of Agriculture and Food
Central and Regional Fisheries Board
Office of Public Works
Local Government Computer Services Board
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
In addition to co-ordination at national level, officials of the Department of Environment, Heritage and
Local Government, other Government departments and their agencies are participating in technical groups
and other initiatives to promote consistent and co-ordinated implementation of the WFD in the European
Community, on a North/South basis and at a regional (RBD) level.
1.3.5 National Technical Coordination Group
A National Technical Coordination Group (NTCG) has been established to provide specific guidance on
the Water Framework Directive in Ireland and to further ensure a coherent approach to its implementation.
The Group is similar in structure to that of the NCG but comprises a larger working group which is focused
on delivering the technical requirements of the Directive. It oversees the testing and application of
technical guidance from Europe as well as ensuring coordination and consistency across Irish RBDs and
with other Member States, the UK, Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular. The NTCG has provided
an effective forum for discussing and refining the approach used to prepare this Characterisation Report.
1.3.6. Technical Sub-groups
Due to the scope and complexity of issues dealt with the NCG and NTCG establish technical sub-groups
on a needs basis to address specific topics. These working groups draw on expertise from National
Organisations and Public Bodies and from the River Basin District Projects. To-date such sub-groups have
been established to address topics including Groundwater Risk Assessment, Surface Water Risk
Assessment, Geographical Information Systems (GIS), Public Participation and Monitoring.
1.4
RIVER BASIN DISTRICTS WITHIN IRELAND
Statistical information for the River Basin District areas within the Irish Republic is provided in Table 1.3.
A brief summary of each RBD follows:
page 8
ERBD
The ERBD is defined as the physiographic region within Hydrometric Areas 07, 08, 09 and 10 that drains
to the Irish Sea, and adjacent transitional and coastal waters (Map 1-2). It stretches from County Wexford
to the south to County Louth to the north, entirely containing County Dublin and also parts of Counties
Meath, Kildare, Wicklow, Offaly, Westmeath and Cavan. Land cover is dominated by agricultural, urban
and some natural areas. It is the most highly urbanised and populated basin district in Ireland.
SERBD
The SERBD comprises hydrometric areas 11 – 17 (Map 1-3). These are Owenvarragh, Slaney and
Wexford Harbour, Ballyteigue-Bannow, Barrow, Nore, Suir and Colligan-Mahon catchments. These
catchments and thus the basin district cover approximately 12,834 km2 of the Country. Agriculture and
natural areas are the dominant land cover.
SWRBD
The South Western River Basin District comprises hydrometric areas 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 (Map 1-4). It
encompasses an area of circa 11,000 km2. The basin district is primarily made up of most of counties Cork,
Kerry and all of Cork City. Small parts of Waterford, South Tipperary and Limerick are also included in
the basin district. Natural and agricultural areas are the dominant land cover.
chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
WRBD
The WRBD is defined as the physiographical region within Hydrometric Areas 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and
35 that drains to the Atlantic Ocean, and adjacent transitional and coastal waters (Map 1-5). It stretches
from County Clare in the south to County Leitrim to the north, containing parts of Counties Galway,
Galway City, Mayo, Roscommon, and Sligo. The WRBD comprises 89 river catchments. The major
catchments include the Corrib, Moy, Ballysadare, Dunkellin and Bonet rivers. Natural areas and
agriculture are the dominant land cover.
1.5
INTERNATIONAL RIVER BASIN DISTRICTS
Of the eight River Basin Districts in Ireland three are International River Basin Districts (IRBD). These
include the North Western IRBD, the Neagh-Bann IRBD and the Shannon IRBD, the latter is so
designated by virtue of a small catchment area which crosses the International boundary. The
implementation of the WFD is being undertaken independently by both the EHS in Northern Ireland and
by the Local Authorities in the South and the respective portions of each IRBD within each state will be
reported on separately.
Shannon IRBD
The Shannon River Basin District drains significant portions of counties Cavan, Clare, Galway, Kerry,
Leitrim, Limerick, Longford, Offaly, Roscommon, Tipperary and Westmeath and lesser areas of counties
Cork, Laois, Mayo, Meath and Sligo. The Shannon River Basin District comprises hydrometric areas: 23,
24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 (Map 1-6). It is the largest river basin district in Ireland comprising an area of
approximately 18,000 km2 and includes an extensive area of central Ireland, from its source in County
Cavan to the mouth of the Shannon estuary. Lough Derg and Lough Ree are the principal lakes on the
Shannon. The Fergus, Maigue, Deel and Mulkear are among the principal tributaries of the lower
Shannon. The Rivers Suck, Inny and Brosna are among the principal tributaries of the upper Shannon. The
river becomes tidal a short distance upstream of Limerick City. The estuary of the Shannon extends from
Limerick westwards towards the Atlantic Ocean. Agricultural areas are the predominant land cover.
page 9
North Western IRBD
The North Western International River Basin District is defined as the physiographical region within
hydrometric areas: 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and a small portion of 01 and 03 (Map 1-7). The NWRBD drains
significant portions of counties Donegal, Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan, Longford and a very small fraction
of County Sligo. The NWRBD has 664 river water bodies draining an areas of 7,385 km2. The NWRBD
is largely comprised of agriculture and natural areas with a small portion of 1% of urban land cover.
Neagh Bann IRBD
The Neagh Bann International River Basin District is defined by physiographical regions: 03, 06, 07 and
36 (Map 1-8). It drains parts of counties Louth, Meath, Cavan and Monaghan. The largest portion of this
River Basin District lies in Northern Ireland where the EHS will co-ordinate the implementation of the
WFD in conjunction with the Local Authorities on the ROI side. The Neagh Bann has 71 river water
bodies and a draining an area of 1,787 km2. Land cover in the Neagh Bann is largely agricultural.
Length of Coastline including
estuaries (km)
Coastal and Transitional waters
Area (km2)
Groundwater Body Numbers
River water body numbers
River length (km)
Lakes Assessed
Lakes ≥50 Hectares
River Basin Districts and
relevant Local Authorities
Note: coordinating local
authorities are in bold
Characteristics
Land-area (km2 )
Population size
Land-use (%)
•
Agriculture
•
Urban
•
Natural areas
Hydrometric Areas
797
1,107
151
417
388
75
45.4%
0.1%
54.4%
11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16 and 17
655
3,114
12
0
Carlow
Cork
Kildare
Kilkenny
Laois
Limerick
North Tipperary
Offaly
South Tipperary
Waterford
Waterford City
Wexford
Wicklow
•
•
•
•
•
•
75%
4.67
8%
07, 08, 09 and
10
356
1,900
26
9
Cavan
Drogheda
Borough
Dublin City
Dun
Laoghhaire/Rat
hdown
Fingal
Kildare
Louth
Meath
Offaly
South Dublin
Westmeath
Wicklow
SE-RBD
12,834
516,177
E-RBD
6,269
1,518,000
page 10
•
•
•
84
3,855
2757
65.1%
1.6 %
33.4%
18, 19, 20,
21 and 22
885
2,957
90
20
Cork
County
Cork City
Kerry
Limerick
Waterford
County
South
Tipperary
SW-RBD
11,222
523,423
•
•
•
242
1,487
70.7%
0.15%
29.15%
23, 24, 25, 26,
27 and 28
884
7,666
113
53
Cavan
Clare
Cork
Galway
Kerry
Laois
Leitrim
Limerick
Limerick City
Longford
Mayo
Meath
Offaly
Roscommon
Sligo
Tipperary North
Tipperary South
Westmeath
1220
SH-IRBD
17,963
618,884
•
•
•
105
4,882
3237
47.02%
0.03%
52.96%
29, 30, 31, 32,
33, 34 and 35
951
6,745
322
73
Clare,
Galway City
Galway
Leitrim
Mayo
Sligo
Roscommon
W-RBD
12,070
374,000
Table 1.3: River Basin District Statistical Information
•
•
•
72
2,275
1596
52%
1%
47%
01,03,36,37,
8,39,40
665
2169
180
53
Cavan
Donegal
Leitrim
Longford
Monaghan
Sligo
NW-IRBD
7,385
201,941
•
•
•
28
190
135
71
419
2
2
Cavan
Louth
Meath
Monaghan
88%
2%
10%
03, 06, 36
Neagh/Bann-IRBD
1,787
116,290
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
chapter 1
1.6
INTRODUCTION
THE CHARACTERISATION REPORT
As stated the purpose of the Characterisation report is to 1. provide an analysis of River Basin District
characteristics, 2. review the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters and on groundwater,
and 3. carry out an economic analysis of water use.
Firstly, groundwaters and surface waters (includes rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters and other
wetlands) must be physically characterised and divided into water bodies, the unit of reporting required by
the EU, for management purposes. In addition, as surface waters are living aquatic ecosystems, the
directive requires type-specific reference conditions to be established for all surface water types. The
status of each surface water body will later be measured against these reference conditions.
Characterisation provides a better understanding of the current and predicted future state of all aquatic
environments and the ecology associated with them. It helps to determine the future monitoring strategy
and also provides a starting point for the design of the Programme of Measures.
For all groundwaters and surface waters significant environmental pressures must be identified and
impacts, where known, assessed. The risk posed to all water bodies in terms of whether or not they will
achieve good status by 2015 is assessed based both on a predictive approach using readily available
information and established relationships and on impact data derived from existing monitoring data where
available. This approach is described later in Chapter 3.
The purpose of the economic analysis of water use is to provide an initial overview of the economic
benefits associated with the utilisation of water resources in Ireland; water services costs and cost
recovery; environmental/resource costs; and projections of demand, supply and costs of water services. It
will also be integral to the decision making process when it comes to deciding on the most cost-effective
combination measures under the programme of measures.
All competent authorities (Local authorities and EPA) and other state agencies have collaborated in
producing a National Summary Characterisation Report by December 22, 2004 to meet obligations under
Article 7 of the Irish Regulations (S.I. 722, 2003). The EPA submitted a National Summary
Characterisation Report to the European Commission on March 22 2005. This report represents the
completion of this process.
1.6.1 Register of Protected Areas
Article 6 of the Directive requires Member States to establish a register of all protected areas lying within
each river basin district. These are areas that have been designated as requiring special protection under
specific community legislation for the protection of their surface water or groundwater or for the
conservation of habitats and species directly depending on water. This register has been developed in
Ireland by the EPA. Although not specifically required to be reported under Article 5 the Register of
Protected Areas has been included in this Characterisation report since "Characterisation" also relates to
these areas.
For each river basin district, the register or registers of protected areas will be kept under review and up
to date.
page 11
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
1.7
REPORTING FORMAT AND SCHEDULE
As mentioned the competent authorities in Ireland have prepared a single combined National Summary
Characterisation Report for reporting in December 2004. This section outlines the EU Commission’s
reporting requirements, the schedule for reporting and details on where to send comments.
Note: Throughout the report electronic hyperlinks have been inserted to relevant background information
as recommended by the EU Commission (e.g. characterisation and risk assessment methodologies) and
maps (e.g. characterisation and risk assessment outputs).
1.7.1 EU Commission Reporting Requirements
The EU Commission has prescribed its reporting requirements in the form of "Reporting Sheets" which
set out the details of geographical, data and text information requested from Member States. The
information provided by the RBDs in this Characterisation Report was reported by the EPA to the EU
Commission in this format and this submission is available on www.wfdireland.ie. A complete list of these
sheets is provided in Table 1.4.
In general the sheets cover specific reporting requirements ranging from surface water characterisation by
type, description of heavily modified water bodies, groundwater identifications, methodologies used,
reference conditions, significant pressures (including diffuse, point, abstraction and morphological) acting
on surface and groundwater bodies, the outcome of the risk assessment, economic analysis of water use,
uncertainties and data gaps and the register of protected areas.
page 12
Annex II 1.1, 1.2
Annex II 1.1
Identification of surface water bodies
Provisional identification of artificial and
heavily modified water bodies
Type-specific reference conditions,
maximum ecological potential and
reference network
SWB 2
SWB 3
SWB 4
Annex II 1
Annex II 1.5
Annex II 1.4
2.1 Surface water (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal
waters)
SWPI 1
Summary of significant pressures on
surface waters in the river basin district
SWPI 2
Identification of surface water bodies at risk
Significant point source pollution on
surface waters
Significant diffuse source pollution on
SWPI 3
SWPI 4
Annex II 1.4
Annex II 1.4
Annex II 2
Annex II 2.1
1.2 Groundwater
GWB 1
Identification and initial characterisation of
groundwater bodies
Annex II 1.3(i)-(vi)
Annex II 1.1
Annex II 1
WFD Reference
Reporting
Reporting Sheet Title
Sheet Code
1.1 Surface water (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal
waters)
SWB 1
Typology of surface water bodies
9
8
7
6
5
Summary of all significant pressures on surface waters in the River Basin District
An assessment of the relative importance of the pressure in the river basin district
The number of surface water bodies at risk in each river basin district;
The location of the surface water bodies at risk in each river basin district.
The significant pressures resulting in the water body being at risk
A summary of the methodologies used to identify surface water bodies at risk and
references to documents where more information can be found.
The total number of significant point sources in the river basin district;
The percentage (number) of water bodies at risk as a result of point source pollution;
Pollutants emitted at the river basin district level;
A description of the methodology used for identifying significant point sources;
The percentage (number) of water bodies at risk as a result of diffuse pollution
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Methodology for the identification/delineation of groundwater bodies especially for
international river basin districts
The approach to deal with small GWB (significant flow, aggregation, etc)
The approach to identify groundwater dependent ecosystems
Number of groundwater bodies (GWB)
3
Brief summary on which system (A or B) was used to characterise the types of surface
water bodies (SWB) for each category and brief comments on the approaches used for
dealing with very small water bodies is to be reported.
For international river basin district; summarise the way the co-ordination of the
approaches used to characterise surface water bodies was ensured across the different
Member States and if not what is the system put in place to ensure that this will be
remediated before 2009.
a brief summary of the methodology/criteria used to delineate surface water bodies such
as size, river confluence, etc.
The number of water bodies and the geographical scale at which the data (e.g. length,
area) have been calculated
Geographical information on the locations of water bodies
The number of HMWB/AWB provisionally identified in the RBD;
The location of the provisionally identified HMWB/AWB;
The methodology used for the provisional identification of HMWB/AWB;
Future work to refine the identification of HMWB/AWB.
A summary of the methodology used to define type-specific reference conditions
What should be reported?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4
•
•
•
•
2
1
Serial
Number
Table 1.4: Reporting Sheet Requirements
chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
page 13
Significant water flow regulations and
morphological alterations
Assessment of the impact of the significant
pressures on surface water bodies
Uncertainties and data gaps
Preliminary recommendations for
surveillance monitoring
SWPI 6
SWPI 7
SWPI 9
Annex II 2.1
Diffuse source pollution in groundwaters
Point source pollution to groundwaters
Groundwater abstraction
Artificial groundwater recharge
Saltwater intrusion
GWPI 3
GWPI 4
GWPI 5
GWPI 6
GWPI 7
Annex II 2.1
Annex II 2.1
Annex II 2.1
Annex II 2.1
Annex II 2.2
Annex II 1.5
Annex II 1.5
Annex II 1.4
Annex II 1.4
WFD Reference
2.2 Groundwater
GWPI 1
Initial characterisation - Summary of
pressures on groundwaters in the river basin
district
GWPI 2
Identification of groundwater bodies at risk
SWPI 8
Significant water abstractions from surface
water
SWPI 5
surface waters
Reporting Sheet Title
page 14
Reporting
Sheet Code
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Serial
Number
The location of the groundwater bodies at risk in each river basin district.
A summary of the methodologies used to identify groundwater bodies at risk and
references to documents where more information can be found.
The percentage (number) of groundwater bodies at risk in the river basin district as a
result of diffuse pollution;
Pollutants occurring in groundwater as a result of diffuse pollution at the river basin
district level;
A description of the methodology used for identifying significant diffuse sources;
The number of significant point sources discharging to groundwater bodies in the river
basin district and the percentage (number) of groundwater bodies at risk as a result of
point sources;
Pollutants emitted at the river basin district level;
A description of the methodology used for identifying point sources;Loads of pollutants
emitted or resulting concentrations in groundwater bodies at the river basin district level;
A description of the methodology used for identifying point sources
Number of abstractions from groundwater;
The percentage of groundwater bodies at risk in the river basin district as a result of
groundwater abstractions.
The number of significant artificial recharges to groundwater in the river basin district;
The percentage of groundwater bodies at risk as a result of artificial recharge;
The annual volume of significant water recharge in the river basin district
The percentage of groundwater bodies at risk in the river basin district as a result of
saltwater intrusion.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Summary of all significant pressures on groundwaters in the River Basin District.
An assessment of the relative importance of the pressure in the river basin district.
Summary of the main uncertainties and data gaps in the Article 5 analysis
Actions identified to address these issues
Summary of the preliminary recommendations for surveillance monitoring
Pollutants emitted at the river basin district level;
A description of the methodology used for identifying significant diffuse sources;
The percentage of water bodies in the river basin district at risk as a result of significant
abstractions;
Summary data on abstractions at a river basin district level;
A description of the methodology used for identifying significant abstractions
Estimate of the total number of significant water flow and morphological regulations in
the River Basin District;
Estimate of the percentage of water bodies at risk in the river basin district as a result of
significant water flow and morphological regulations
A summary of the main environmental impacts occurring in the RBD as a result of
significant pressure may be provided on a voluntary basis.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What should be reported?
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Register of Protected Areas
(Overview of identification of water bodies
at risk, uncertainties and data gaps, next
steps and other findings)
CONC 1
Recommendations for monitoring
Further characterisation - Assessment of the
human impacts on groundwater bodies
Further characterisation of groundwater
bodies at risk
Uncertainties and data gaps
Reporting Sheet Title
RPA 1
ECON 1
GWPI 11
GWPI 10
GWPI 9
Reporting
Sheet Code
GWPI 8
Annex IV (i)
Annex II 2.2
Annex II 2.3
WFD Reference
32
(Not yet
drafted)
27
26
25
24
23
22
Serial
Number
For each groundwater body at risk a summary of the results of the further characterisation
carried out.
Summary of the main uncertainties and data gaps in the Article 5 analysis for groundwater
and the further characterisation
Actions identified to address these issues.
Summary of recommendations for groundwater monitoring
An overview of the socio-economic importance of water uses in the River Basin District
together and information relating to how this analysis was carried out and how it may be
improved in the future;
An assessment of the current level of cost recovery for water services for households,
agriculture and industry, with some indication of a first picture of related cross subsidies,
and information relating to how this analysis was carried out and how it may be improved
in the future;
A summary of the work completed to date to establish a base-line scenario including
details of work required in the future, particularly covering more complex sectors.
areas designated for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption providing
more than 10 m3 a day as an average or serving more than 50 persons and those bodies of
water intended for such future use
areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species (fish,
shellfish)
areas designated as recreational and bathing waters under Directive 76/160/EEC
nutrient sensitive areas including areas designated as vulnerable zones under Directive
91/676/EEC and areas designated as sensitive areas under Directive 91/271/EEC
areas designated for the protection of habitats or species where the maintenance or
improvement of the status of water is an important factor in their protection including
relevant Natura 2000 sites designated under Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive
79/409/EEC
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A summary of the main environmental impacts on groundwater occurring in the RBD
may be provided on a voluntary basis.
•
What should be reported?
chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
page 15
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
1.7.2 Reporting the Impact of Human Activities
The impact of human activities is described in terms of risk assessment for each water body as to whether
it will achieve the required ecological status by 2015 or not. The assessment undertaken results in all water
bodies being placed into one of three risk categories defined by the European Commission’s Reporting
Sheets as follows:
Water bodies for which it is already clear without the need for further characterisation or additional
monitoring data, that the objectives will be failed;
Water bodies for which it is possible that the objectives of the Directive will be failed but, because
of inadequate data, further characterisation and operational monitoring are considered necessary to
be sufficiently confident that this is the case;
Water bodies for which it is already clear, without the need for further characterisation or additional
monitoring data, that the achievement of the objectives are not at risk.
In Ireland these three Categories have been further refined to four risk categories for the purpose of
focussing actions during the next phase (2005-2008). These risk categories, designated as 2b, 2a, 1b and
1a, and their relationship to the WFD reporting categories are shown in Table 1.5.
Table 1.5: WFD and Irish Risk Categories
EU Commissions reporting risk categories for
water bodies
Water bodies for which it is already clear without
the need for further characterisation or additional
monitoring data, that the objectives will be failed;
page 16
Water bodies for which it is possible that the
objectives of the Directive will be failed but,
because of inadequate data, further
characterisation and operational monitoring are
considered necessary to be sufficiently confident
that this is the case;
Water bodies for which it is already clear, without
the need for further characterisation or additional
monitoring data, that the achievement of the
objectives are not at risk.
Irish equivalent reporting categories for water
bodies
1a - Water Body at significant risk on the basis
of available information for which confidence in
the available information being comprehensive
and reliable is high
1b - Water Body probably at significant risk
but for which further information will be needed
to confirm that this view is correct
2a - Water Body probably not at significant
risk on the basis of available information for
which confidence in the available information
being comprehensive and reliable is lower
2b - Water Body not at risk on the basis of
available information for which confidence in the
available information being comprehensive and
reliable is high
Water bodies which fall into the Irish risk categories 2a and 1b will require further characterisation to
improve information and allow more refined assessments to be made up to 2008.
1.7.3 Overall Characterisation Reporting Schedule
The overall production of the Characterisation Report for Ireland has been coordinated jointly by the EPA
and local authorities. Local authorities through RBD projects have compiled the individual river basin
datasets. Supporting background information including technical methodologies has also been produced.
chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
This report was made available on the website www.wfdireland.ie on 22nd December 2004 for public
comment prior to completion and submission to the EU Commission. The key activities leading to the
completion and submission in March 2005 were as follows (Table 1.6):
Table 1.6: Time Schedule for National Characterisation Summary Report
Key Date
Activity
December 2004
National Summary Report compiled by local
authorities and the EPA from background
information and RBD datasets.
National Summary Report
www.wfdireland.ie website
placed
on
January to February 2005
Public / Stakeholder comment
22nd March 2005
Publication of a Summary Report in electronic
and hardcopy and submission to the European
Commission by the EPA. This report was
prepared in the format required for the European
Commission’s Water Information System for
Europe (EC WISE) and placed on the
www.wfdireland.ie website. Each RBD will also
publish detailed individual reports.
1.7.4 Submissions on Characterisation Report
Following publication of the National Summary Characterisation Report on the 22nd December 2004 a
National Seminar was organised jointly by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local
Government and the Local Authorities, and held in Athlone on the 25th January 2005. The availability of
the Summary Characterisation Report and subsequent National Seminar allowed a period for all interested
parties to make comments and submissions by February 16th 2005. The comments and submissions
received have been integrated into this final Summary National Characterisation Report.
1.7.5 Submissions Received
A total of twenty three organisations/individuals submitted comments in response to the publication of the
National Summary Characterisation Report, these are listed below.
List of Organisations/Individuals from whom submissions were received:
1 An Taisce – The National Trust for Ireland
2 Angling Pillar in the Western River Basin District
3 Coastwatch
4 Coillte Teoranta – the Irish Forestry Board
page 17
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
5 Coomhola Salmon Trust Ltd
6 Environmental Non Governmental Organisation in the South Eastern River Basin District
7 ESB
8 Heritage Council
9 Irish Peatland Conservation Council (IPCC)
10 Irish Water & Fish Preservation Society
11 Irish Wildlife Trust
12 Leitrim County Council
13 North Western Regional Fisheries Board (NWRFB)
14 Mr. B F Arthure (Limerick, Private Individual)
15 Mr. Ian Hester (Longford, Private Individual)
16 Mr. David Lee (Private Individual)
17 Roscommon Eco Network
18 Save Our Lough Derg (SOLD)
page 18
19 Sligo County Council
20 Sustainable Water Network (SWAN)
21 Trinity College Dublin, Department of Zoology
22 Waterways Ireland
23 Wexford County Council
1.7.6 Summary of Submissions and Responses
Submissions and comments were received in respect of both the national approach and outcome of the
characterisation process and characterisation aspects of specific river basin districts. The general nature of
submissions and comments and the general response to submissions are outlined below. The detailed
submissions and responses are provided in a compendium as part of the background documentationRef 5 to
the Characterisation Report, available on www.wfdireland.ie.
chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
General Issue
• Difficulty in accessing water
body information.
• Maps did not provide
sufficient detail at water
body level.
• Disagreement with some risk
designations of waterbodies.
• Queries regarding basis for
some risk assessment
methodologies applied to
some land use pressures.
• Need for more consultations
on Less Stringent Objectives
(LSO) for groundwater
• Register of Protected Areas
considered not to be
sufficiently extensive, for
example it has been
suggested that NHA’s
should be included
• Designations of
provisionally Heavily
Modified Water Bodies
(pHMWB) and Artificial
Response
• Following the report reviewing process a Web enabled GIS
system is being established to provide the public with direct
access to characterisation information by water body.
• All queried risk designations have been re-examined by
Expert Peer Groups and readjusted if there were adequate
datasets to support such re-designations. However, the risk
assessment process is iterative and will improve as
information/data availability improves. It is likely that some
risk designations will change as a result.
• All risk assessments are based on the best available
information and knowledge. Some pressures, for example
morphology pressures, are being assessed for the first time
but the impact of these pressures is currently not well
understood. As a result confidence in the predicted risk is
lower. Further investigative work will be carried out in
respect to these pressures as part of the further
characterisation process.
• The candidate groundwater bodies and their associated
surface water bodies listed in this Characterisation Report
will undergo detailed evaluation before confirmation of LSO
or derogation applicability. Consultations with relevant
stakeholders will be part of this next phase.
• The Directive's protected areas obligations only relate to
areas designated under Community legislation i.e. Natura
2000 sites. The areas to be included in the register are only
those where the maintenance or improvement of the status of
water is an important factor in their protection. The first tier
of the Register of Protected Areas in the Republic of Ireland
is composed of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs),
designated under the Habitats Directive, and Special
Protection Areas (SPAs), designated under the Birds
Directive. Only sites on this first tier of the Register have
been reported to Brussels as part of the Article 5 Report.
Second and Third Tiers to the Register will be developed to
include sites designated under national legislation, such as
Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) designated under the
Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. These lower tiers will be
taken into account within the River Basin Management Plan
process.
• This requires consultation with relevant stakeholders.
• Submissions proposing additional pHMWB and pAWB
were examined and where these were found to meet the
criteria further designations were made.
page 19
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
General Issue
Response
Waterbodies (pAWB)
• Public consultation and time
frame available for the
public to provide comment.
• Characterisation of the river basin districts is primarily a
technical process which involved technical inputs from
national institutions and stakeholders. The timescale to
complete the characterisation report is set out in national
legislation and the scale of the task involved limited the
timeframe available for public consultation. Although public
consultation was not formally required for the
characterisation process every effort has been made to
provide access to the Characterisation Report to allow for
public comment. This included providing access to the
report on the website http://www.wfdireland.ie from 22nd
December 2004. A national consultation seminar was also
held on 25th January 2005. The establishment of River Basin
District Management Plans and Programmes of Measures
will involve comprehensive public consultation programmes
prior to their adoption.
The outputs from the Characterisation Report provide the basis for subsequent phases of WFD
implementation in Ireland. The Report defines the main issues and follow-up activities which must
undertaken next
These will include:
determination and implementation of the monitoring requirements,
page 20
design and implementation of the programmes of measures required to ensure each waterbody
achieves the required status for 2015.
These activities will be ongoing until 2008 and in turn will inform the production of the draft River Basin
Management Plans by June 2008.
chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.7.7 Further information
If you wish to obtain further information please contact one of the following:
River Basin District
Contact details
Eastern River Basin District
In writing to: The Project Coordinator,
ERBD Project,
87/89 Morehampton Road,
Donnybrook,
Dublin 4
By e-mail to: [email protected]
South Eastern River Basin
District
In writing to: The Project Coordinator,
SERBD Project Office
Unit 1, Liddiard House,
Burrin Road, Carlow
By e-mail to: [email protected]
South Western River Basin
District
In writing to: The Project Coordinator,
SWRBD Project Office
Springville House,
Blackrock Road,
Cork
By e-mail to: [email protected]
In writing to: The Project Coordinator,
Western RBD Project Office
Unit 2, Block 17
Liosban Industrial estate,
Tuam Rd.
Galway
By e-mail to: [email protected]
In writing to: The Project Coordinator,
Shannon RBD Project Office
Mulkear House,
Units 2 and 3
Newtown Centre,
Annacotty,
Co. Limerick
By e-mail to: [email protected]
Western River Basin District
Shannon (International) River
Basin District
North Western (International)
River Basin District
In writing to: The Project Coordinator,
NS SHARE Project Office
Enterprise Fund Business Centre,
Ballyraine,
Letterkenny,
Co. Donegal.
By e-mail to: [email protected]
Neagh Bann (International)
River Basin District
In writing to: The Project Coordinator,
NS SHARE Project Office
Enterprise Fund Business Centre,
Ballyraine,
Letterkenny,
Co. Donegal.
By e-mail to: [email protected]
page 21
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Ref 1. Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) establishing a framework for Community action in the
field of water policy.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 2. Water Framework Directive Guidance Documents.
http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents&vm
=detailed&sb=Title
Ref 3. European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003, (Statutory Instrument 722).
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 4. The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 (SR
No. 544).
http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/pubs/publications/finalregs.pdf
Ref 5. Compendium of public submissions to the national summary report on ‘The characterisation and
analysis of Ireland’s river basin districts’ (December 2004)’.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
List of Maps in Chapter 1
Map 1-1 River Basin Districts on the island of Ireland
Map 1-2 Eastern River Basin District
Map 1-3 South Eastern River Basin District
Map 1-4 South Western River Basin District
page 22
Map 1-5 Western River Basin District
Map 1-6 Shannon (International) River Basin District
Map 1-7 North Western (International) River Basin District
Map 1-8 Neagh Bann (International) River Basin District
chapter 2
ANALYSIS OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS
ANALYSIS OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS
2.1
GROUNDWATERS
2.1.1 Physical characterisation
The groundwater initial characterisation process involves two elements:
1. Physical characterisation.
2. Risk characterisation (described further in Section 3.2).
Physical characterisation provides relevant information and maps to enable:
a) groundwater bodies to be delineated and described, and
b) the risk assessment process to be undertaken by providing the location and description of the
receptors and the geological pathways that link pressures and receptors.
The physical characterisation process required collection of new data, mapping, compilation and
assessment of existing and new data, and production of relevant maps and reports Ref 1. The work
undertaken was as follows:
1. Production of a national digital bedrock geology map;
2. Grouping of rock units on the basis of similarities in both lithology and likely hydrogeological
properties (Map 2-1);
3. Production of national maps of soils and subsoils;
4. Collection and compilation of hydrogeological and depth to bedrock data;
5. Assessment of the hydrogeological properties of each rock unit, using lithogical, structural and
hydrogeological information;
6. Production of a national map of bedrock and sand/gravel aquifers, giving a total of eight aquifer
categories (Map 2-2), based on resource value and hydrogeological properties;
7. Compilation of a groundwater vulnerability map for the proportion of the country (~50%) for
which existing county vulnerability maps were available; as well as preparation of a map of
‘extreme’ vulnerability (<3m soil/subsoil) areas for the remainder of the country.
8. Delineation of groundwater bodies (see Section 2.1.2).
2.1.2 Location and boundaries of the groundwater bodies
The CIS Guidance on ‘Identification of water bodies’ (2003)Ref 2 was used to develop an approach to
delineating groundwater bodies in Ireland Ref 3 applied in the following way:
page 23
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
The aquifers were grouped into four groundwater body types, based on similarities in flow regime
– karstic aquifers, gravel aquifers, productive fractured aquifers and poorly productive bedrock
aquifers (Map 2-3). The boundaries between adjacent groups usually represent either ‘no flow’ or
‘relatively low flow’ boundaries.
As groundwater catchment divides or highs generally coincide with surface water catchment
boundaries, surface water boundaries were used to complete groundwater body delineation.
A total of 383 groundwater bodies were delineated using these principles. Where point pollution sources
or the predicted impact on groundwater dependent ecosystems placed areas within these groundwater
bodies ‘at risk’, new groundwater bodies were delineated using hydrogeological boundaries, giving a total
of 757 groundwater bodies. (Map 2-3). These are subdivided into the four groundwater body types and
their occurrence in each RBD is summarised in Table 2.1. The number and type of transboundary bodies
are given in Table 2.2. The sizes of the groundwater bodies in each RBD are summarised in Table 2.3.
2.1.3 Description of groundwater bodies
Based on the requirements of the Directive and the compiled data and maps, a descriptive table – Table
2.4. – summarising the relevant physical characteristics was prepared. This table has been completed for
each of the 383 groundwater bodies.
In general, Ireland has a diverse, complex bedrock and subsoil geology. Consequently, the groundwater
flow regime varies from intergranular flow in subsoils to fissure flow in bedrock and karstic (conduit) flow
in limestones. This influences not only groundwater abstraction, but also pollutant movement and
attenuation, and interaction with surface water. The characteristics of the groundwater bodies (GWBs) are
summarised below, subdividing them on the basis of groundwater flow regime.
page 24
Karstified GWBs: generally distinctive karst landforms; drainage largely underground in solutionallyenlarged fissures (joints, fractures, bedding planes); variable to high transmissivity; high groundwater
velocity; low effective porosity; high degree of interconnection between groundwater and surface water,
with sinking streams and large springs; streams often flashy and may be dry in summer; baseflow variable;
groundwater level and stream flow hydrographs usually peaky; drainage density low; potentially long
groundwater flow paths.
Productive Fissured Bedrock GWBs: groundwater flow in fissures (joints, fractures, bedding planes);
moderate to high transmissivity; low effective porosity; contribute baseflow to streams and maintain dry
weather flows; occasional large springs may occur; potentially long groundwater flow paths; confined in
places.
Gravel GWBs: intergranular flow; high permeability; high effective porosity; tend to be relatively small
in area; occasional large springs; contribute substantially to stream baseflow; low drainage density;
potentially long flow paths.
Poorly Productive Bedrock GWBs: groundwater flow in fissures; most flow is at shallow depth in the
weathered layer at the top of the bedrock; significant flows can occur in widely dispersed deeper fracture
zones; low transmissivity; high groundwater gradients; low baseflow contribution to streams; high
drainage density; generally short underground flow paths.
chapter 2
ANALYSIS OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS
2.1.4 General character of the overlying strata
More than 90% of the RBDs are covered by subsoils. These provide the protecting, filtering layer over
groundwater and also influence recharge. However, they are highly variable in distribution, composition,
permeability and thickness. The main subsoil types and the proportion of the land surface covered by each
type is as follows: glacial till (62.5%), sand/gravel (4.3%), alluvial sediments (0.6%), lacustrine silts and
clays (0.4%), beach/wind blown sediments (0.2%), peat (18.9%) and made ground (1.2%). The remainder
of the land surface (11.9%) consists of outcrop/subcrop.
Subsoil permeability maps, subdividing the subsoils into three categories – high, moderate and low – were
available for ~40% of the country. For the remainder of the country subsoil permeability has been
estimated, although with a considerable level of uncertainty.
Soil maps were produced, subdividing soils into ‘wet’ or ‘dry’, and ‘acid’ or ‘basic’. While the areas of
‘wet’ soils are underestimated in places, these maps provide an essential component of the physical
characterisation and risk assessment.
In karstified GWBs, bypassing of the overlying protecting layers may occur at karst features, such as
swallow holes. Mapping and compilation of these features has been undertaken.
Vulnerability maps were available for 50% of the country. For the remainder, the ‘extremely’ vulnerable
areas (i.e. areas with <3m soil and subsoil above bedrock) were mapped (Map 2.4), as pressures in these
areas pose the greatest threat to groundwater. The proportions of each RBD with ‘extremely’ vulnerable
groundwater are given in Table 2.5.
A study was carried out, to assist surface water typology work, to determine the calcareous / noncalcareous (or "siliceous") classification of bedrock aquifers in the Republic of Ireland Ref 4. The output
from this study is presented in Map 2-5.
page 25
2.1.5 Groundwater bodies for which there are directly dependent surface water
ecosystems or terrestrial ecosystems
The achievement of "good status" for groundwater is dependant on ensuring appropriate groundwater
conditions for the maintenance of "good status" for surface waters and the avoidance of significant damage
to groundwater dependant terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTEs). Groundwater dependant ecosystems cover a
wide range of types including surface water bodies such as lakes, rivers and lagoons and wetlands such as
turloughs, fens, wet woodlands and bogs. The surface water bodies are described and delineated in Section
2.2 below. In relation to GWDTEs only those of European importance, i.e. in SACs or SPAs, on the
Register of Protected Areas (Section 2.3 below) have been assessed.
The list of sites with GWDTEs is based on the presence of EU Habitats Directive Annex 1 habitats which,
in the opinion of National Parks and Wildlife Service, were considered to be wholly or partly dependant
on groundwater (see Table 2.6). The EU Natura database was then queried for sites with these habitats.
In summary a total of 316 SACs were found to contain groundwater dependent surface water ecosystems
and/or terrestrial ecosystems. A full listing of sites with GWDTEs is downloadable from
www.compass.ie/download/compass_wde200411.zip .
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Nationally, 266 of the groundwater bodies had GWDTEs (located in SACs) associated with them. The
sensitivity of the different habitats to changes in groundwater quantity or quality was categorised using
best professional judgement and, for turloughs the indicator values of plants in line with the approaches
developed in the EPA RDTI project (2002-W-DS/10) report. A guidance document on the assessment of
risk in designated protected areas has been developedRef 5.
page 26
chapter 2
ANALYSIS OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS
Table 2.1: Summary of groundwater body types based on flow regime
RBD
E-RBD
SE-RBD
SW-RBD
ShannonIRBD
W-RBD
NW-IRBD
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total
Groundwater body types based
on flow regime
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Number of
Water Bodies
8
12
13
42
32
35
30
54
34
3
1
46
60
32
10
140
53
7
3
42
13
13
6
40
2
7
7
12
202
109
70
376
% of number
% area of RBD
10.7
16.0
17.3
56.0
21.2
23.2
19.9
35.8
40.5
3.6
1.2
54.8
24.8
13.2
4.1
57.9
50.5
6.7
2.9
40.0
18.1
18.1
8.3
55.6
7.1
25.0
25.0
42.9
26.7
14.4
9.2
49.7
2.5
16.0
2.6
78.9
16.5
14.6
6.1
62.8
11.1
0.9
0.1
88.0
26.6
6.4
1.2
65.8
40.4
2.5
1
56.1
6.7
5.1
0.6
87.6
4.7
17.9
2.0
75.4
19.6
7.4
2.0
71.0
Table 2.2: Summary information on transboundary groundwater bodies
Transboundary
Groundwater
bodies
Groundwater body types
based on flow regime
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Total
Number of Water
Bodies
% of number
6
13
0
18
37
16.2
35.1
0.0
48.6
100.0
page 27
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Table 2.3: Summary of groundwater body sizes
RBD
E-RBD
SE-RBD
SW-RBD
ShannonIRBD
W-RBD
NW-IRBD
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
page 28
Overall
Groundwater body types
based on flow regime
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
19.7
83.4
12.5
117.8
66.6
53.7
26.2
149.9
36.7
32.0
12.7
215.9
78
35
21.6
82.7
89.3
41.6
39.3
156.2
38.1
29.1
7.7
162.5
42.4
46.1
5.2
113.4
53.0
45.8
17.9
142.6
Groundwater body size (km2)
Mean
Range
0.03 - 77.39
0.05 – 681.41
0.58 – 67.74
0.08 – 949.91
0.28 - 940.74
0.02 - 248.25
1.01 - 126.58
0.21 - 1358.36
0.47 - 510.42
17.65 - 49.11
12.66
0.22 - 1883.67
0.2 – 1123.1
0.6 – 349.1
0.3 – 79.8
0.1 – 1320.9
0.2-1344.5
14.6-68.2
6.4-88.2
0.2-1202.9
0.5-257.9
0.7-103.9
1.7-19.2
0.1-1447.8
8.8-75.9
0.7-120.7
0.03-9.8
1.1-1026.28
0.2-1344.5
0.02-681.4
0.03-126.58
0.08-1883.7
ANALYSIS OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS
chapter 2
Table 2.4: Initial Characterisation – Descriptions of Groundwater Bodies
Hydrometric Area
Local Authority
Associated surface
water bodies
Associated terrestrial
ecosystems
Area (km2)
Geology
and
Aquifers
Topography
Aquifer type(s)
Main aquifer lithologies
Key structures.
Key properties
Thickness
Lithologies
Thickness
% area aquifer near surface
Vulnerability
Main recharge mechanisms
Est. recharge rates
Springs and large known
abstractions
Main discharge mechanisms
Hydrochemical Signature
Overlying
Strata
Sample
Recharge
Discharge
Groundwater Flow Paths
Groundwater & surface water interactions
Conceptual model
Attachments
Instrumentation
Stream gauge:
Borehole Hydrograph:
EPA Representative Monitoring boreholes:
Information Sources
Disclaimer
Table 2.5: Summary of groundwater body types based on flow regime
RBD
Groundwater body types
based on flow regime
E-RBD
SE-RBD
SW-RBD
Shannon-IRBD
W-RBD
NW-IRBD
Neagh/Bann IRBD
Total
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Karstic
Productive fissured bedrock
Gravel
Poorly productive bedrock
Area mapped as ‘extremely’
vulnerable
Total (km2)
Below 200m
contour**
12.3
12.3
56.1
56
0.01
0.01
1463.1
682.8
396.5
375.9
660
584.3
12.7
12.7
3115
2001.8
187.6
185.8
35.7
33.3
7.1
7.1
5808.1
3420
1349.9
1322.8
255.7
244.1
7.5
7.5
3868.8
2976.3
1035.6
951.8
74.7
54.1
0
0.0
2647.2
1720.8
164.6
113.9
106.2
73
15.2
15.2
2370.6
1755.2
28.8
28.8
28.3
23.4
1.1
1.1
428.4
369.1
3175.3
2991.2
1216.7
1068.2
43.6
43.6
19701.2
12926.3
% area
Total
0.2
0.9
0.0
23.3
3.1
5.1
0.1
24.3
1.7
0.3
0.1
51.6
7.7
1.5
0.0
22.0
8.8
0.6
0.0
22.6
2.2
1.4
0.2
32.3
1.6
1.6
0.1
23.7
4.6
1.8
0.1
28.6
** This information is provided because most pressures are located below 200m OD.
Below 200m
contour
0.2
1.1
0.0
12.9
3.3
5.2
0.1
17.8
2.1
0.4
0.1
38.9
8.0
1.5
0.0
18.0
8.9
0.5
0.0
16.2
1.8
1.2
0.2
28.5
1.7
1.4
0.1
21.5
4.9
1.8
0.1
21.3
page 29
Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the
montane to alpine levels
6430
* Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of
Caricion davallianae
Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils
(Molinion caeruleae)
6410
7210
Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix
4010
Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion
Rivers with muddy banks with Chenopodion rubri p.p. and
Bidention p.p. vegetation
3270
7150
Watercourses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion
fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation
3260
Transition mires and quaking bogs
* Turloughs
3180
Blanket bog (* if active bog)
Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds
3160
7140
Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharitiontype vegetation
3150
7130
Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara
spp.
3140
* Active raised bogs
Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of
the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea
3130
Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration
Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy
plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae)
3110
7120
Machairs (* in Ireland)
7110
GWDTE
Humid dune slacks
2190
21A0
GWDTE
GWDTE
GWDTE
GWDTE
GWDTE
GWDTE
GWDTE
GWDTE
GWDTE
GWDTE
SW
GWDTE
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
GWDTE
GWDTE
GWDTE
Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi)
Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae)
2170
GWDTE
1410
* Coastal lagoons
Type
SW
Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)
EU Annex I Habitat
17
62
16
50
53
51
3
13
37
1
21
43
10
9
18
9
32
19
15
11
33
38
Number of
SACs
Nationally
25
1
3
2
1
4
4
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
0
0
2
1
7
6
E-RBD
0
2
3
1
3
4
4
2
0
4
0
5
1
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
6
7
SE-RBD
3
(*Denotes priority habitats under Directive 92/43/EEC)
1330
EU Habitat Code
1150
page 30
0
1
0
9
1
1
0
1
7
0
5
0
1
0
0
3
4
0
1
1
7
8
SW-RBD
4
Table 2.6: Surface water ecosystems and terrestrial ecosystems directly dependent on groundwater.
7
16
6
17
6
6
0
4
10
1
9
29
7
4
8
2
15
13
3
2
7
9
W-RBD
10
7
39
5
9
42
40
2
4
10
0
5
16
2
4
5
1
0
0
2
1
4
5
Sh-IRBD
2
1
4
2
19
0
0
0
5
13
0
2
1
2
1
3
2
12
7
6
5
3
4
NW-IRBD
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
Neagh/ BannIRBD
0
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
* Bog woodland
*Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior
(Alno-padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)
91D0
91E0
GWDTE – Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystem;
2
ERBD
75
16
9
11
23
National
757
266
GWDTE
GWDTE
0
0
4
39
GWDTE
GWDTE
E-RBD
5
Number of
SACs
Nationally
19
Type
GWDTE
SW – Surface Water, Aquatic Ecosystem;
Number of these Groundwater Bodies with intersecting GWD-TEs and SWs (in SACs)
Total Number of Groundwater Bodies
Assessment of Associated Groundwater Bodies
Alkaline fens
Caves not open to the public
8310
EU Annex I Habitat
* Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion)
7230
EU Habitat Code
7220
22
SERBD
151
5
0
0
4
SE-RBD
3
13
SWRBD
84
7
0
0
0
SW-RBD
0
123
WRBD
242
4
1
3
11
W-RBD
8
35
SIRBD
105
8
9
7
17
Sh-IRBD
5
48
NWIRBD
72
0
1
0
5
NW-IRBD
3
9
NBIRBD
28
0
0
0
0
Neagh/ BannIRBD
0
chapter 2
ANALYSIS OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS
page 31
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
2.2
SURFACE WATER (RIVERS, LAKES, TRANSITIONAL AND COASTAL WATERS)
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires that for each River Basin District the surface water
bodies must be placed in the following categories - river, lake, transitional or coastal water - or as artificial
or heavily modified surface water bodies. Recognising that the hydromorphological characteristics altitude, depth, size, flow, catchment rock type and tidal regime, are important natural factors that
determine the composition of the biological communities, the WFD further requires that the surface water
bodies within each of the above categories be differentiated according to type using these characteristics.
These types are defined using "System A" or "System B" set out in Annex II of the Directive.
For each surface water body type, type-specific biological reference conditions and type-specific physicochemical and hydromorphological conditions representing the values at high ecological status must be
established. The reference conditions form the basis of the ecological classification systems.
2.2.1 Characterisation of surface water body types
Assigning water bodies to types that are ecologically meaningful is the first step in the process of assessing
the ecological condition of our rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters. The Directive requires that
ecological status for a river or a lake, for example, is determined by comparison with an ideal pristine state
for that water body. This is done by comparing the flora and fauna actually found at an impacted site with
that which would be found at a similar physical site at which there is no significant impact. Because
lowland limestone lakes and mountain corrie lakes, for example, may be expected to have a different range
of plant and animal species present in each type, it is important to be able to describe what are termed
‘reference conditions’ for each type of water body.
page 32
The next sections describe the types of water bodies that have been found to be ecologically distinct – with
a high degree of statistical confidence in the case of rivers and lakes. A number of major ERTDI research
projects supported this work [e.g.: River TypologyRef 6, ecological assessment of lakesRef 7,
hydromorphologyRef 8]. The draft water bodies derived are mapped and a breakdown of the number of
water bodies falling into each type is given.
Rivers
All Irish rivers have been allocated to one of 12 primary types, which have been shown to be ecologically
meaningful in unimpacted river systems. The typology follows the System B typology of the Water
Framework Directive and is based primarily on geology and its impact on water hardness and the slope or
velocity of water in the channel. A wide range of potential characteristics were studied in order to assess
their influence on the fauna and flora of Irish rivers (e.g. catchment size, altitude, latitude-longitude), but
from a statistical point of view the most important controlling factors were geology/hardness and slope.
Catchment size had a minor additional significance but it did not help in the definition of the reference
communities (see Section 2.2.2 below). In addition to the basic 12 types of river water bodies a number
of special river water body types have been treated separately due to their rarity and unusual ecological
nature. Table 2.7 describes the 12 basic types.
chapter 2
ANALYSIS OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS
Table 2.7: Definition of Irish River Types.
Code:
Catchment Geology (%
bedrock in upstream
catchment by type)
1
100% Siliceous
2
1-25% Calcareous (Mixed
Geology)
Description
Water Chemistry
(where data are available)
Soft water
<35 mg CaCO3/l
35-100 mg CaCO3/l
Medium hardness
>100 mg CaCO3/l
3
>25% Calcareous
Hard water
Code:
Slope (m/m)
1
<=0.005
Low Slope
2
0.005-0.02
Medium Slope
3
0.02-0.04
High Slope
4
>0.04
Very High Slope
Legend
Examples of Type Codes
The two codes from above are combined in order geology first digit and slope second digit
e.g. A code of 31 indicates a calcareous low-slope site
e.g. A code of 23 indicates a mixed geology and high slope of between 2 and 4% gradient
A major ERTDI research projects studied 50 unimpacted river stretches in some detail, sampling the
invertebrate and floral elements required by Annex V of the WFD in order to ensure that the final selection
of river types were indeed ecologically meaningful. A further ERTDI research project has undertaken
somewhat similar work regarding the fish populations under reference conditions. A detailed outline of
the Irish river typology including the scientific basis has been producedRef 6
River water bodies with catchments less than 10 km2 were not delineated as discrete water bodies. These
generally comprised the 1st order and some 2nd order streams in the upper reaches of catchments.
However, these river stretches are part of the catchment area of the next downstream river water body and
in this way integrated into the Article 5 characterisation and risk assessment. Coastal streams with
catchments less than 10 km2 were also not delineated. During further characterization a subset of these
small river catchments will be examined for each River Basin District.
Table 2.8 outlines the length of channel and percentage of channel length within the major draft river water
bodies within each of the major types in the country as a whole. Table 2.9 (a-g) outlines the length of
channel and percentage of channel length within the major draft river water bodies within each of the
major types for each individual river basin district.
page 33
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Table 2.8: Breakdown of Irish draft river water bodies into the 12 principal Irish river water body types by a)
Low slope
<0.005
Medium Slope
(0.005-0.02)
High Slope
(0.02-0.04)
Very High Slope
(>0.04)
number of water bodies, b) km of river channel length and c) percentage of river channel length.
1
2
3
4
Geology
Water
Chemistry
Siliceous
1
No.
277
801
361
374
Soft Water
Siliceous
1
Km
1547
2767
849
507
Soft Water
Siliceous
1
%
7.6%
13.5%
4.2%
2.5%
Soft Water
1
2
3
4
Mixed
2
No.
152
272
87
58
Medium
Mixed
2
Km
1008.26
1271.64
326.18
160.76
Medium
Mixed
2
%
4.93
6.22
1.6
0.79
Medium
1
2
3
4
Calcareous
3
No.
1247
670
109
58
Hard Water
Calcareous
3
Km
8530
3076
291
113
Hard Water
Calcareous
3
%
41.7
15.0
1.4
0.6
Hard Water
Legend
page 34
Example of River Type Code:
A code of 32 indicates a calcareous low-slope site – there are 670 draft river water bodies in
Type 32 with 3076 km river channel length and comprising 15% of the total national channel length.
Table 2.9: Breakdown of river types by River Basin District (RBD)
(a) Eastern RBD (see Map 2-6)
River Water Body
Number of draft River
Type
Water Bodies
11
34
12
13
14
21
22
23
31
32
33
59
25
37
6
16
1
125
52
1
Channel Length (km)
202.18
Channel Length (%)
10.87
245.88
78.40
80.41
19.43
80.17
3.70
899.62
249.69
0.31
13.22
4.22
4.32
1.04
4.31
0.20
48.37
13.43
0.02
chapter 2
ANALYSIS OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS
(b) South Eastern RBD (see Map 2-7)
River Water Body
Number of draft River
Type
Water Bodies
11
82
12
146
13
36
14
16
21
15
22
38
23
11
24
31
32
33
34
8
190
104
6
3
(c) South Western RBD (see Map 2-8)
River Water Body
Number of draft River
Type
Water Bodies
11
54
Channel Length (km)
544.73
575.46
108.96
26.69
151.44
210.69
47.97
Channel Length (%)
14.35
15.16
2.87
0.70
3.99
5.55
1.26
33.20
1575.80
487.26
19.04
13.49
0.87
41.53
12.84
0.50
0.36
Channel Length (km)
310.10
Channel Length (%)
9.03
12
13
14
21
22
23
24
31
32
33
272
142
182
26
56
15
10
57
63
6
1000.89
318.83
229.32
208.34
333.06
53.35
24.76
562.55
366.92
16.07
29.15
9.29
6.68
6.07
9.70
1.55
0.72
16.38
10.69
0.47
34
2
9.46
0.28
Channel Length (km)
33.98
Channel Length (%)
0.68
(d) Shannon IRBD (see Map 2-9)
River Water Body
Number of draft River
Type
Water Bodies
11
10
12
13
14
21
22
23
24
31
32
33
37
9
20
17
25
10
3
506
202
35
148.84
29.15
22.61
98.80
130.01
72.00
11.88
3310.60
1000.06
96.10
2.99
0.59
0.45
1.99
2.61
1.45
0.24
66.57
20.11
1.93
34
9
18.79
0.38
page 35
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
(e) Western RBD (see Map 2-10)
River Water Body
Number of draft River
Type
Water Bodies
11
34
12
139
13
49
14
52
21
43
22
23
24
31
32
33
34
Channel Length (km)
101.77
338.85
95.21
55.86
206.51
Channel Length (%)
2.81
9.35
2.63
1.54
5.70
206.03
74.44
53.70
1719.31
626.96
106.89
39.65
5.68
2.05
1.48
47.43
17.29
2.95
1.09
Number of draft River
Water Bodies
54
140
100
63
43
55
24
13
Channel Length (km)
311.13
424.20
218.81
85.57
321.20
243.24
66.35
37.22
Channel Length (%)
13.25
18.07
9.32
3.64
13.68
10.36
2.83
1.59
58
69
29
17
282.99
272.56
52.65
31.76
12.05
11.61
2.24
1.35
Channel Length (km)
43.44
33.32
6.37
2.54
68.44
Channel Length (%)
10.47
8.03
1.54
0.61
16.50
8.37
179.44
72.98
2.02
43.25
17.59
71
24
24
288
168
32
27
(f) North Western IRBD (see Map 2-11)
page 36
River Water Body
Type
11
12
13
14
21
22
23
24
31
32
33
34
(g) Neagh Bann IRBD (see Map 2-12)
River Water Body
Number of draft River
Type
Water Bodies
11
9
12
8
14
4
21
2
22
11
23
31
32
2
23
12
See Table 2.2.2 for explanations of type codes
chapter 2
ANALYSIS OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS
Lakes
A "System B" typology was found to be the most appropriate basis on which to define lake types in
Ireland; twelve types have been identified using the factors alkalinity (surrogate for geology), depth and
size. Biological data from 60 high status lakes across several types and River Basin Districts were used
to test that the selected hydromorphological types, derived from these factors, can be discriminated on a
biological basis. A thirteenth type was identified to include a number of lakes at altitude >300m. Latitude
and Longitude were not considered to be significant factors determining the flora and fauna of Irish lakes.
Alkalinity: Three alkalinity types were recognised from an examination of the profundal and littoral
macroinvertebrates and macrophytes.
<20 Mg-1 CaCO3
20 – 100 Mg-1 CaCO3
>100 Mg-1 CaCO3
Low Alkalinity
Moderate alkalinity
High Alkalinity
There were few examples of lakes in the middle category and thus there is uncertainty about this type
Depth: Consideration was given to mean depth and, in the case of profundal macroinvertebrates, the more
relevant maximum depth in parentheses. A formula relating both was used. A type, mean depth <4m
(12m) was identified. A further type >4m (>12) was identified; this type will be subdivided further
depending on the element being considered: 4-6 m and >6m for macrophytes and 4m (12m)–13m (40m)
and >13m (40m) for profundal invertebrates.
Shallow lakes
Deep lakes
Size:
Small lakes
Large lakes
<4m (12m)
>4m (>12)
Two types were identified:
<50ha
>50 ha
The thirteen types of Irish lakes that can be discriminated according to their biological characteristics
shown in Table 2.10. The breakdown of lake types (>50 ha) by RBD is provided in Table 2.11. Maps 213 to 2-19 present all assessed lakes in each RBD.
Table 2.10: Lake Types
Type
Small
Type
Large
1
Low alkalinity, shallow and small
2
Low alkalinity, shallow and large
3
Low alkalinity, deep and small
4
Low alkalinity, deep and large
5
Moderate alkalinity, shallow and small
6
Moderate alkalinity, shallow and large
7
Moderate alkalinity, deep and small
8
Moderate alkalinity, deep and large
9
High alkalinity, shallow and small
10
High alkalinity, shallow and large
11
High alkalinity, deep and small
12
High alkalinity, deep and large
13
Some lakes >300 m altitude
page 37
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
The typology and risk assessment of Irish lakes for article 5 included all lakes greater than 0.5 km2 and
lakes less than 0.5 km2 if they were located in protected areas (e.g. in Special Areas of Conservation, or if
they were used for water abstraction for drinking purposes).
Table 2.11: Breakdown of Lake Types by RBD (>50 ha)
Type
Eastern
South
Eastern
South
Western
Shannon
Western
North
Western
Neagh Bann
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
1
10
4
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
10
2
16
10
0
5
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
6
3
0
0
7
6
14
0
7
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
8
2
0
3
1
7
7
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
18
7
1
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
15
7
0
0
9
18
16
1
12
1
TBC
0
0
5
Type to be confirmed once more data is available
1
page 38
Coastal
Coastaland
andTransitional
Transitional
The Typology for Transitional and Coastal Waters was developed on the basis of a research project "A
proposed Typology for the UK and Republic of Ireland", published by SNIFFER in April 2003 (Rogers et
al., 2003)Ref 9. The scheme uses the System B (Alternative Classification) approach, because the "System
A" scheme was regarded as overly prescriptive and one which would lead to excessive and unnecessary
subdivisions of water bodies considering the essential objective of the task, which is identifying water
bodies as the basic management unit of the Water Framework Directive.
The Typology scheme uses the obligatory factors of Latitude and Longitude, tidal range and salinity
(common to both Transitional and Coastal Waters) along with the optional factors, for Transitional Waters,
mixing characteristics, mean substratum composition and extent of intertidal area and, for Coastal Waters,
wave exposure. This scheme was considered to give the most ecologically relevant differentiation
possible.
This typology is therefore based on broad features of the physical environment of tidal waters, which, it
is emphasised, are not mutually exclusive (for example, sheltered stretches will occur in coastlines which
are predominantly exposed and vice versa). Because of this, it is recognised that the Type-Specific
Reference Conditions for each of the Types must also be broadly based, and account for all of the diverse
range of habitats, pelagic, epibenthic and sedimentary, intertidal and subtidal, which will occur in each;
many of these habitats will occur across several or possibly all of the physical Types.
The Typology is described in detail in the UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework
Directive document "Guidance on Typology for Coastal and Transitional Waters of the UK and the
Republic of Ireland" (UK Tag Paper 2a Final)Ref 10 The Typology consists of a total of 6 Transitional Water
Types, of which 2 occur in the waters of the Republic of Ireland, and 12 Coastal Water Types, of which 5
occur in Republic of Ireland.
chapter 2
ANALYSIS OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS
Applying the typology factors has resulted in six transitional and twelve coastal water types for Ireland
and these are shown in Map 2-20 respectively. Water types are provided in Table 2.12 and the breakdown
by RBD in Table 2.13.
Table 2.12: Coastal and Transitional Water Types
Coastal Water Types
CW
1
Euhaline, Macrotidal, Exposed
CW7
Euhaline, Macrotidal, Sheltered
CW
2
Euhaline, Mesotidal, Exposed
CW8
Euhaline, Mesotidal, Sheltered
CW
3
Euhaline, Microtidal, Exposed
CW9
Euhaline, Microtidal, Sheltered
CW
4
Euhaline, Macrotidal, Moderately Exposed
CW1
0
Coastal Lagoon
CW
5
Euhaline, Mesotidal, Moderately Exposed
CW1
1
Sea Lochs (Shallow)
CW
6
Euhaline, Microtidal, Moderately Exposed
CW1
2
Sea Lochs (Deep)
Transitional Water Types
TW
1
Meso or Polyhaline, Macrotidal, Sheltered
TW
2
Meso or Polyhaline, Strongly Mesotidal, Sheltered
TW
3
Polyhaline, Macrotidal, Sheltered
TW
4
Poly or Euhaline, Mesotidal, Sheltered
TW
5
Transitional Sea Lochs
TW
6
Transitional lagoons: Oligo or Polyhaline, Mesotidal, Sheltered
page 39
Table 2.13: Coastal and Transitional Water Bodies By RBD
River Basin District
TW 2
TW 6 CW 2 CW 5 CW 6 CW 8 CW 10
Eastern RBD
10
3
0
6
1
1
0
South Eastern RBD
16
5
2
4
0
3
0
South Western RBD
29
14
9
9
0
3
6
Shannon IRBD
14
6
4
4
0
1
2
Western RBD
21
47
5
15
0
5
5
North Western IRBD
14
8
4
12
0
6
1
Neagh Bann IRBD
6
3
1
3
0
1
0
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
2.2.2 Type-specific reference conditions and maximum ecological potential
In seeking type specific reference conditions in Ireland the procedures outlined in the REFCOND
Guidance Document were closely adhered to.
Rivers: Descriptions of reference conditions for the major river types are included in a background
documentRef 6. For those river types for which reference conditions are no longer extant corresponding
reference conditions will be derived by examination of archived samples or sought outside the State. In
the event of neither of these options being available expert judgement will be used to define the reference
conditions. In the majority of river types, however, it is likely that good reference condition sites will still
be available.
Lakes: Using available pressure, chemical and biological data, approximately 60 lake waterbodies were
identified in 2002, across several types and River Basin Districts, as potential Reference condition sites.
A project to establish the validity of this selection by examining the sediments of 40 of these lake
waterbodies, using palaeolimnological techniques, was initiated. A sampling programme to collect further
data on the biological elements phytoplankton, macrophytes and macroinvertebrates and physicochemistry in the 60 lakes was carried out in 2002 and 2003Ref 7. Where the reference condition status of
a lake waterbody has been verified using palaeolimnology the biological and supporting physico-chemical
condition will be considered to be at Reference status.
For types where no or too few reference sites are available within the State it is proposed to seek
appropriate reference condition data outside the State and failing that to use singly or in combination,
palaeolimnology and other historical data, indices and expert judgement to ensure the recommended
number of reference sites are derived for each type.
page 40
Coastal and Transitional: As referred to in the previous section, the Typology adopted for the
Transitional and Coastal Waters of the UK and Republic of Ireland is of necessity a broad one, and in
consequence, the Type-Specific Reference Conditions developed for these describe multiple habitat types,
many of which are common across several types.
The Reference Conditions statements were developed by the joint Ireland-UK Marine Task Team and its
expert groups on each of the biological quality elements. They are based on a combination of information
from provisional High Status waters, historical records and expert knowledge of the behaviour of
ecological systems along with descriptive and predictive modeling tools.
The Reference Conditions descriptions are detailed in the UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water
Framework Directive document "Type-Specific Reference Conditions Descriptions for Coastal and
Transitional Waters for the UK"Ref 11. These are considered to be broadly applicable to the tidal waters of
the Republic of Ireland. Additional analysis of existing data and, it is expected, the collection of new field
information will be required to contribute to the further development of these descriptions, as well as the
derivation of appropriate Quantitative Reference Condition indicators, in 2005 and 2006.
Given the expected nature of the alterations to the hydromorphological characteristics of water bodies
which are likely to be assessed as meriting designation as HMWBs and AWBs as defined in Article 2, it
is considered at present that the Maximum Ecological Potential of each of the Physicochemical and
Biological Quality Elements in Transitional and Coastal Waters are likely to be indistinguishable from the
chapter 2
ANALYSIS OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS
Type-Specific Reference Conditions in respect of each Type. This view may require some modification as
more specific information becomes available.
2.2.3 Reference network for water body types with high ecological status
Rivers: The RIVTYPE projectRef 6 studied 50 high quality sites and these form the initial core group of
stations for the reference network of rivers with high ecological status. These will be added to as additional
data become available. The initial basis for reference conditions was Q5 in the EPA Quality Rating system
based on primarily macroinvertebrates but which also takes into account of phytobenthos and macrophyte
communities. Supporting physico-chemical and hydromorphological characteristics and catchment
pressure also indicated that the selected sites are generally of very high status and thus, suitable reference
condition sites. Supporting research to measure the concentrations of priority substances in sediments and
biota is also being undertakenRef 12.
Coastal and Transitional: A Reference Network of provisional High Status water bodies for the
Transitional and Coastal Waters of the UK and Republic of Ireland (exclusive of lagoons at this stage) has
been developed, though additions and alterations to the composition of the Network are currently being
considered in the context of ongoing planning of field investigations leading up to the establishment of
monitoring programmes under Article 8.
It will be noted that, possibly with several small exceptions, all of the coastal waters of the Republic of
Ireland are considered to be of High Ecological Status. A substantial number of transitional water bodies,
discharging mainly to the south and west coasts, and the great majority of lagoons are also likely to be of
High Ecological Status. All of these could be considered to comprise a Reference network; the
consequence of such designation remains to be developed.
2.2.4 Identification of water bodies
Rivers: Major draft river water bodies and their type as defined by catchment geology and mid point slope
are given for each RBD at the links below:
Eastern RBD (see Map 2-6)
South Eastern RBD (see Map 2-7)
South Western RBD (see Map 2-8)
Shannon IRBD (see Map 2-9)
Western RBD (see Map 2-10)
North Western IRBD (see Map 2-11)
Neagh Bann IRBD (see Map 2-12)
These draft water bodies are used in the risk assessment procedure outlined in Section 3 below.
Lakes: The major draft lake water bodies and their type are illustrated for each RBD at the links below.
Eastern RBD (see Map 2-13)
South Eastern RBD (see Map 2-14)
South Western RBD (see Map 2-15)
Shannon IRBD (see Map 2-16)
page 41
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Western RBD (see Map 2-17)
North Western IRBD (see Map 2-18)
Neagh Bann IRBD (see Map 2-19)
These draft water bodies are used in the risk assessment procedure outlined in Section 3 below.
Coastal and Transitional: The delimitation and identification of individual Water Bodies in the
Transitional Waters and Coastal Waters of the republic of Ireland has followed closely the guidance
developed by COAST (CIS Working group 2.4)Ref 14 and the "Horizontal Guidance Document on the
application of the term ‘water body’ in the context of the WFD" (v.10 14-01-03).
The water bodies have been delimited to at least the "suggested third step to ensure that water bodies
represent discrete and significant elements of surface waters" (that is, identification of water body
boundaries using distinct physical features, e.g headlands, salinity discontinuities or tidal limits).
As far as possible, the outcome of the Risk Assessment procedure was anticipated to identify boundaries
between reaches with likely different ecological status to ensure that each water body identified was likely
to be of uniform ecological status as required by the Directive. However, it is expected that further
subdivision of certain water bodies may prove necessary as a result of the Risk Assessment.
Minimum size of water bodies
Due to a lack of the necessary range of descriptive data on which to base a system of criteria, no formal
minimum size thresholds were established for the identification of transitional or coastal water bodies.
Instead, certain broad conventions were adopted.
The following categories of tidal waters were considered for designation as discrete Transitional or Coastal
Water Bodies:
page 42
Estuaries, bays and coastal water reaches identified for the purposes of reporting in respect of the
Urban Waste water Treatment Directive and the Nitrates Directive were retained (with the
appropriate subdivisions);
Estuaries with catchment drainage areas greater than 80 km2;
Estuaries, bays and coastal water reaches where known pressures were likely to be of significance;
All transitional and coastal lagoons identified as such during the course of researches by and on
behalf of the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the DEHLG (with a general lower limit of 1
hectare);
Coastal bays generally recognised and referred to as such: outer boundaries between a bay and the
adjacent coastal water body were drawn according to the most prominent enclosing headlands or
other significant physical features as considered appropriate.
In addition, coastal water reaches were identified based on a number of considerations, including
boundaries between River Basin Districts and the distribution of major hydromorphological features such
as major coastal promontories or bays.
chapter 2
ANALYSIS OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS
Offshore water bodies, bounded internally by the baseline plus 1 nautical mile and externally by the outer
boundary of territorial waters, were based primarily on the boundaries between River Basin Districts.
At this time, a total of 309 water bodies have been identified in the coastal and transitional waters of the
Republic of Ireland, which break down as follows:
2 TW types :
5 CW types:
TW2 (110 water bodies)
TW6 (86 water bodies)
CW2 (25 water bodies)
CW5 (53 water bodies)
CW6 (1 water body)
CW8 (20 water bodies)
CW10 (14 water bodies)
The total area of Transitional Waters and Coastal Waters (to 1 nautical mile outside baseline) are estimated
as 14,184 km2. Map 2.20 and Map 2.21 illustrates the major costal and transitional bodies.
2.2.5 Identification of Artificial and Heavily Modified Water Bodies
It is proposed to describe the Maximum Ecological Potential (MEP) of heavily modified waterbodies in
accordance with the procedures set out in the Guidance Document on Identification and Designation of
Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies by reference to the closest comparable surface water body
category and type. The identification of Artificial Water Bodies (AWBs) and Heavily Modified Water
Bodies (HMWBs) is described in Chapter 4.
2.3
REGISTER OF PROTECTED AREAS
Article 6 of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), requires each Member State to establish a
"register or registers of all areas lying within each river basin district which have been designated as
requiring special protection under specific Community legislation for the protection of their surface water
and groundwater or for the conservation of habitats and species directly depending on water" (Article 6.1,
2000/60/EC).
In Ireland, this Register has been compiled on a national basis by the Irish Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). In order to ensure that the Register contains the most accurate and appropriate data for
each protected area, the EPA has sought expert advice from the different, relevant agencies and
organisations for each of the individual topics included within the Register. Not only has this process has
proved valuable in attaining the most correct information on each of the different protected areas, but also
this process has opened and established links between organisations that will facilitate the maintenance
and update of the Register in the future.
The Irish Register of Protected Areas is based exclusively upon existing national and EU legislation
regarding the protection of waters for economic, recreational and ecological purposes. The Register is
held in two formats – an MS Access database and a Geographical Information System (GIS). Each of the
geographical features within the Register is based upon a standard, national GIS feature dataset and coding
system and as such, each of the GIS datasets within the Register can be fully integrated within the national
GIS database.
page 43
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
2.3.1 Areas designated for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption
In Ireland, waters intended for human consumption are protected under the Drinking Water Regulations
(S.I. 439 / 2000)Ref 15. The actual protected areas for drinking waters are not outlined within the
Regulations, as a result, the protected area for drinking waters is represented by the water body from which
the water is abstracted and the associated drinking water abstraction point.
The entire water body is to be used to represent the protected area (groundwater body, lake or river).
Where water is abstracted from a river or lake that was not initially selected as a water body (i.e. 1st or
2nd order rivers or lakes smaller than 50 hectares) the water is then designated as a protected area and the
1st or 2nd order stream or small lake is reclassified as a waterbody.
The areas designated for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption are illustrated in three
maps.
The first map shows the locations of the abstraction points and the distributions of the different types of
abstraction (Map 2-22).
The second shows surface waters protected for drinking water abstraction (Map 2-23) and depicts
groundwaters protected for drinking water abstraction (Map 2-24).
2.3.2 Areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species (fish,
shellfish)
The protected areas for economically significant aquatic species are comprised of the 14 shellfish
production areas listed in the Irish Shellfish Regulations (S.I. 200 / 1994)Ref 16. These areas are currently
under review.
page 44
The geographic extents of these areas have been verified by Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM1 and incorporated
within the Register GIS and database (Map 2-25).
2.3.3 Areas designated as recreational and bathing waters
Only bathing waters have been included within the Register as recreational waters. Protected areas for
bathing waters include those 131 bathing areas listed in the Bathing Waters Regulations (S.I. 155 / 1992)
Ref 17 and subsequent amendments2.
The location of bathing water monitoring point locations and the lengths of beach that are associated with
those monitoring points have been verified by each of the relevant Local Authorities. These points and
lines are used to illustrate the location of each of the bathing areas (Map 2-26).
2.3.4 Nutrient-sensitive areas
The nutrient sensitive areas included within the Register are those waters listed in the Urban Waste Water
Treatment (UWWT) Regulations (S.I. 254 / 2001) Ref 18. The waterbody containing the sensitive area is
used to represent the nutrient sensitive area (Map 2-27).
1 RPA 3 – BIM is "the Irish State agency with responsibility for developing the Irish Sea Fishing and Aquaculture industries.
BIM was established under the Sea Fisheries Act 1952" From http://www.bim.ie/templates/about_bim.asp?node_id=179.
Last viewed 17 Dec 2004.
2 RPA 4 – Since the publication of S.I. 154 of 1992 there have been 4 subsequent amendments to the Bathing Water
Regulations. As a result of these amendments, the number of protected areas has been increased from the original 94 to
131 bathing waters in S.I. 22 / 2001 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/front.html Last viewed 17 Dec 2004.)
chapter 2
ANALYSIS OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS
A Nitrates Action Programme has been prepared in accordance with Article 5 of the Nitrates Directive
(91/676/EEC) and is to be applied to the whole territory of the State. Consequently no NVZs have been
designated.
2.3.5 Areas designation for the protection of habitats (including birds)
Salmonid waters, Special Areas of Conservation (SACs, cSACs, pcSACs) and Special Protection Areas
(SPAs and pSPAs) will be included within the Register as areas protected for water dependent species and
habitats.
The protected areas for Salmonid species are comprised of the 34 Salmonid rivers, tributaries and lakes
listed in the Salmonid Regulations (S.I. 293 / 1988) Ref 19 (Map 2-28).
The Salmonid Regulations designate the "waters capable of supporting salmon (Salmo salar), trout (Salmo
trutta), char (Salvelinus) and whitefish (Coregonus)" as protected. In contrast, the Habitat regulations (S.I.
94 / 1997)Ref 20 protect the habitats of Atlantic Salmon only. For this reason, the Salmonid Regulations are
contained within the Register independently from the Habitat Regulations.
Only the SACs that contain water dependent species and habitats have been included within the Register.
In some cases, the actual extent of water dependent habitats and species within certain SACs is unclear.
Where this is the case, the entire SAC has been included within the Register (Map 2-29).
Background Information for Chapter 2
Ref 1. Technical requirements for groundwater and related aspects. Irish groundwater working group
(September 2001). http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 2. Identification of water bodies - Horizontal guidance document on the application of the term
"water body" in the context of the Water Framework Directive.
http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library
Ref 3. Approach to Delineation of Groundwater Bodies. Irish Groundwater Working Group (April 2003).
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 4. The calcareous/ non-calcareous ("siliceous") classification of bedrock aquifers in the republic of
Ireland. Irish Groundwater Working Group (March 2004). http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 5. Guidance on the application of groundwater risk assessment sheets SWRA 1-6 and GWDTE RA
1-9 to areas designated for the protection of habitats and species. Irish Groundwater Working Group
(December 2004). http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 6. Kelly-Quinn, M., Baars, J-R., Bradley, C., Dodkins I., Harrington, T.J., Ní Catháin, B., O’Connor,
Mm., Rippey, B., Trigg, D. 2004. Characterisation of reference conditions and testing of typology of
rivers (RIVTYPE). Draft report to the EPA.
Ref 7. Lake Typology – Summary Note. http://www.wfdireland.ie/
page 45
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Ref 8. McGinnity, P. Mills, P. Mueller, M. and Roche, W. 2004. Hydromorphology of Rivers – a desk
study to determine a methodology for the monitoring of hydromorphological conditions in Irish Rivers
for the Water Framework Directive (2002-W-DS/9). Draft report to the EPA under the Environmental
RTDI Programme 2000-2006.
Ref 9. Typology For Transitional and Coastal Waters For UK and Ireland
For The Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum For Environmental Research. Contract reference: WFD07
(230/8030). Rogers, S., et al. (2003)
http://www.wfduk.org/
Ref 10. UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive. Guidance on Typology for
Coastal & Transitional Waters of the UK and Republic of Ireland (Final). (2003).
http://www.wfduk.org/
Ref 11. TAG Work Programme 8a (03) Reference conditions for Transitional and Coastal Waters (2004)
http://www.wfduk.org/
Ref 12. Discussion document - rationale for deriving national priority action, candidate relevant pollutant
and candidate general component substances lists for surface waters. National Dangerous Substances
Expert Group (2004)
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 13. Guidance on typology, reference conditions and classification systems for transitional and
coastal waters produced by CIS working group 2.4 (COAST) (2002)
http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library
page 46
Ref 14. Guidance document on identification and designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water
Bodies. CIS Working Group 2.2 (2002)
http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library
Ref 15. European Communities (Drinking Water) Regulations, 2000. S.I. No. 439 of 2000.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/front.html
Ref 16. Quality Of Shellfish Waters Regulations, 1994. S.I. No. 200 of 1994.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/front.html
Ref 17. Quality Of Bathing Waters Regulations, 1992. S.I. No. 155 of 1992.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/front.html
Ref 18. Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 2001. S.I. No. 254 of 2001.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/front.html
Ref 19. European Communities (Quality Of Salmonid Waters) Regulations 1988. S.I. No. 254 of 1988
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/front.html
Ref 20. European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997. S.I. No. 94 of 1997
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/front.html
chapter 2
ANALYSIS OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS
List of Maps in Chapter 2
Groundwaters
Map 2-1
National bedrock geology
Map 2-2
National Aquifer Map
Map 2-3
National Groundwater Bodies
Map 2-4
Groundwater vulnerability
Map 2-5
Calcareous / Siliceous Bedrock Map
Rivers
Map 2-6
Map 2-7
Map 2-8
Map 2-9
Map 2-10
Map 2-11
Map 2-12
E-RBD River water bodies
SE-RBD River water bodies
SW-RBD River water bodies
Sh-IRBD River water bodies
W-RBD River water bodies
NW-IRBD River water bodies
Neagh Bann-IRBD River water bodies
Lakes
Map 2-13
Map 2-14
Map 2-15
Map 2-16
Map 2-17
Map 2-18
Map 2-19
E-RBD Lake water bodies
SE-RBD Lake water bodies
SW-RBD Lake water bodies
Sh-IRBD Lake water bodies
W-RBD Lake water bodies
NW-IRBD Lake water bodies
Neagh Bann-IRBD Lake water bodies
Transitional and Coastal waters
Map 2-20
National Coastal water bodies
Map 2-21
National Coastal water bodies
Register of Protected Areas
Map 2-22
Irish National Register of Protected Areas – Drinking water abstraction points
Map 2-23
Irish National Register of Protected Areas – Surface waters for drinking water abstractions
Map 2-24
Irish National Register of Protected Areas – Groundwaters for drinking water abstractions
Map 2-25
Irish National Register of Protected Areas – Economically Significant Aquatic Species
Map 2-26
Irish National Register of Protected Areas – Recreational Waters
Map 2-27
Irish National Register of Protected Areas – Designated Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Map 2-28
Irish National Register of Protected Areas – Designated Salmonid Waters
Map 2-29
Irish National Register of Protected Areas – Water Dependent Habitats (Special Areas of
Conservation)
Map 2-30
Irish National Register of Protected Areas – Bird Protection Areas (Special Protection
Areas)
page 47
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
page 48
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
3.1
IDENTIFICATION OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES
3.1.1 Overview
The WFD characterisation process requires an analysis of the pressures and impacts that human activities
exert on Irish waters to be undertaken. The purpose of the analysis is to identify surface water bodies and
groundwater bodies at risk of failing the objectives of the directive due to the effect of human activities.
The pressures and impacts analysis is also referred to as a risk analysis. The risk relates to the probability
of a water body failing to achieve good status or suffering deterioration in status.
Note: the risk assessment presented in this Characterisation Report relates to current pressures and does
not attempt to predict the effect of any future changes in human activities. The implications of future
changes in pressures and the management of these activities looking forward to 2015 will be considered
as part of a further characterisation process and will be incorporated into the draft River Basin
Management Plans in 2008.
The pressures and impacts analysis is particularly important because it establishes a baseline for the river
basin management planning cycle. It does this by identifying priorities for establishing programmes of
mitigating measures where the risk is confirmed and/or monitoring strategies where further investigation
is required to confirm the potential risk. The development of monitoring and management responses will
be the focus of WFD implementation activities across Europe from early 2005 until the publication of
River Basin Management Plans in 2009.
Ireland has adopted the guiding principles for the risk analysis agreed by the EU Water Directors (Water
Directors Meeting, Dublin June 2004) which are summarised as follows:
page 49
The process and the results of the analysis should be transparent, comprehensible and all data and
information should be made available to the public;
Risk analysis is not classification of status i.e. it identifies the water bodies at the greatest risk of
failing to achieve their objectives;
The results will be used to help identify and prioritise the appropriate and iterative follow-up
actions for the next stages of the planning process;
Member States should ensure harmonised application of the key issues such as the baseline
scenario and the identification of heavily modified water bodies;
Lack of relevant data should not be an excuse - a "gap analysis" must be made if necessary.
The WFD originally required reporting of water bodies under two categories at risk or not at risk. In
December 2004 the EU Commission’s Reporting Sheets (see Chapter 1) refined the reporting categories
to at least one of three following categories, namely at risk, risk uncertain or not at risk. This recognised
that further characterisation was necessary for some water bodies to determine risk with certainty. This
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
was due to information gaps. For Ireland it was considered that use of four categories (at significant risk,
probably at significant risk, probably not at significant risk and not at significant risk) improved the
prioritisation of follow-up actions and recognised the uncertainties associated with the analysis and/or
datasets.
The categories adopted to describe the water body’s degree of risk are presented in Table 3-1. These
categories were developed by the UK WFD Technical Advisory Group (UK TAG). The adoption of the
same system in Ireland assists with harmonising assessment and reporting between Ireland and its
ecoregion neighbours and counterparts therefore facilitating the characterisation of Irish international
RBDs.
Table 3-1: Irish Rish Assessment Reporting Categories
WFD Risk
Category
Water bodies a t
risk of failing to
achieve
an
environmental
objective
European
Commission
Reporting Sheet Risk
Categories (Dec.
2004)
Water bodies for which
it is already clear
without the need for
further characterisation
or
additional
monitoring data, that
the objectives will be
failed
Irish Reporting Risk Categories
(1a) Water bodies at significant risk
Action: Identifies water bodies for which
consideration of appropriate measures to improve
status can start as soon as practical
(1b) Water bodies probably at significant risk but
for which further information will be needed to
confirm that this view is correct
page 50
Water bodies
not at risk of
failing to achieve
an
environmental
objective
Water bodies where,
due to insufficient
d a t a ,
further
characterisation and
operational monitoring
are necessary for a
clear assessment of to
be made
Water bodies for which
it is already clear,
without the need for
further characterisation
or
additional
monitoring data, that
the achievement of the
objectives are not at
risk
Action: Focus for more detailed risk assessments
(including, where necessary, further characterisation)
aimed at determining whether or not the water bodies
in this category are at significant risk in time for the
publication of the interim overview of significant
water management issues in 2007
(2a) Water bodies probably not at significant risk
on the basis of available information for which
confidence in the available information being
comprehensive and reliable is lower
Action: Focus for more detailed risk assessments
aimed at determining whether or not the water bodies
in this category are not at significant risk in time for
the publication of the draft River Basin Management
Plan due to be completed in 2008
(2b) Water bodies not at significant risk on the
basis of available information for which confidence
in the available information being comprehensive
and reliable is high
Action: Identifies water bodies for which
consideration of appropriate measures to ensure no
deterioration in status can start as soon as practical
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
The assessment of pressures and impacts is described in the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS)
Pressures and Impacts Guidance Document (IMPRESS) guidance. The approach adopted in the IMPRESS
guidance is the DPSIR framework (Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, and Response) where:
Driver
Pressure
State
Impact
Response
=
=
=
=
=
an anthropogenic activity that may have an environmental effect;
a direct effect of the driver;
the condition of the water body as a result of natural and anthropogenic factors;
the environmental effect of the pressure;
the measures taken to improve the state of the body including those to reduce
pressures.
The DPSIR approach is illustrated in Figure 3-1. In assessing the impact of human activity it is important
to have a thorough understanding of the driving forces behind pressures that impact on water bodies
leading to their current state so that the an appropriate response can be implemented and its effectiveness
reviewed.
The risk assessment process draws on the DPSIR model by incorporating both top-down (pressure driven)
and bottom-up (impact driven) approaches. The pressures analysis uses predictive techniques and
available information on the extent of human activities, such as land use mapping, to identify water bodies
experiencing significant pressures and, therefore, potentially at the greatest degree of risk of failing to
achieve their objectives. The impacts analysis incorporates knowledge provided by existing monitoring
activities, for example biological monitoring data or chemical concentrations in the water environment.
The impact assessment identifies any water bodies that exhibit what is currently judged as deteriorated
water status. However, it should be noted that new comprehensive status classification schemes are still
under development and will not be finalised until 2006.
Figure 3-1: DPSIR approach (Source IMPRESS guidance document)
page 51
Driving force
Population growth
Pressure
Sewage discharge
State
Increased nutrients
Impact
Algal and plant growth
Response
Control of discharge
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
3.1.2 Step 1 – Identification of Human Pressures
Identification of all significant human pressures is the first step in the assessment of human activities.
EU guidance includes Reporting Sheets developed by the European Commission which specify the range
and detail of the information that must be reported in the WFD Characterisation Report (see Chapter 1).
For groundwaters the pressures to be addressed include water abstractions, artificial recharge, saltwater
intrusion, diffuse sources and point sources. At present there is no known occurrence of artificial recharge
in Ireland and therefore it is not considered to be significant groundwater pressure.
For surface waters pressures from water abstractions, water flow regulations, morphological alterations,
point sources and diffuse sources should be identified to enable their relative significance to be assessed.
The European Commission’s Reporting Sheets also refer to surface water pollution via deep drainage
pathways (i.e. the risk to surface waters from polluted groundwaters). This pressure has been addressed
under the groundwater assessments in which groundwater dependent rivers, lakes and transitional waters
are considered as the receptor.
The pressure and impacts analysis has used a variety of datasets dictated by data availability and quality.
Irish State Agencies, RBD projects and individual organisations have collaborated in an extensive
collection of datasets to provide the information presented in this Characterisation Report.
A database of significant water abstractions including public and private water supply and industrial use
have been provided by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG)
and augmented by the RBD projects. Map 3-1 shows the known significant groundwater and surface water
abstractions in Ireland.
page 52
Flow regulation pressures, which include structures such as hydroelectric dams and major water supply
reservoirs, and morphological pressures (or physical alterations) apply only to surface waters.
Morphological pressures include activities such as channel alterations, agricultural enhancement, flood
defences, locks and weir facilities, dredging, ports and tidal barrages. A database of these pressures was
generated by the RBD projects based on collation of datasets from several organisations. Map 3-2
summarises the main morphological pressures in Ireland.
Point source pressures considered in relation to groundwaters include migration of pollutants from
contaminated land, waste disposal sites and oil industry infrastructure and discharges to groundwaters
from mines and soakaways. Point source pressures identified for surface waters include Urban Wastewater
Treatment Plants (UWWT) plants, storm overflows, sludge treatment plants, Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control (IPPC) industries and non IPPC industries. Datasets for point source pressures
were generally available on a national scale with Local Authorities providing data on non IPPC licensed
industries. The main point source pressures in Ireland are shown in Map 3-3.
Diffuse source pressures include widespread activities such as agriculture, non-sewered population,
urban land use, transport, some industrial activities and other main land uses which in Ireland would
include peat exploitation and forestry activities. Map 3-4 presents the 2000 Corine land cover image
showing the distribution of activities throughout Ireland.
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Some data gaps were identified in the data collection process, these are summarised in Section 3.6 and will
be addressed as part of further characterisation.
3.1.3
Step 2 – Risk Assessment of Human Pressures
The second step in the assessment of human activities is the application of the risk assessment procedures
to groundwaters and surface waters to identify the relative significance of pressures. The analysis, which
is detailed in Sections 3.2 to 3.5, identified the number and proportion of water bodies in each RBD at risk
due to each activity considered.
Ireland has consulted and, where appropriate, adapted the risk assessment methodologies prepared by the
UK TAG, again to aid transparency and consistency in the analysis throughout the ecoregion.
Risk assessment methods have been developed and applied to all water categories (groundwaters, rivers,
lakes, transitional and coastal waters).
The risk assessment procedure for groundwaters addresses abstraction, saline intrusion, diffuse and point
pressures. The groundwater methods of assessment are generally more predictive than those applied to
surface waters partly due to the limited availability of impact data for groundwater. The groundwater
assessments use a simple pressure, pathway, receptor model to identify where the impacts on groundwaters
are likely to occur, as presented in The Approach to Groundwater Risk AssessmentRef 1. Impact data has
been used to verify the individual groundwater assessments to ensure that the models adopted are robust
and to refine the final risk category of water bodies where good impact data are available.
The surface waters risk assessment procedure includes abstraction, flow regulation, morphological, point
and diffuse pressure assessments. The surface water analysis also incorporates impact data from national
river, lake and marine monitoring datasets.
The surface water procedures included investigation of additional risk factors on a national scale. These
assessments considered other pressures such as the effects of fishery activities and the presence of
introduced invasive (or alien) aquatic species which might jeopardise the survival of native species.
Compliance with the standards set in other directives to protect the environment was also considered in
the surface water risk assessment process, however, national datasets were not available for all protected
areas.
These "other assessments" (i.e. alien species, commercial fisheries and bathing waters compliance) are
heavily reliant on expert opinion and require more development during further characterisation. As such,
in the Irish Article 5 characterisation process, these assessments are treated as shadow analyses and
provide risk comment for water bodies rather than determining overall risk category.
Invasive species (also referred to as alien species) are organisms which successfully establish themselves
in, and then overcome, otherwise intact pre-existing native ecosystems. There is growing evidence that
invasive species can cause a major threat to native flora and fauna. A risk assessmentRef 9 was carried out
based on the presence of the eight species of greatest concern in Ireland. The species were prioritised by
an expert group led by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). The group produced national mapping
of the distribution of these most invasive species and identified, by expert judgement, the water bodies
under threat of imminent invasion. A risk category dependent on the impact potential of the species was
page 53
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
assigned to water bodies already invaded by or at imminent threat from invasion by alien species
(Map 3-5). Table 3-2 identifies the extent of the influence of priority alien species throughout the RBDs
in Ireland based on available recordings and expert judgement.
Table 3-2: Water bodies impacted by alien species
RBD
Reporting
Category
E-RBD
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
SE-RBD
SW-RBD
Shannon-IRBD
W-RBD
NW-RBD
page 54
Neagh/Bann
RBD
Number of Water
Bodies at risk
(1a + 1b)
19
2
238
4
6
155
3
3
6
575
66
3
1
3
1
3
128
75
1
-
% by number
of water bodies
% by water
body area
5.3
7.7
36.3
19.0
66.7
17.5
3.3
7.0
22.2
65.0
58.4
15.0
0.1
0.9
1.5
10
18.0
41.7
4.5
-
11.3
0.7
45.8
34.7
95.5
35.2
16.7
12.9
75.9
74.9
94.3
18.1
0.6
3.2
3.0
25.3
35.7
41.4
2.0
-
Certain fishery activities can result in ecological impact due to habitat damage. A fisheries risk
assessmentRef10 was carried out based on the distribution of the activities of greatest concern in Ireland.
Amongst the freshwater fish species, salmon (and trout) are subjected to the greatest fishing /angling
pressures in Ireland. The Scientific Committee of the Salmon Commission is developing models which
allow salmon conservation limits to be set for Irish rivers. Using estimated salmon returns (based on catch
data and known exploitation rates), it is possible to determine whether returns are meeting salmon
conservation limits. Recent data indicate that these conservation limits are not being attained in 8 of 17
Irish Fishery Districts. Factors contributing to this shortfall include commercial fishing, angling, reduced
marine survival and degradation of freshwater habitat. Additional research is required to apportion more
precisely the specific impact of each of these pressures in order to develop a risk assessment approach that
will be applied during the further characterisation process.
Consequently, the Irish Article 5 commercial fisheries risk assessment is currently confined to marine
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
(transitional and coastal) water bodies. The fisheries activities were prioritised by an expert group led by
the MI (Marine Institute). The group produced national mapping of the distribution of these activities and
assigned a risk category based on the habitat sensitivity of the water bodies in which these activities occur
(Map 3-6). Table 3-3 identifies the extent of priority fishery activities throughout the RBDs in Ireland.
Table 3-3: Water bodies affected by fishing activities
RBD
Reporting
Category
E-RBD
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
SE-RBD
SW-RBD
Shannon-IRBD
W-RBD
NW-RBD
Neagh/Bann
RBD
Number of Water
Bodies at risk
(1a + 1b)
19
2
238
4
6
155
3
3
6
575
66
3
1
3
1
3
128
75
1
-
% by number
of water bodies
% by water
body area
5.3
7.7
36.3
19.0
66.7
17.5
3.3
7.0
22.2
65.0
58.4
15.0
0.1
0.9
1.5
10
18.0
41.7
4.5
-
11.3
0.7
45.8
34.7
95.5
35.2
16.7
12.9
75.9
74.9
94.3
18.1
0.6
3.2
3.0
25.3
35.7
41.4
2.0
-
For water bodies identified as protected areas, nationally available information regarding compliance with
the standards set in relevant directives was included in the risk assessment process. The protected areas
and relevant directives considered were as follows:
drinking water abstractions (75/440/EEC as amended by directives 79/869/EEC and 91/692/EEC),
bathing waters (76/160/EEC),
economically significant aquatic species including freshwater fish life (78/657/EEC) and shellfish
waters (79/923/EEC),
nutrient-sensitive areas, including the nitrates directive (91/676/EEC) and the urban waste water
directive (91/271/EEC)
page 55
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
protection of habitats and species areas including the habitats directive (92/43/EEC) and the birds
directive (79/409/EEC).
The EPA provided data on the compliance with the mandatory standards contained in the Bathing Waters
Directive. Compliance datasets for other protected areas related legislation were not nationally available.
This shortfall will be addressed in future monitoring and reporting programmes.
Water bodies containing designated sites failing to achieve the mandatory standards in the Bathing Waters
Directive in 2003 were considered by the bathing risk assessmentRef11 to be at risk of failing to achieve
their objectives. Map 3-7 and Table 3-4 identify the water bodies at risk of failing to achieve the
environmental objectives of protected areas in the RBDs in Ireland.
Table 3-4: Bathing Waters Risk Assessment
RBD
Reporting
Category
E-RBD
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
SE-RBD
SW-RBD
Shannon-IRBD
page 56
W-RBD
NW-RBD
Neagh/Bann
RBD
Number of Water
Bodies at risk
(1a + 1b)
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
% by number
of water bodies
% by water
body area
0
0
0
12.5
0
0
0
11.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13.1
0
0
0
77.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
chapter 3
3.1.4
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Significant pollution pressures on surface waters
The WFD characterisation process includes investigation of a broader range of pressures and impacts than
has previously been fully considered across Europe. However, Ireland has identified that the main concern
in relation to the status of its waters is eutrophication which results from an excess of the key growthlimiting nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate. Ireland’s third State of the Environment report, "Ireland’s
Environment 2004"Ref 21, states that diffuse agricultural and municipal sewage sources are the main causes
of concern of eutrophication in Ireland. According to that report "the past decade has seen unprecedented
economic development; GDP per person has increased from well below the EU average to near the top of
the range. The population has also grown strongly, especially in the Dublin and surrounding counties.
Industry and services now account for the bulk of GDP".
Historically in Ireland, diffuse pollution has been associated with the majority of moderate pollution
incidences in surface waters while point source discharges account for the majority of serious pollution
incidences.
In order to quantify the relative significance of human activities in Ireland, the nutrient derived loading
was estimated in accordance with the OSPAR (Oslo Paris Convention) procedures as described in the
"Marine Direct Impacts Assessment"Ref 18.
The results of the nutrient analysis are presented in Table 3-5 and Figure 3-2. The assessment indicated
that the majority of anthropogenic nutrient load is derived from diffuse sources. Agricultural nutrient
inputs are the most significant portion of nutrient load (nitrogen and phosphorus). Export rates vary and
are higher in more intensively farmed areas. Agriculture is less significant proportionately in terms of total
phosphorus than it is in nitrogen export relationships. The procedure estimates the sectoral annual nutrient
load to surface waters and does not directly relate to impact contribution. Ireland’s Environment 2004
Report confirms that a significant portion of the nutrient loss from agriculture occurs during winter months
when plant and algal growth rates are lower therefore the resultant impact is not as severe.
page 57
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Table 3-5: Nutrient Load Estimates by RBD
RBD
E-RBD
SE-RBD
SW-RBD
page 58
ShannonIRBD
W-RBD
Sector
WWTP
Unsewered Industries
Agriculture
Forestry
Peatlands
Urban Areas
Unsewered Population
Aquaculture
Background Losses
E-RBD Total Load
WWTP
Unsewered Industries
Agriculture
Forestry
Peatlands
Urban Areas
Unsewered Population
Aquaculture
Background Losses
SE-RBD Total Load
WWTP
Unsewered Industries
Agriculture
Forestry
Peatlands
Urban Areas
Unsewered Population
Aquaculture
Background Losses
SW-RBD Total Load
WWTP
Unsewered Industries
Agriculture
Forestry
Peatlands
Urban Areas
Unsewered Population
Aquaculture
Background Losses
Shannon-IRBD Total Load
WWTP
Unsewered Industries
Agriculture
Forestry
Peatlands
Urban Areas
Unsewered Population
Aquaculture
Background Losses
W-RBD Total Load
Code: WFDNS-ART5-C3-5/05 V2 (5 of 8)
N Load
(kg/yr)
2,732,323
Sectoral
% N Load
P Load
(kg/yr)
497,280
198
905,079
22.3
0.0
65.9
1.8
0.9
2.0
3.0
0.0
4.1
100.0
8.9
1.4
62.7
4.8
1.3
2.5
9.5
0.3
8.6
100.0
2.1
1.4
84.3
2.9
2.6
0.4
1.7
0.2
4.4
100.0
3.3
0.0
85.6
2.3
1.4
0.4
2.5
0.0
4.4
100.0
2.3
0.0
78.5
4.0
5.6
0.3
3.3
0.0
6.1
33,215
634,275
251,518
30,200
89,401
46,348
21,527
88,813
160,196
5,015
59,846
752,864
106,215
621,594
522,723
52,643
68,279
17,191
53,324
6,444
56,051
1,504,462
235,197
18,971
705,858
69,158
53,987
19,712
106,725
2,157
75,264
1,287,031
83,524
63
173,038
65,875
134,539
17,600
51,800
35
60,339
70.2
0.0
4.2
3.1
2.8
8.5
5.9
0.0
5.2
100.0
33.4
4.0
11.9
6.2
2.9
11.8
21.3
0.7
7.9
100.0
7.1
41.3
34.7
3.5
4.5
1.1
3.5
0.4
3.7
100.0
18.3
1.5
54.8
5.4
4.2
1.5
8.3
0.2
5.8
100.0
14.2
0.0
29.5
11.2
22.9
3.0
8.8
0.0
10.3
14,931,912
100.0
586,812
100.0
8,060,473
217,225
109,650
246,045
362,224
498,225
12,226,164
931,059
140,977
6,539,015
504,542
134,223
256,513
993,214
28,889
897,690
10,426,122
405,661
262,004
16,222,069
565,188
498,138
78,452
330,607
29,609
840,758
19,232,485
937,433
8,979
24,636,234
673,653
410,075
102,186
728,994
14,138
1,254,723
28,766,415
336,647
139
11,716,908
604,399
830,332
40,931
445,204
Sector % P
Load
26,901
19,812
17,685
53,727
37,731
3-9
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
RBD
NW-RBD
Neagh/ Bann
RBD
National
Summary
Sector
WWTP
Unsewered Industries
Agriculture
Forestry
Peatlands
Urban Areas
Unsewered Population
Aquaculture
Background Losses
NW-IRBD Total Load
WWTP
Unsewered Industries
Agriculture
Forestry
Peatlands
Urban Areas
Unsewered Population
Aquaculture
Background Losses
Neagh/ Bann IRBD
Total Load
WWTP
Unsewered Industries
Agriculture
Forestry
Peatlands
Urban Areas
Unsewered Population
Aquaculture
Background Losses
National Summary Total
Load
N Load
(kg/yr)
Sectoral
% N Load
P Load
(kg/yr)
Sector % P
Load
1,526,836
1,989
3,021,125
347,281
374,243
25,547
102,152
9,902
364,997
5,774,073
3,891,091
17,388
8,417,949
106,920
59,492
33,306
133,300
4,805
319,540
12,983,791
26.4
0.0
52.3
6.0
6.5
0.4
1.8
0.2
6.3
100.0
30.0
0.1
64.8
0.8
0.5
0.3
1.0
0.0
2.5
100.0
238,860
12,889
118,204
40,833
58,726
4,662
16,126
1,571
23,653
515,524
153,820
9,555
306,107
11,198
9,480
6,725
21,400
843
21,303
540,430
46.3
2.5
22.9
7.9
11.4
0.9
3.1
0.3
4.6
100.0
28.5
1.8
56.6
2.1
1.8
1.2
4.0
0.2
3.9
100.0
10,761,051
431,476
78,613,773
3,019,207
2,416,153
782,979
3,147,771
87,542
5,081,011
10.3
0.4
75.3
2.9
2.3
0.8
3.0
0.1
4.9
1,514,338
693,271
1,942,232
305,866
364,225
208,431
447,301
16,066
329,670
26.0
11.9
33.4
5.3
6.3
3.6
7.7
0.3
5.7
104,340,964
100.0
5,821,399
100.0
page 59
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
3.1.5 RBMP Cycle
The first pressures and impacts analysis presented in this Characterisation Report is essentially an initial
characterisation. The findings of this first analysis represent the best attempt at the assessment of current
human activities and are based on the best available information. The analysis is therefore considered to
be as robust as possible and provides an appropriate basis from which to develop the next phase of the
river basin management planning process. The assessment of risk is based on pressures as they are
currently distributed and does not address future changes for example those due to implementation of the
National Spatial Strategy, investment in wastewater treatment facilities or agricultural sector reform. The
availability and detail of information will improve in future planning cycles ensuring greater confidence
in further characterisation assessments. The RBMP process will ensure that the implications of future
changes in pressures and management measures are taken into account in future planning cycles.
page 60
40
30
20
10
0
Sector
Sectoral Total N Load Contribution Shannon RBD
Sector
Background
Losses
50
Background
Losses
70
Aquaculture
60
Aquaculture
80
70
Unsewered
Population
90
80
Unsewered
Population
100
90
Background
Losses
Aquaculture
Unsewered
Population
Urban Areas
Sector
Urban
Areas
Peatlands
Forestry
Agriculture
Unsewered
Industries
WWTP
Background
Losses
Background
Losses
Aquaculture
Unsewered
Population
Urban Areas
Sector
Urban
Areas
Sectoral Total P Load Contribution South Western RBD
Peatlands
0
Peatlands
10
Peatlands
20
Forestry
60
Forestry
70
60
Forestry
80
70
Agriculture
90
80
Agriculture
100
90
Unsewered
Industries
Sectoral Total N Load Contribution South Eastern RBD
Unsewered
Industries
30
WWTP
40
30
% Total P Load
50
WWTP
100
% Total P Load
Background
Losses
Aquaculture
Unsewered
Population
Urban
Areas
Peatlands
Forestry
Agriculture
Unsewered
Industries
WWTP
% Total N Load
% Total P Load
Sectoral Total N Load Contribution Eastern RBD
Agriculture
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
% Total P Load
Background
Losses
Aquaculture
100
WWTP
Background
Losses
Aquaculture
Unsewered
Population
Urban
Areas
Peatlands
Forestry
Agriculture
% Total N Load
Sector
Aquaculture
Unsewered
Population
WWTP
Unsewered
Industries
Sector
Unsewered
Population
Urban
Areas
Peatlands
Forestry
Agriculture
Unsewered
Industries
WWTP
% Total P Load
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Unsewered
Industries
Sector
Urban
Areas
Peatlands
Forestry
Agriculture
Unsewered
Industries
WWTP
% Total N Load
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Figure 3-2: National Nutrient Input by Sector
Sectoral Total P Load Contribution Eastern RBD
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Sectoral Total P Load Contribution South Eastern RBD
50
40
20
10
0
Sectoral Total P Load Contribution South Western RBD
60
50
page 61
40
30
20
10
0
Sector
Sectoral Total P Load Contribution Shannon RBD
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Sector
Sector
Sectoral Total N Load Contribution National Summary
100
90
80
80
70
60
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
Sector
Background
Losses
Background
Losses
Aquaculture
Sectoral Total N Load Contribution Neagh Bann RBD
Aquaculture
Sector
Unsewered
Population
Background
Losses
Aquaculture
Unsewered
Population
0
Unsewered
Population
10
Urban
Areas
20
Urban
Areas
30
Forestry
Background
Losses
Aquaculture
Unsewered
Population
Urban Areas
Peatlands
Sector
Urban
Areas
40
Peatlands
50
Peatlands
60
Peatlands
70
Forestry
90
Forestry
100
Forestry
Sectoral Total N Load Contribution North West RBD
Agriculture
10
Agriculture
20
0
Agriculture
10
Agriculture
20
Unsewered
Industries
30
Unsewered
Industries
90
Unsewered
Industries
40
WWTP
50
% Total P Load
60
WWTP
80
% Total P Load
Background
Losses
Aquaculture
Unsewered
Population
70
WWTP
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
% Total P Load
Background
Losses
Aquaculture
Unsewered
Population
Urban Areas
Peatlands
Forestry
Agriculture
Unsewered
Industries
WWTP
Sectoral Total N Load Contribution Western RBD
Unsewered
Industries
90
% Total P Load
Background
Losses
Aquaculture
Unsewered
Population
Urban
Areas
Peatlands
Forestry
Agriculture
Unsewered
Industries
WWTP
% Total N Load
100
WWTP
Background
Losses
Aquaculture
Unsewered
Population
Urban Areas
Peatlands
Forestry
Agriculture
Unsewered
Industries
WWTP
% Total N Load
Sector
Urban Areas
Peatlands
Forestry
Agriculture
100
Unsewered
Industries
WWTP
% Total N Load
page 62
% Total N Load
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Sectoral Total P Load Contribution Western RBD
80
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
0
Sectoral Total P Load Contribution North West RBD
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Sector
Sectoral Total P Load Contribution Neagh Bann RBD
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Sector
Sectoral Total P Load Contribution National Summary
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
chapter 3
3.2
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
GROUNDWATER RISK ASSESSMENTS
3.2.1 Overview of Groundwater Risk Assessments
Groundwaters feed surface freshwater systems such as rivers, lakes, fens and turloughs which flow into
transitional and ultimately coastal waters. Groundwaters are also directly linked by underground flow
pathways to marine waters. Since groundwaters are the first water bodies in the water cycle they are
considered first in the Irish risk assessment process.
This linkage also means that the pressures and impact assessment must consider the risk to other
downstream receptors as well as to groundwater bodies themselves. Consequently, the groundwater
methodologies include assessment of the risk to dependant surface water systems (rivers, lakes and
estuaries) and to groundwater dependant terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTE), for example fens and
turloughs, by setting thresholds which take into account the differing sensitivity of these receptors.
Since all groundwater bodies in Ireland are considered as potential sources of drinking water the
assessment also addresses the standards required for human consumption.
Water Body
Delineation
Figure 3-3: Groundwater Risk Assessment Approach
Boundaries
+
Conceptual Understanding
+
Description
Risk Assessment
Source
Pressures, Loading,
Spatial Location
Characteristics
of Pathway
(Susceptibility)
Characteristics
of Receptor
(Sensitivity)
Monitoring
Data
Risk Assessment
Information on
Known impacts
2b,2a,1b,1a
Further Characterisation
Not at Risk
At Risk
Source: Groundwater Working Group
page 63
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
The groundwater assessments use a simple pressure, pathway, receptor model to identify where the
impacts on groundwaters are likely to occur. The overall approach is presented in The Approach to
Groundwater Risk AssessmentRef 1 and illustrated in Figure 3.3. The approach is supported by a series of
individual risk assessment methodology sheetsRef 4. The methodologies were developed by GSI
(Geological Survey of Ireland) supported through the National Groundwater Working Group by the RBD
projects and other state organisations. The assessments developed also draw on the methodologies applied
by SEPA (Scottish Environmental Protection Agency) and EA (Environment Agency) through UK TAG,
to ensure compatibility throughout the ecoregion. The Irish approach and methodology documents are
available as background information on the www.wfdireland.ie website (also listed at the end of this
chapter).
The groundwater assessments integrate pressures and impacts with the physical characterisation (detailed
in Section 2.1), using the pressure-pathway-receptor approach. Each of the risk assessments has been
undertaken following a common framework which comprises a four-step process:
1) Integrating appropriate geological and hydrogeological layers to determine pathway susceptibility;
2) Combining pressure magnitude with pathway susceptibility to define impact potential;
3) The sensitivity of the receptor then combines with the impact potential to give a predicted risk
category; and
4) Predicted impacts are confirmed and/or adjusted where adequate measured impact data are
available to give the final risk category.
The concept of pathway susceptibility (i.e. the likelihood of pollutants being transmitted to a receptor)
describes the movement of pollutants vertically and horizontally and is a product of factors including soil,
subsoil and aquifer type and vulnerability.
page 64
The chemical pollutants from diffuse and point sources have been grouped into four sectors which typify
their behaviour as they move through groundwater pathways. The pathway models take account of
whether the substance decays or is conservative (organic or inorganic, respectively) and whether the
substance is adsorbed within the structure of the soils, subsoils and aquifer (mobile or less mobile). The
pathway groups are as follows;
Mobile inorganic substances – such as nitrate;
Less mobile inorganic substances – such as phosphate;
Mobile organic substances – such as certain pesticides and PAH (hydrocarbons);
Less mobile organic substances – for example other agrochemicals which bind to soils.
Impact data in the form of borehole/groundwater monitoring well water level records or chemical
monitoring data has been used to verify the individual groundwater assessments to ensure that the models
adopted are robust and to refine the final risk category of water bodies where good impact data is available.
The thresholds of good status, which are detailed in each assessment sheet, depend on the receptor
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
chapter 3
sensitivity. Thresholds have been taken from the proposed groundwater daughter directive and the
drinking water directive and also, where considering dependant receptors, from surface water quality
standards.
The WFD objectives for groundwaters relate to good quantitative status and good chemical status; risk
assessment procedures were developed to deal with both. Table 3-6 summarises the Irish groundwater risk
assessment methodologies developed. The references refer to the individual methodology sheet number
contained in the background document. D refers to a procedure that has been deferred due to lack of
information and will be addressed under further characterisation.
A major data collection process was undertaken in support of the risk assessment. This revealed a number
of data gaps with regard to pressure and impact datasets which will have to be addressed during the
groundwater further characterisation process. These are addressed in Section 3.6.
Table 3-6: WFD Groundwater Risk Assessment Sheets for Relevant Receptors and Pressures
Receptor
WFD Objective
Groundwater
Body
Status, trends
Groundwater
dependent
rivers, lakes &
estuaries
Status
Groundwater
Dependent
Terrestrial
Ecosystems
Status
Pressure
Abstraction
points
Drinking
water
protected
areas
Groundwater Abstraction
Water balance
Intrusion
GWB1
GWB2
SW1
-
Diffuse Source Pollutants
Mobile nutrients (e.g. NO3)
Less mobile nutrients (e.g. PO4)
GWB3
-
SW2
SW3
GWB4
GWB5
SW4
SW5
GWDTE3
D
-
D
-
D
-
GWB6
GWB7
GWB8
GWB9
GWB10
GWB11
GWB12
SW6
GWDTE4
GWDTE5
GWDTE6
GWDTE7
GWDTE8
Mobile chemicals
Clustered on-site systems & leaking
urban sewerage systems
Sheep dip
Less mobile chemicals
Microbial organisms
GWDTE1
-
GWDTE2a
GWDTE2b
-
DWPA1
DWPA2
D
D
Point Source Pollutants
Mining
Quarries
Landfills
Oil industry infrastructure
Contaminated land
Trade effluent discharges
Urban wastewater discharges
Codes:
Source:
GWDTE9
GWB1, SW1, GWDTE1, DWPA1 refer to risk assessment methodologies (Ref 1) D
refers to deferred procedures
Groundwater Risk Assessment Sheets
page 65
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
3.2.2 Groundwater Risk Assessments Results
The assessment of significant abstraction pressuresRef 1, Ref 2 was undertaken by comparing known
significant groundwater abstractions with the available estimated natural recharge of each water body. The
risk category for each water body was identified depending on the proportion of recharge abstracted,
supported by observed water level trends in boreholes/monitoring wells. The quantification of recharge
methodology and the thresholds used are described in the background documents.
The receptors considered in the quantitative assessment were groundwater bodies, dependant surface
water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems.
Groundwater bodies at risk for saline intrusion were also assessed in localised areas where it was
considered that there may be potential impacts.
Maps 3-8 – 3-14 show the groundwater abstraction and saline intrusion risk status of each RBD in Ireland.
The results are summarised in Table 3-7 indicating that nationally there are a small number of water bodies
at risk from these groundwater quantitative pressures.
Further detail on unregulated abstractions such as agricultural will be collected as part of further
characterisation process.
page 66
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Table 3-7: Groundwater bodies affected by abstractions and saline intrusion
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of Water
Bodies
0
5
14
56
5
4
3
9
135
7
1
0
6
77
1
0
19
45
178
19
0
8
1
96
8
0
0
0
72
0
1
1
1
25
2
42
% of number
% area of RBD
0
6.7
8.7
74.6
6.7
2.6
2
6
89.4
4.6
1.2
0
7.1
91.7
1.2
0
7.9
18.6
73.5
7.9
0
7.6
1
91.4
7.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
3.6
3.6
3.6
89.2
7.2
5.5
0
1.5
46.8
51.7
1.5
0.5
0.7
4.1
94.7
1.2
0.3
0
1.2
98.6
0.3
0
2.1
29.9
68.0
2.1
0
0.8
0.3
98.9
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
2.9
0.5
6.7
89.9
3.4
1.2
The significant groundwater diffuse pressuresRef 4 addressed in the Irish risk assessment process are
nutrients from agricultural activities (including livestock farming, arable activities and intensive
enterprises), nutrients from unsewered human populations (septic tanks) and usage of dangerous
substances from all land use sectors including agrochemicals, urban and household products.
All receptors were considered in the diffuse assessment; groundwater bodies, dependant surface water
bodies, terrestrial ecosystems and drinking water protected areas.
page 67
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
The pressure datasets used in the diffuse assessments included agricultural livestock and tillage enterprise
statistics supplied by DAF (Department of Agriculture and Food), and intensive enterprise details from
CSO (Central Statistics Office) and Teagasc. The location of unsewered populations was extracted by
combining Corine land use imagery and Ordnance Survey mapping with Water Services coverage
information. The various diffuse activities which might give rise to dangerous substances discharges were
also identified from the Corine land use map.
Assessment of diffuse pressures was undertaken by identifying areas within water bodies with significant
potential impact (i.e. zones where elevated pressures coincide with susceptible pathways). The risk
category for each water body was assigned depending on the proportion of the area identified as having
significant impact potential. To determine relevant impact thresholds for water bodies the GSI undertook
trialling and verification of the methodology. This was undertaken by comparing the risk assessment
output with representative monitoring data in water bodies representing a range of hydrogeological
settings. The risk category is refined where monitoring data are available for the pollutant under
consideration. The diffuse methodologies and the thresholds used are described in the background
documents.
Maps 3-15 – 3-21 show the groundwater diffuse risk status of each RBD in Ireland. The results,
summarised in Table 3-8, indicate that diffuse pressures are the most widespread and nationally significant
groundwater pressures. Considering the output from the individual risk assessments highlights nitrates as
the most significant pollutant when considering groundwater as the receptor. The groundwater pathway for
delivering phosphate loading to surface waters receptors is also significant.
There is lower confidence in the risk assessment of dangerous substances as there is a lack of monitoring
data. This issue will be addressed by additional data collection and monitoring during the further
characterisation process. Detailed additional investigation will be required to quantify the range of
substances and annual load of pollutants as part of further characterisation process.
page 68
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Table 3-8: Groundwater bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of Water
Bodies
0
42
19
14
42
0
86
38
27
86
0
52
10
22
52
0
53
85
104
53
0
26
29
50
26
0
10
7
55
10
0
12
11
5
12
281
% of number
% area of RBD
0
56.0
25.3
18.7
56.0
0
57
25.2
17.8
57
0
61.9
11.9
26.2
61.9
0
21.9
35.1
43.0
21.9
0
24.8
27.6
47.6
24.8
0.0
13.9
9.7
76.4
13.9
0
42.9
39.2
17.9
42.9
37.1
0
20.9
63.4
15.7
20.9
0
31.3
55.6
13.1
31.3
0
44
6.6
49.4
44
0
14.6
45.8
39.6
14.6
0
29.5
14.1
56.3
29.5
0
5.8
33.9
60.3
5.8
0
12.1
81.4
6.5
12.1
24.6
The significant groundwater point pressuresRef 3 Ref 4 addressed in the Irish risk assessment are mines,
quarries, contaminated land, landfills, oil industry infrastructure, IPPC sites, licensed trade effluent and
urban wastewater discharges.
The point pressure datasets were collated by the RBD projects from state organisations. The location of
mine sites was obtained from a national GSI/EPA register. Quarry sites were also identified from a national
register held by GSI. Contaminated land sites were identified by using EPA expert knowledge of site
history and of accidental spillages with contaminated land issues. Waste disposal sites include the list of
page 69
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
currently licensed landfill sites supplemented by known closed landfill sites. Oil infrastructure facilities,
such as large scale storage of petroleum products, are incorporated into the assessment by including sites
licensed under the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Regulations. The locations of trade effluent and
urban wastewater discharges were obtained from EPA and Local Authority registers of licensed activities.
Groundwater bodies, dependant surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems were considered as
receptors in the point source assessment.
The point source assessment was undertaken by identifying the location and impact potential of point
sources. Where quantitative indicators were not available; the datasets were reviewed by experts from the
EPA or GSI to assess the relative significance of the pressure and to identify the risk category of the point
source.
Point influences were considered unlikely to exert a significant influence on an entire groundwater body,
as water bodies are relatively large units (generally over fifty square kilometres). Consequently, small
water bodies were delineated around each point pressure assigned an at risk or probably at risk category
to better represent the likely zone of influence of the pressure. This splitting of water bodies dependant on
pressures is consistent with WFD guidance. The point pressure methodology and the thresholds used are
described in the background documents.
page 70
Maps 3-22 – 3-28 show the groundwater point source risk status of each RBD in Ireland. The results are
summarised in Table 3-9 indicating the distribution of discrete small water bodies that will be further
investigated under the further characterisation process to determine the range and quantity of pollutants
associated with each site. Conservative, mobile chemicals from mines, quarries, contaminated sites and
unlined waste disposal sites are the main point source concerns in Ireland. Trade and waste water
discharges must also be addressed.
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Table 3-9: Groundwater bodies affected by point source pollution
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of Water
Bodies
2
32
11
30
34
3
47
0
101
50
5
36
0
43
41
19
105
0
118
124
0
16
46
43
16
3
13
16
40
16
1
13
5
9
14
295
% of number
% area of RBD
2.7
42.7
14.6
40.0
45.4
2
31.1
0
66.9
33.1
6
42.9
0
51.1
48.9
7.9
43.4
0
48.7
51.3
0
15.2
43.8
41
15.2
4.2
18.1
22.2
55.5
22.3
3.6
46.4
17.9
32.1
50.0
39.0
13.9
3.8
49.9
32.4
17.7
0.2
1.6
0
98.1
1.8
0.6
1.8
0
97.6
2.4
0.7
2.6
0
96.7
3.3
0
0.9
87.9
11.2
0.9
0.1
0.5
11.2
88.2
0.6
0.6
4.3
76.0
19.1
4.9
3.5
Maps 3-29 – 3-35 show the overall groundwater risk status of each RBD in Ireland. The results of the
assessment are summarised in Table 3-10. The overall risk category was obtained by taking the worst case
(highest degree) risk category for the quantitative, diffuse and point assessment for each water body. As
very few water bodies are at risk from over abstraction or saline intrusion and small water bodies were
delineated around point sources, diffuse pressures are the predominant influence on large, at risk
groundwater bodies.
page 71
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Table 3-10: Groundwater bodies affected summary
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
page 72
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of Water
Bodies
2
51
18
4
53
7
101
29
14
108
6
58
5
15
64
19
125
56
42
144
0
47
41
17
47
3
19
19
31
22
2
19
6
1
21
459
% of number
% area of RBD
2.7
68.0
24.0
5.3
70.7
4.6
66.9
19.2
9.3
71.5
7.1
69.0
6
17.9
76.2
7.9
51.7
23.1
17.3
59.6
0
44.8
39
16.2
44.8
4.2
26.4
26.4
43.0
30.6
7.1
67.9
21.4
3.6
75.0
60.6
13.9
14.7
67.6
3.8
28.6
0.8
31.6
56.3
11.3
32.4
0.9
44.1
6.5
48.5
45
0.7
16.1
49.9
33.3
16.8
0
30.9
63.7
5.4
30.9
0.1
6.0
41.2
52.7
6.1
3.5
15.3
78.4
2.8
18.8
26.7
3.2.3 Identification of groundwater bodies for which lower objectives are to be specified
The WFD requires groundwater bodies for which less stringent environmental objectives are to be
specified to be listed in the Characterisation Report. These objectives may be set in cases where a body of
water is so affected by human activity that it may be unfeasible or unreasonably expensive to achieve good
chemical status within two further river basin planning cycles (i.e. by 2027).
Irish groundwater bodies identified by the risk assessments as being at risk, were considered as likely
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
candidates for which Less Stringent Objectives (LSOs) might apply. The main pressures affecting these
candidates are mine workings, sites with contaminated land issues and diffuse nitrates, pesticides and
urban land use. The candidate sites were reviewed by experts from the GWWG (Groundwater Working
Group).
Mining activities can result in release of pollutants at depth which can take decades or centuries to
flush out of aquifers. Consequently 19 coalfield areas/significant mines were identified for further
consideration – Munster, Connacht, Leinster and Slieve Ardagh coalfields, Avoca, Silvermines,
Navan, Galmoy, Lisheen, Kingscourt, Gortdrum, Tynagh, Abbeytown, Clements, Ternakill, Keel,
Kilnaleck, Victoria and Glendalough mines;
Sites with contaminated land issues that are unlikely to be able to be remediated by 2027 were
identified for further consideration in 11 groundwater bodies – Enniscorthy, Monard, Kill, Cobh,
Athlone, Portarlington, Clarecastle, Enfield, Galway, Shannon and Waterford;
In Ireland because of the high rate of flushing in groundwater bodies it was the expert opinion that
groundwater bodies affected by diffuse nitrates and pesticides should be capable of being restored
to good status by 2027 and would not be further considered for lower objectives;
Major urban areas can include multiple industrial point sources and are likely to be associated with
localised impacts. Irish groundwater bodies underlying significant population centres (i.e. over
40,000 persons – i.e. Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford) were listed as candidates for
further consideration.
The candidate groundwater bodies listed in this Characterisation Report (Map 3-351) and their associated
surface water bodies will undergo detailed evaluation before confirmation of LSO or derogation
applicability. The evaluation will be undertaken on the basis of appropriate, evident and transparent criteria
which will be developed during the further characterisation process. This preliminary list will be reviewed
using more detailed information which will become available during the implementation of monitoring
programmes and further characterisation studies. The review may remove some candidates or identify
further bodies requiring LSOs.
The LSOs must be set and justified in the draft River Basin Management Plan by 2008. All practicable
steps should be taken to prevent any further deterioration of the status of these waters.
3.3
RIVER RISK ASSESSMENTS
3.3.1 Overview of River Risk Assessments
The risk procedures applied to Irish rivers involve a combination of both predictive (pressure) and impact
assessments. The analysis includes abstraction, flow regulation, morphological, point and diffuse
pressures and also incorporates impact data from national river monitoring datasets. The river analysis also
considered, as shadow assessments, other pressures such as the effects of alien species and information in
relation to compliance with the standards set in other directives to protect the environment. Figure 3.4
summarises the Irish surface water risk assessment approach.
The pressures and impacts methodologies were developed from the UK TAG surface water assessment
methodologies, to ensure compatibility throughout the ecoregion. Methodology documentsRef 8 are
page 73
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
available as background information on the www.wfdireland.ie website (also listed at the end of this
chapter).
All rivers in Ireland are considered as potential salmonid fishery habitats; consequently high receptor
sensitivity thresholds were adopted throughout the river assessments.
Impact data obtained from the EPA national river biological surveys and the supporting physico-chemical
monitoring database has been used to refine the final risk category of water bodies where good impact data
is available. Good status is assumed to be equal to or better than an existing biological status of Q4. NPWS
(National Parks and Wildlife Service) identified river water bodies where the sustainability of sensitive
aquatic species populations within designated SAC (Special Areas of Conservation) sites was impacted.
Impact data Environmental quality standards also have been adopted from existing European and National
surface water quality standards for example the Phosphorus Regulations.
Figure 3-4: Surface Water Risk Assessments Approach (using river example)
page 74
The environmental objectives for surface waters entail achieving at least good ecological and good
chemical status; risk assessments have been applied to deal with both objectives. Table 3-11 summarises
the Irish river risk assessment methodologies developed. The abstraction, flow regulation and
morphological assessments relate to hydromorphological pressures. The point and diffuse assessments
represent pollution pressures.
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Table 3-11: WFD River Risk Assessments for Relevant Pressures
Pressure/Activity
Water abstraction and
flow regulation
Morphological
alterations
Point source pollution
Diffuse source pollution
Impact
Other assessments
Main Features
Surface water abstraction
Presence of major impoundments
Channelisation & Dredging
Flood Protection & Embankments
Impounding (dams)
Water regulation (locks & weirs)
Intensive Land Use (urbanisation, peat extraction, arable & forestry)
Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharges
Integrated pollution prevention & control (IPPC) industry discharges
Local Authority Licensed (Section 4) industry discharges
Combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges
Water Treatment Works (WTP) discharges
General diffuse – urban, grassland and arable areas
Transport – road drainage (soluble copper, zinc, total hydrocarbons)
Transport – railways
Forestry – acidification, suspended solids, eutrophication
Un-sewered areas
Priority substances – arable, sheep dip, forestry
River biological survey
Supporting physico-chemical data
Margaritifera pollution recruitment condition
Alien species
Protected area compliance
The data collection process undertaken in support of the risk assessment revealed a number of data gaps
with regard to pressure and impact datasets which will have to be addressed during the development of the
first river basin management plan.
3.3.2 River Risk Assessment Results
The assessment of significant abstraction pressuresRef 12 was undertaken by comparing the nett volume
of known significant surface water abstractions with the characteristic low flow in each river water body.
The risk category was identified based on a percentage threshold of the 95 percentile low flow abstracted.
The methodology used to calculate the low flow and nett abstraction for each water body and the
thresholds used are described in the background documents.
A significant flow regulation structure (such as a hydroelectric or water supply dam) present in a water
body resulted in the water body being placed in the at risk category due to flow regulation pressures.
Maps 3-36 – 3-42 show the surface water abstraction and flow regulation risk status of each RBD in
Ireland. The results are summarised in Table 3-12 indicating that there are a small number of water bodies
nationally at risk from surface water abstraction and flow regulation pressures.
Based on a study on drinking water supplies by EG Petits for DEHLG the total volume of water abstracted
nationally from the 2318 known significant surface abstractions is 626,952,470 cubic metres annually. The
national volumetric proportion of surface water abstractions by category is as follows:
page 75
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Public water supply 91.4%
Private water supply 8.6%
Further detail on unregulated abstractions such as abstractions for irrigation will be collected during the
development of the first river basin management plan.
Table 3-12: River water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
page 76
RBD
Reporting Category
E-RBD
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
Total at Risk
E-RBD WEI 0.497
SE-RBD
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
Total at Risk
(1a+1b)
SE-RBD WEI 0.051
SW-RBD
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
Total at Risk
(1a+1b)
SW-RBD WEI 0.046
Shannon-IRBD
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
Total at Risk
(1a+1b)
Shannon-IRBD WEI 0.047
W-RBD
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
Total at Risk
(1a+1b)
W-RBD WEI 0.093
NW-IRBD
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
Total at Risk
(1a+1b)
NW-RBD WEI 0.192
Neagh/Bann
1a at risk
IRBD
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
Total at Risk
(1a+1b)
Neagh/Bann RBD WEI 0.226
Grand total at
(1a+1b)
risk (for all
RBDs)
Number of
Water Bodies
15
8
4
329
23
% of
number
4.2
2.3
1.1
92.4
6.5
Km
Affected
102.7
137.1
97.9
1522.1
239.8
% area of
RBD
5.7
7.8
7.2
79.3
13.5
13
8
8
626
21
2.0
1.2
1.2
95.6
3.2
82.0
50.7
105.7
3556.3
132.7
1.6
1.1
2.5
94.8
2.7
11
24
18
832
35
1.2
2.7
2.0
94.0
4.0
30.3
124.3
177.4
3101.7
154.6
1.2
3.0
4.5
91.3
4.2
14
20
15
835
34
1.5
2.3
1.7
94.5
3.8
87.0
168.1
129.8
4586.7
255.2
1.1
3.1
3.5
92.3
4.2
3
5
4
939
8
0.3
0.5
0.4
98.8
0.8
17.4
22.2
23.0
3562.5
39.6
0.3
0.5
3.8
95.4
0.8
37
34
12
582
71
5.6
5.1
1.8
87.5
10.7
182.3
300.7
96.6
1768.3
483
8.4
14.1
3.3
74.2
22.5
2
7
4
58
9
2.8
9.9
5.6
81.7
12.7
7.8
67.2
55.6
283.9
75
3.4
14.9
13.3
68.4
18.3
201
4.5
1648.4
6.3
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
The significant morphological pressures assessmentRef 13 relates to physical alterations that have been
made to Irish rivers to support human activities such as navigation, urban development or agriculture. A
database of morphological pressures was generated by the RBD projects based on collation of datasets
from disparate organisations.
The morphological assessment was undertaken by determining the extent of various known significant
alterations within each river water body. The morphological assessment for rivers included the following
pressures; channelisation and dredging, river straightening, flood protection and embankments,
impounding, water regulation and intensive land use. The risk category was identified based on the
proportion of the river water body altered. To ensure consistency with the approach applied throughout the
ecoregion, the UK TAG methodology and thresholds were adapted to reflect Irish data availability as
described in the background documents.
Maps 3-43 – 3-49 show the river morphological risk status of each RBD in Ireland. The results are
summarised in Table 3-13 indicating that there are a significant number of river water bodies nationally at
significant risk from morphology pressures (typically due to intensive land use and impoundment
pressures). There is a large group of water bodies probably at significant risk, in particular, due to historic
drainage works. These pressures will be investigated further during the first river basin management plan
preparation.
page 77
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Table 3-13: River water bodies affected by morphology pressures
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
page 78
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of
Water Bodies
46
181
43
86
227
11
221
186
237
232
52
152
146
535
204
32
457
123
272
489
20
289
185
457
309
78
121
70
396
199
11
49
2
9
60
1720
% of
number
12.9
50.8
12.1
24.2
63.7
1.7
33.7
28.4
36.2
35.4
5.9
17.2
16.5
60.5
23.1
3.6
51.7
13.9
30.8
55.3
2.1
30.4
19.4
48.1
32.5
11.7
18.2
10.5
59.6
29.9
15.5
69
2.8
12.7
84.5
38.5
Km
Affected
223.6
1096.7
235.3
304.2
1320.3
32.5
1394.4
1249.4
1118.5
1426.9
127.5
754.8
882.0
1669.4
882.3
104.4
2972.4
742.4
1152.5
3076.8
31.6
1457.5
824.9
1311.1
1489.1
272.6
659.5
372.5
1043.1
932.1
89.0
285.0
5.8
35.1
374
10776.8
% area of
RBD
14.5
58.7
11.6
15.2
73.2
0.8
40.8
30.8
27.6
41.6
4.3
23.7
24.9
47.1
28
4.4
59.1
12.5
24
63.5
0.7
45.5
22.8
31.0
46.2
11.3
29.3
12.8
46.6
40.6
21.5
67.8
2.1
8.6
89.3
50.1
The significant point source pressuresRef 14 addressed in the Irish river risk assessments and the data
availability thresholds are as follows:
UWWT & sludge treatment plants (population equivalent (pe)>500);
storm overflows (from urban areas with population equivalent (pe)>2000);
IPPC industries (licensed by the EPA);
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
non IPPC industries (licensed by Local Authorities);
other point sources judged significant at RBD level (e.g. Water Treatment Plant discharges).
The point source assessment was undertaken by identifying the location and impact potential of point
sources. Where monitoring data was available for a discharge (i.e. for treatment plants or industrial
discharges), the risk category of the receiving water bodies was dependant on the compliance of the most
recent sampling data with license limits. If exceedance of any statutory limit was recorded, water bodies
were placed in the at risk or probably risk categories (depending on data confidence). Conversely, where
all samples complied with consent limits, water bodies were placed in the probably not at risk or not at
risk categories, again depending on confidence in the data.
Where monitoring data was not available non-quantitative indicators were used to assign risk category. For
example, where the spill frequency of Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) spillage was unknown a default,
probably at risk, category was assigned to ensure that the pressure would be addressed as part of further
characterisation. Where local knowledge was available experts from the EPA and Local Authorities
reviewed the risk assessment results to verify the assigned risk category.
Datasets for point source pressures were generally available on a national scale with Local Authorities
providing data on non IPPC licensed industries.
Maps 3-50 – 3-56 show the river point source risk status of each RBD in Ireland. The results summarised
in Table 3-14 indicate that a moderate portion of Irish water bodies are at risk from point pressures, this is
partially a result of the manner in which urban areas cluster along major river water body corridors. Water
bodies in urban areas can be affected by multiple discharges and several types of point pressure.
The RBD projects have collated substantial point source registers and have categorised all discharges
according to source type which includes assigning a NACE industry classification code to all industrial
discharges. The estimated total nutrient loading from point sources is presented in Section 3.1, however,
data availability does not permit an estimate of priority substances loading to be developed. This shortfall
will be addressed in the first river basin management plan.
page 79
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Table 3-14: River water bodies affected by point source pollution
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
page 80
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Bodies
28
46
83
199
74
15
112
6
522
127
5
82
1
797
87
39
126
96
623
165
11
48
20
872
59
15
50
3
597
65
10
15
1
45
25
602
7.9
12.9
23.3
55.9
20.8
2.3
17.1
0.9
79.7
19.4
0.6
9.3
0.1
90.1
9.8
4.4
14.3
10.9
70.4
18.7
1.2
5.0
2.1
91.7
6.2
2.3
7.5
0.5
89.7
9.8
14.1
21.1
1.4
63.4
35.2
13.5
332.3
463.4
381.4
682.7
795.7
369.4
1053.7
51.1
2320.5
1423.1
147.6
685.8
8.4
2591.9
833.4
660.4
1078.9
571.1
2661.3
1739.3
114.1
454.0
196.3
2860.8
568.1
144.2
361.5
24.5
1817.5
505.7
102.7
108.0
4.3
199.9
210.7
7239.7
20.8
23.7
23.1
32.4
44.5
9.7
27.9
1.2
61.3
37.6
4.8
22.0
0.1
73.1
26.8
17.0
20.7
11.6
50.7
37.7
2.7
18.0
7.0
72.3
20.7
6.7
17.1
0.8
75.4
23.8
22.0
28.2
1.1
48.7
50.2
32.6
The significant diffuse source pressuresRef 15 addressed in the Irish river risk assessment process are as
follows:
Agriculture and urban drainage;
Transport road drainage;
Transport railway drainage;
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Forestry - acidification, suspended solids, eutrophication;
Un-sewered populations (septic tank) drainage;
Agricultural & forestry activities using priority substances.
The pressure datasets used in the diffuse assessments included Corine land cover imagery, infrastructure
details and vehicle trip information, forestry inventories, acid sensitive geology, soils and subsoil
coverage, digital terrain model, extent of urbanised areas and Water Service networks and agricultural
statistics supplied by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) and Teagasc.
The assessments considered nutrients, priority substances, acidifying pollutants, suspended solids and
other significant pollutants such as metals associated with road drainage.
The primary diffuse assessment addressed diffuse pressure from agricultural and urban areas. This
assessment was developed by the EPA based on empirical relationships identified between diffuse land use
activities and observed water quality impact as measured by the river biotic index or Quality rating system
(Q system). The most significant relationships were observed between pasture, arable and urban land uses
and Q value. The observed relationships were used to predict the risk category for all river water bodies
based on land use data. The procedure has been presented for peer reviewRef 16 and is summarised in the
background document for the surface water diffuse risk assessment methodology.
The remaining diffuse pressures assessments were predictive analyses based on identifying areas within
water bodies with significant potential impact. The risk category for each water body was assigned
depending on the proportion of the area identified as having significant impact. The thresholds used in the
methodologies were based on expert knowledge derived from Irish or UK research findings. The risk
category was refined where monitoring data was available for the pollutant under consideration. Where
the risk assessment was not supported by monitoring findings the confidence in the output was considered
lower and the probably not at risk designation was assigned to the water bodies in which the pressure was
present. Where there was uncertainty in a risk assessment additional data collection and monitoring will
be undertaken during the river basin planning process. All of the diffuse methodologies and the thresholds
used are described in the background documents.
Maps 3-57 – 3-63 show the river diffuse risk status of each RBD in Ireland. The results, summarised in
Table 3-15, indicate that diffuse pressures are the most widespread and nationally significant pressures in
terms of the number of at risk or probably at risk river water bodies. Considering the output from the
individual risk assessments highlights the agricultural and urban land uses as the most significant
component identifying a large portion of water bodies in the at risk or probably at risk categories.
Transportation, forestry and sheep farming pressures tend to be localised, conversely, unsewered
population centres were more widespread.
The estimated total nutrient loading from diffuse sources is presented in Section 3.1, however, data
availability does not permit an estimate of priority substances loading to be developed. Detailed additional
investigation will be required to quantify the range of substances and annual load of pollutants as part of
a more detailed characterisation process.
page 81
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Table 3-15: River water bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
RBD
Reporting Category
E-RBD
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
page 82
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Number of
Water
Bodies
137
157
56
6
294
176
322
149
8
498
67
168
342
308
235
63
386
382
53
449
91
211
307
342
302
18
167
312
168
185
22
36
12
1
58
2021
% of number
Km
Affected
% area
of RBD
38.5
44.1
15.7
1.7
82.6
26.9
49.2
22.7
1.2
76.1
7.6
19.0
38.6
34.8
26.6
7.1
43.7
43.2
6
50.8
9.5
22.2
32.3
36.0
31.7
2.7
25.1
46.9
25.3
27.8
31.0
50.7
16.9
1.4
81.7
45.2
687.7
946.6
215.0
10.5
1634.3
1052.5
1989.1
737.8
15.4
3041.6
289.0
1129.9
1338.9
675.9
1418.9
302.2
2467.2
2008.2
194.1
2769.4
804.9
578.7
1356.1
885.5
1383.6
44.0
775.6
1067.8
460.3
819.6
124.6
221.6
63.2
5.5
346.2
12790
38.2
49.7
11.6
0.5
87.9
31.4
50.8
17.4
0.4
82.2
10.4
35.4
38.1
16.1
45.8
6.1
53.3
36.2
4.4
59.4
21.5
20.7
37.3
20.5
42.2
2.1
35.4
44.4
18.1
37.5
30.2
58.0
11.0
0.8
88.2
59.8
The river impact assessment utilised the EPA national river biological survey dataset covering the period
up to 2002. The assessment was supported by a national physico-chemical dataset.
Irish river biological status is expressed as a Q rating/value with Q5 representing the highest biological
status and Q1 the poorest. Of the five biological elements that comprise river ecological status under the
WFD, the Q system takes account of benthic invertebrates and to a degree macrophytes and phytobenthos.
The EPA has undertaken research projects to investigate the relationship between the Q system and other
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
status elements and have identified a correlation with fish population and diversity. Research has also
shown that the Q system correlates to physico-chemical parameters, such as phosphorus concentrations.
This testing has identified that, in Ireland, the Q system is the best available surrogate for ecological status
under the WFD.
The EPA monitoring programme has been in place for over 30 years and has been designed to identify
water quality problems due to point and diffuse pollution. Consequently the EPA is confident that if the Q
status of a river water body is known then this should over ride the predictive risk category identified by
the point and diffuse pressure assessments. Since the Q system was not designed to take full account of
hydromorphological pressures the impact status does not over ride the predictive risk category identified
by the abstraction, flow regulation and morphology pressure assessments.
The EPA has determined that Q4 status is likely to represent good status. Therefore, for the impact risk
assessment any river water body with a recorded status of Q4 or better is identified as not at risk. Placing
these best quality water bodies in the not at risk category will ensure Ireland’s cleanest sites are prioritised
for protective management measures to maintain their status. The programme of measures to prevent
deterioration in status will be particularly important for high status sites (Q5 sites) which have been lost
at an accelerated rate. Any river water body with a recorded status of less than Q4 is placed in the "at risk"
category on the basis that it is already impacted and therefore will not achieve the objective of good status
without mitigation measures.
The river impact assessment also considered sites within SACs which the NPWS identified as being
impacted with regard to the sustainability of sensitive aquatic species populations. The assessment was
carried out in relation to the extremely sensitive Fresh Water Pearl Mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera
and Margaritifera durrovensis). Water bodies upstream of sites at which populations are considered to be
unfavourable, that is either declining or failing to recruit, were identified as being at risk or probably at
risk.
The Q value and SAC assessment results were combined on a worst case basis to determine the river
impacts assessment. Maps 3.64 - 3.70 show the river impacts risk category of the river water bodies in
each RBD in Ireland.
Maps 3-71 – 3-77 show the overall river risk status of each RBD in Ireland. The results of the assessment
are summarised in Table 3-16. The overall risk category for each water body was obtained by combining
the point, diffuse and impact assessments (allowing impact to over ride predictive thus reducing errors in
the predictive approach) followed by increasing the risk category as dictated by the abstraction, flow
regulation and morphology predictive assessments.
Overall a large proportion of the river water bodies are at risk or probably at risk. This reflects the
precautionary nature of the process whereby a single pressure can cause a water body to be classified at
risk. The dominant influences on the at risk water bodies are impact data, point and diffuse pollution
pressures and morphological pressures with hydrological pressures resulting in identification of a small
number of river water bodies at risk.
page 83
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Table 3-16: River water bodies affected summary
RBD
Reporting Category
E-RBD
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
page 84
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
3.4
Number of
Water
Bodies
209
102
31
14
311
297
249
75
34
546
181
235
237
232
416
285
395
150
54
680
105
363
227
256
468
182
184
157
142
366
38
29
2
2
67
2854
% of number
Km
Affected
% area
of RBD
58.7
28.7
8.7
3.9
87.4
45.3
38
11.5
5.2
83.3
20.5
26.6
26.8
26.2
47
32.2
44.7
16.9
6.2
76.9
11.0
38.2
23.9
26.9
49.2
27.4
27.7
23.6
21.3
55.1
53.6
40.8
2.8
2.8
94.4
63.9
1274.2
399.2
114.5
71.9
1673.4
2201.9
924.4
425.4
243.0
3126.3
1115.3
832.4
723.7
762.2
1947.7
2295.5
1769.3
627.0
279.9
4064.9
594.9
1361.7
878.1
790.4
1956.6
966.1
621.4
376.4
383.8
1617.5
272.5
130.3
2.4
9.7
402.8
17492.5
71.5
20.4
5.2
2.9
91.9
58.2
27.5
9.8
4.5
85.7
36.1
24.3
20.2
19.3
60.5
47.9
36.4
11.2
4.5
84.3
18.0
41.1
24.3
16.6
59.1
41.9
29.4
13.8
14.9
71.3
67.1
31.0
0.5
1.4
98.1
76.4
LAKE RISK ASSESSMENTS
3.4.1 Overview of Lake Risk Assessments
The risk procedure applied to Irish lakes closely parallels the river risk assessment procedure, involving a
combination of both pressure and impact assessments. The lake analysis includes abstraction, flow
regulation, morphological, point and diffuse pressures and also incorporates impact data from the national
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
lake monitoring datasets. The lake analysis also considered, as shadow assessments, other pressures such
as the effects of alien species and information in relation to compliance with the standards set in other
directives to protect the environment.
The Irish surface water risk assessment approach is summarised Figure 3.4. Table 3-17 summarises the
Irish lake risk assessment methodologies developed.
Table 3-17: WFD Lake Risk Assessments for Relevant Pressures
Pressure/Activity
Water abstraction and
flow regulation
Morphological
alterations
Point source pollution
Diffuse source pollution
Impact
Other assessments
Main Features
Surface water abstraction
Presence of major impoundments
Channelisation & Dredging
Flood Protection & Embankments
Impounding (dams)
Intensive Land Use (urbanisation, peat extraction, arable & forestry)
Waste water treatment plant (WWTP) discharges
Integrated pollution prevention & control (IPPC) industry discharges
Local Authority Licensed (Section 4) industry discharges
Combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges
Water Treatment Works (WTP) discharges
General diffuse – dependant on risk of inflowing rivers
Chlorophyll a survey data
Total phosphorus survey data
Alien species
Protected area compliance
The pressures and impacts methodologies were developed from the UK TAG surface water assessment
procedures, to ensure compatibility throughout the ecoregion. The RBD projects prepared risk assessment
methodology documents. Methodology documentsRef 8 are available as background information on the
www.wfdireland.ie website (also listed at end of this chapter).
The lakes assessed and reported on include all lakes over 50 hectares in size as well as lakes associated
with protected areas.
Impact data obtained from the national lake survey datasets were reviewed by experts from the EPA, CFB
(Central Fisheries Board), OPW and NPWS to determine the impact risk category of lakes where good
impact data is available. Environmental quality standards have been determined based on lake typology.
The data collection process undertaken in support of the risk assessment revealed a number of data gaps
with regard to pressure and impact datasets which will have to be addressed during the development of the
first river basin management plan.
3.4.2 Lake Risk Assessment Results
The assessment of significant abstraction pressures was undertaken by comparing the nett volume of
known significant surface water abstractions with the characteristic low flow in each lake water body. The
risk category was identified based on a percentage threshold of the 95 percentile low flow abstracted. The
page 85
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
methodology used to calculate the low flow and nett abstraction for each water body and the thresholds
used are described in the background documents.
A significant flow regulation structure present in a water body resulted in the water body being placed in
the at risk category due to flow regulation pressures.
Maps 3-78 – 3-84 show the surface water abstraction and flow regulation risk status for the lakes in each
RBD in Ireland. The results, summarised in Table 3-18, indicate that there ia a moderate portion of water
bodies nationally at risk from surface water abstraction and flow regulation pressures.
Further detail on unregulated abstractions such as abstractions for irrigation will be collected during the
development of the first river basin management plan.
page 86
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Table 3-18: Lake water bodies affected by abstractions
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of Water
Bodies
9
0
2
15
9
3
1
1
7
4
12
3
3
72
15
13
0
2
98
13
23
4
6
20
27
14
8
11
147
22
0
0
0
2
0
90
% of number
% area of RBD
34.6
0
7.7
57.7
34.6
25
8.3
8.3
58.4
33.3
13.3
3.3
3.3
80.0
16.7
11.5
0
1.8
86.7
11.5
7.1
1.2
1.9
6.2
8.3
7.8
4.4
6.1
81.7
12.2
0
0
0
100.0
0
12.1
36.4
0
51.3
12.3
36.4
30.8
15.3
23.1
30.8
46.1
8.0
0.7
3.5
87.9
8.6
2.1
0
3.8
94.1
2.1
1.4
0.2
17.9
60.6
1.6
5.8
24.0
15.0
55.2
29.8
0
0
0
100.0
0
0.7
The significant morphological pressures assessment was undertaken by determining the extent of
various known significant alterations within each lake water body. The morphological assessment for lakes
included the following pressures; channelisation and dredging, flood protection and embankments,
impounding and intensive land use. The risk category was identified based on the proportion of the lake
water body altered. To ensure consistency with the approach applied throughout the ecoregion, the UK
TAG methodology and thresholds were adapted to reflect Irish data availability as described in the
background documents.
page 87
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Maps 3-85 – 3-91 show the lake morphological risk status of each RBD in Ireland. The results,
summarised in Table 3-19, indicate that a moderate proportion of lake water bodies nationally are at risk
or probably at risk from morphology pressures. Intensive land use and drainage works are the most
significant. These pressures will be investigated further during the first river basin management plan
preparation.
Table 3-19: Lake water bodies affected by morphology pressures
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
page 88
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of Water
Bodies
3
10
1
12
13
0
0
12
0
0
11
23
7
49
34
1
41
24
47
42
14
11
39
258
25
3
18
3
156
21
0
0
0
2
0
135
% of number
% area of RBD
11.5
38.5
3.8
46.2
50.0
0
0
100
0
0
12.2
25.6
7.8
54.4
37.8
0.9
36.3
21.2
41.6
37.2
4.4
3.4
12.1
80.1
7.8
1.7
10.0
1.7
86.6
11.7
0
0
0
100.0
0
18.1
4.1
86.0
0.1
9.8
90.1
0
0
100
0
0
19.3
8.4
23.3
49.1
27.7
0
33.3
44.1
22.6
33.3
2.4
37.3
42.0
18.3
39.7
1.9
17.3
3.6
77.2
19.2
0
0
0
100.0
0
35.8
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
The significant point source pressures and methodologies used in the Irish lake risk assessment were the
same as those for river analysis namely; UWWT & sludge treatment plants; overflows; IPPC industries;
non IPPC industries; and other significant point sources based on expert judgement. Datasets for point
source pressures were generally available on a national scale with Local Authorities providing data on non
IPPC licensed industries.
The point source assessment was undertaken by identifying the location and impact potential of point
sources. Where monitoring data was available for a discharge (i.e. for treatment plants or industrial
discharges), the risk category of the receiving water body was dependant on the compliance of the most
recent sampling data with license limits. If exceedance of any statutory limit was recorded, water bodies
were placed in the at risk or probably at risk categories (depending on data confidence). Conversely, where
all samples complied with consent limits, water bodies were placed in the probably not at risk or not at
risk categories, again depending on confidence in the data. Where monitoring data was not available, nonquantitative indicators or expert judgement were used to assign risk category.
Maps 3-92 – 3-98 show the lake point source risk status of each RBD in Ireland. The results, summarised
in Table 3-20, indicate that a small proportion of Irish lakes are at risk from point pressures.
Data availability does not permit an estimate of priority substances loading to be developed. This shortfall
will be addressed in the first river basin management plan.
page 89
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Table 3-20: Lake water bodies affected by point source pollution
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
page 90
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of Water
Bodies
1
3
6
16
4
0
2
0
10
2
0
5
0
85
5
1
12
1
99
13
0
7
0
315
7
1
8
1
170
9
1
1
0
0
2
42
% of number
% area of RBD
3.8
11.5
23.1
61.6
15.3
0
16.7
0
83.3
16.7
0.0
5.6
0.0
94.4
5.6
0.9
10.6
0.9
87.6
11.5
0
2.2
0
97.8
2.2
0.6
4.4
0.6
94.4
5
50.0
50.0
0
0
100.0
5.6
18.4
51.2
15.8
14.6
69.6
0
30.8
0
69.2
30.8
0.0
19.5
0.0
80.5
19.5
25.2
40.5
0.3
34.0
65.7
0
36.9
0
63.1
36.9
1.3
2.6
2.6
93.5
3.9
88.2
11.8
0
0
100.0
43.6
The significant diffuse source pressures assessment of lakes was determined based on the general diffuse
risk category of the inflowing river water bodies.
Maps 3-99 – 3-105 show the lake diffuse risk status of each RBD in Ireland. The results, summarised in
Table 3-21, indicate that diffuse pollution pressures, similar to morphology pressures, are the more
widespread and nationally significant pressures on lake water bodies.
Detailed additional investigation will be required to quantify the range of substances and annual load of
pollutants as part of more detailed characterisation process.
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Table 3-21: Lake water bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of Water
Bodies
0
4
1
21
4
0
6
3
3
6
0
6
4
80
6
1
63
4
45
64
1
13
3
262
14
3
45
48
84
48
0
0
0
2
0
142
% of number
% area of RBD
0
15.4
3.8
80.8
15.4
0
50
25
25
50
0.0
6.7
4.4
88.9
6.7
0.9
55.8
3.5
39.8
56.7
0.3
4.0
0.9
81.4
4.3
1.7
25.0
26.6
46.7
26.7
0
0
0
100.0
0
19.1
0
20.2
50.5
29.3
20.2
0
76.1
21.8
2.1
76.1
0.0
35.2
18.0
46.8
35.2
0.1
80.4
14.3
5.2
80.5
0
2.4
0.1
94.9
2.4
0.4
17.3
45.9
36.4
17.7
0
0
0
100.0
0
35.2
The lake impact assessment was based on national monitoring datasets created by the EPA and the CFB,
supplemented by Local Authority monitoring data. The impact data used related to eutrophication
pressures and included mean total phosphorus concentration and mean and maximum Chlorophyll a
values. Classification thresholds were developed by the EPA specifically for each lake type based on the
findings of an EPA lakes research programme. Expert judgement was used to refine the risk category of
the lake based on local knowledge such as the long-term trends in lake quality including observations of
algal blooms and growth in littoral areas. Maps 3.106 – 3.112 show the risk category of the lakes in each
RBD in Ireland based on the lake impacts assessment.
page 91
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Maps 3-113 – 3-119 show the overall lake risk status of each RBD in Ireland. The results of the assessment
are summarised in Table 3-22. The overall risk category was obtained by taking the worst case risk
category for the abstraction, flow regulation, morphology, point, diffuse and impact assessments for each
water body.
The process is precautionary in that a single pressure can cause a water body to be classified at risk. The
dominant influences on the at risk water bodies are impact data, diffuse pollution pressures and
morphological pressures with point pollution and hydrological pressures resulting in identification of a
small number of at risk lake water bodies.
Table 3-22: Lake water bodies affected summary
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
page 92
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of Water
Bodies
13
7
3
3
20
3
4
5
0
7
24
14
10
42
38
21
63
9
20
84
47
33
50
192
80
24
25
22
109
49
1
1
0
0
2
280
% of number
% area of RBD
50.0
27.0
11.5
11.5
77.0
25
33.3
41.7
0
58.3
26.7
15.6
11.1
46.7
42.2
18.6
55.8
7.9
17.7
74.4
14.6
10.3
15.5
59.6
24.9
13.3
13.9
12.2
60.6
27.2
50.0
50.0
0
0
100.0
37.6
41.2
56.5
1.3
1.0
97.7
30.8
46.2
30.0
0
77.0
49.4
17.5
19.1
14.0
66.9
66
30.4
2.4
0.2
96.4
78.6
5.8
8.6
7.0
84.4
28.2
33.5
22.8
15.5
61.7
88.2
11.8
0
0
100.0
85.4
chapter 3
3.5
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
TRANSITIONAL & COASTAL RISK ASSESSMENTS
3.5.1 Overview of Transitional and Coastal Risk Assessments
The risk procedures applied to Irish marine (transitional and coastal) water bodies are similar to the river
and lake risk assessment procedures, involving a combination of both pressure and impact assessments.
The analysis includes abstraction, flow regulation, morphological and pollution pressures and also
incorporates impact data from national marine monitoring datasets. The marine analysis also considered,
as shadow assessments, other pressures such as the effects of alien species, fishery activities and
information in relation to compliance with the standards set in other directives to protect the environment.
The Irish surface water risk assessment approach is summarised Figure 3.4. Table 3-23 summarises the
Irish transitional and coastal risk assessment methodologies developed.
Table 3-23: WFD Transitional and Coastal Risk Assessments for Relevant Pressures
Pressure/Activity
Water abstraction and
flow regulation
Morphological
alterations
Point source pollution
Diffuse source pollution
Main Features
Surface water abstraction
Presence of major impoundments
Channelisation & Dredging (including bottom-culture aqualculture)
Disposal of Dredge Spoil
Coastal defences, Flood Protection & Embankments
Impounding (tidal barrages)
Built Structures
Intensive Land Use (urbanisation, peat extraction, arable & forestry)
Transitional waters & lagoons - point discharges and aquaculture (lineculture & fish farms)
Coastal embayments & lagoons - point discharges and aquaculture (lineculture & fish farms) and expert judgement
Included in impact assessment
page 93
Impact
Other assessments
Eutrophication and organic pollution - datasets and designations
Biota survey data
Alien species
Fishing activities
Protected area compliance
The pressures and impacts methodologies were developed from the UK TAG surface water assessment
methodologies, to ensure compatibility throughout the ecoregion. Methodology documentsRef 8 are
available as background information on the www.wfdireland.ie website (also listed at end of this chapter).
National monitoring datasets were obtained from the EPA and the MI to identify impacted water bodies.
The risk category of water bodies was refined where reliable impact data was available. Environmental
quality standards have been taken from existing European and National surface water quality standards.
For example background reference concentrations and ecotoxicological assessment criteria developed for
the marine environment under the OSPAR convention have been used to assess impact due to hazardous
substances.
The data collection process undertaken in support of the risk assessment revealed a number of data gaps
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
with regard to pressure and impact datasets which will have to be addressed during the development of the
first river basin management plan.
3.5.2 Transitional and Coastal Risk Assessment Results
The assessment of significant abstraction pressures in transitional water bodies was undertaken by
comparing the nett volume of known significant surface water abstractions with the characteristic low flow
supplying each water body. The assessment does not apply to coastal water bodies since it is not possible
for these to be at risk from over abstraction. The risk category was identified based on a percentage
threshold of the 95 percentile low flow abstracted. The methodology used to calculate the low flow and
nett abstraction for each water body and the thresholds used are described in the background documents.
A significant flow regulation structure present (such as a tidal barrage) in a water body resulted in the
water body being placed in the at risk category due to flow regulation pressures.
Maps 3-120 – 3-126 show the surface water abstraction and flow regulation risk status of each RBD in
Ireland. The results are summarised in Table 3-24 indicating that there are a small number of water bodies
nationally at risk from surface water abstraction and flow regulation pressures.
Further detail on unregulated abstractions will be collected during the development of the first river basin
management plan.
page 94
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Table 3-24: Transitional water bodies affected by abstractions
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
1a at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of Water
Bodies
0
0
3
10
0
0
0
0
21
0
5
1
1
36
6
1
1
2
16
2
0
0
0
68
0
0
3
7
12
3
0
0
4
5
0
11
% of number
% area of RBD
0
0
23.1
76.9
0
0
0
0
100
0
11.6
2.3
2.3
83.7
14.0
5
5
10
80
10
0
0
0
100
0
0
13.6
31.8
54.6
13.6
0
0
44.4
55.6
0
5.6
0
0
34.7
65.3
0
0
0
0
100
0
9.3
4.8
3.0
83.0
14.1
0.1
1.2
0.8
97.9
1.3
0
0
0
100
0
0
3.0
3.7
93.3
3.0
0
0
7.4
92.6
0
3.6
The significant morphological pressures assessment was undertaken by determining the extent of
various known significant alterations within each marine water body. The morphological assessment for
transitional water bodies included the following pressures; channelisation and dredging (including
specified aquaculture practices); disposal of dredge spoil; flood protection, embankments and coastal
defence; impounding; construction and intensive land use. The pressures included in the morphological
assessment for coastal water bodies were; dredging; disposal of dredge spoil; flood protection,
embankments and coastal defence and construction. The risk category was identified based on the
proportion of the water body altered. To ensure consistency with the approach applied throughout the
page 95
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
ecoregion, the UK TAG methodology and thresholds were adapted to reflect Irish data availability as
described in the background documents.
Maps 3-127 – 3-140 and Maps 3-155 – 3-161 show the transitional and coastal morphological risk status
of each RBD in Ireland. The results are summarised in Tables 3-25 and 3-26 indicating that there is a
significant portion of transitional and a moderate number of coastal water bodies nationally considered to
be at risk from morphology pressures in Ireland. The presence of significant ports with associated
activities including dredging was an important factor. These pressures will be investigated further during
the preparation of the first river basin management plan.
Table 3-25: Transitional water bodies affected by morphology pressures
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
page 96
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of Water
Bodies
9
2
2
0
11
5
6
7
3
11
5
9
9
20
14
9
2
9
0
11
7
3
6
52
10
2
5
7
8
7
4
2
2
1
6
70
% of number
% area of RBD
69.2
15.4
15.4
0
84.6
23.8
28.6
33.3
14.3
52.4
11.6
20.9
20.9
46.5
32.6
45
10
45
0
55
10.3
4.4
8.8
76.5
14.7
9.1
22.7
31.8
36.4
31.8
44.5
22.2
22.2
11.1
66.7
35.7
77.3
20.8
1.9
0
98.1
17.1
31.3
49.4
2.2
48.4
19.0
15.6
18.2
47.2
34.6
94.8
2.8
2.4
0
97.6
14.3
20.2
24.2
41.3
34.5
0.2
75.5
1.4
22.9
75.7
85.5
7.0
7.4
0.1
92.5
66.6
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Table 3-26: Coastal water bodies affected by morphology pressures
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of Water
Bodies
3
1
3
1
4
1
5
3
0
6
0
3
1
23
3
1
0
2
8
1
2
1
2
25
3
1
1
3
18
2
0
2
2
1
2
21
% of number
% area of RBD
37.5
12.5
37.5
12.5
50.0
11.1
55.6
33.3
0
66.7
0.0
11.1
3.7
85.2
11.1
9.1
0
18.2
72.7
9.1
6.7
3.3
6.7
83.3
10
4.3
4.3
13.0
78.4
8.6
0
40.0
40.0
20.0
40.0
18.6
38.9
13.1
44.7
3.3
52.0
0.1
17.9
82
0
18
0.0
1.6
1.9
96.4
1.6
1.3
0
29.9
68.8
1.3
0.4
3.0
6.1
90.5
3.4
0.1
7.5
2.1
90.3
7.6
0
32.7
55.7
11.6
32.7
6.6
The marine pollution impact assessmentRef 18 comprised two impact elements; eutrophication (nutrient
and organic enrichment) and hazardous substances. National monitoring datasets were obtained from the
EPA and the MI to identify impacted marine water bodies. Predictive elements, such as point discharge
and aquaculture activities were also incorporated into the marine pollution impact assessment.
The information used to identify eutrophication impacts included the findings of the following studies
which were submitted to the European Commission by the EPA to fulfil existing obligations:
page 97
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations nutrient sensitive designations;
Results of the application by the EPA of the OSPAR Common Procedure.
These were comprehensive investigations of eutrophication entailing predictive assessment of point and
diffuse nutrient loading to marine water bodies and examination of impact indicators such as nutrient
concentrations and ratios, phytoplankton biomass and macroalgae, dissolved oxygen levels and
observation of fauna and toxic algae blooms. Water bodies identified by these investigations were placed
at risk or probably at risk depending on their classification under the above studies, as described in the
background documents.
MI biota monitoring data for the period 1997-2003 were analysed to investigate the impacts associated
with hazardous substances. The monitoring results for twelve parameters were compared with the OSPAR
EAC’s (Ecotoxicological Assessment Criteria) or BRC’s (Background Reference Concentration) limits for
biota. Any samples with recorded chemical concentrations which were above the EAC limits were deemed
failures, as were any samples with recorded chemical concentrations above twice the BRC limits. Each
marine water body with available monitoring data was assigned a risk category based on its compliance;
any failure of any standard resulted in the water body being placed in the at risk or probably at risk
categories, no failures resulted in not at risk or probably not at risk categorisation depending on the length
of record available. The risk category of each water body was reviewed by experts from the MI and the
risk category was reviewed to reflect the degree of confidence in data.
The marine impact assessment was considered to represent the upstream point and diffuse pressures on
marine water bodies on the basis that it included the point and diffuse load assessment. However
supplementary point assessments were undertaken for discharges and aquaculture activities in all
transitional waters and coastal embayments and lagoons. Expert opinion was also incorporated into the
risk assessment where point related impacts were identified at RBD level. Maps 3.134 – 3.140 show the
point source pressure risk assessments for transitional waters.
page 98
Maps 3.141 – 3.147 and Maps 3.162 – 3.168 show the risk category of the transitional and coastal water
bodies in each RBD in Ireland based on the marine pollution impacts assessment. Tables 3-27 and 3-28
summarise the transitional and coastal water bodies at risk from the impact pressures analysis. The
available observed impact data largely related to transitional water bodies, impact data for coastal water
bodies was limited.
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Table 3-27: Transitional water bodies impacted by pollution (point & impact)
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of Water
Bodies
6
6
0
1
12
8
5
0
8
13
11
13
0
19
24
7
5
1
7
12
1
8
9
50
9
0
2
11
9
2
1
1
1
6
2
74
% of number
% area of RBD
46.2
46.2
0
7.6
92.4
38.1
23.8
0
38.1
61.9
25.6
30.2
0
44.2
55.8
35
25
5
35
60
1.5
11.8
13.2
73.5
13.3
0
9.1
50
40.9
9.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
66.7
22.2
37.8
60.4
39.5
0
0.1
99.9
44.5
47.1
0
8.4
91.6
26.6
57.5
0
15.9
84.1
55.1
42.3
0.1
2.5
97.4
5.6
47.9
42.6
4
53.5
0
28.2
57
14.8
28.2
4.8
85
0.1
10.1
89.8
75.9
page 99
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Table 3-28: Coastal water bodies impacted by pollution
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
page 100
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of Water
Bodies
2
1
5
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
2
1
13
% of number
% area of RBD
25.0
12.5
62.5
37.5
22.2
22.2
3.7
3.7
7.4
7.4
9.0
3.3
3.3
3.3
4.3
13
4.3
17.3
20
40
20
11.5
14.1
1.3
84.6
15.4
4.2
4.2
0.8
5.3
13
6.1
17.6
1
0.3
1
0.1
9.0
0.7
9.1
13.5
55.7
13.5
4.6
Maps 3-148 – 3-154 and Maps 3.169 – 3.175 show the overall transitional and coastal water body risk
status of each RBD in Ireland. The results of the assessment are summarised in Tables 3-29 and 3-30 for
transitional and coastal water bodies respectively. The overall risk category was obtained by taking the
worst case risk category for the abstraction and flow regulation (for transitional waters only), morphology
and pollution impact assessments for each water body.
The process is precautionary in that a single pressure can cause a water body to be classified at risk. The
assessment of hydromorphological pressures and impact data result in identification of a significant
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
portion of at risk Irish transitional and coastal water bodies although the proportion of at risk water bodies
varies from RBD to RBD.
Table 3-29: Transitional water bodies affected summary
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of Water
Bodies
9
4
0
0
13
10
8
1
2
18
13
13
15
2
26
12
2
6
0
14
8
10
6
44
18
2
7
9
4
9
5
1
2
1
6
104
% of number
% area of RBD
69.2
30.8
0
0
100
47.6
38.1
4.8
9.5
85.7
30.2
30.2
34.9
4.7
60.5
60
10
30
0
70
11.8
14.7
8.8
64.7
26.5
9.1
31.8
40.9
18.2
40.9
55.6
11.1
22.2
11.1
66.7
53.1
77.4
22.6
0
0
100
45.6
53.3
0.3
0.8
98.9
33.7
51.2
9.5
5.5
85.0
97.3
1.8
0.9
0
99.1
19.8
61.5
16.0
2.7
81.3
0.3
76.5
10.5
12.7
76.8
90.3
2.2
7.4
0.1
92.5
90.2
page 101
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Table 3-30: Coastal water bodies affected summary
RBD
E-RBD
Total at Risk
SE-RBD
Total at Risk
SW-RBD
Total at Risk
Shannon-IRBD
Total at Risk
W-RBD
Total at Risk
NW-IRBD
page 102
Total at Risk
Neagh/Bann
IRBD
Total at Risk
Grand total at
risk (for all
RBDs)
3.6
Reporting
Category
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
1a at risk
1b probably at risk
2a probably not at risk
2b not at risk
(1a+1b)
(1a+1b)
Number of Water
Bodies
4
1
2
1
5
1
5
3
0
6
1
4
6
16
5
1
0
3
7
1
2
2
19
7
4
2
3
2
16
5
2
2
0
1
4
30
% of number
% area of RBD
50.0
12.5
25.0
12.5
62.5
11.1
55.6
33.3
0
66.7
3.7
14.8
22.2
59.3
18.5
9.1
0
27.3
63.6
9.1
6.7
6.7
63.3
23.3
13.4
8.7
13.0
8.7
69.6
21.7
40.0
40.0
0
20.0
80.0
26.5
39.6
13.0
44.1
3.3
52.6
0.1
17.9
82
0
18
0.8
6.1
1.9
91.2
6.9
1.3
0
47.6
51.1
1.3
0.4
4.0
95.3
0.3
4.4
0.2
9.0
1.9
88.9
9.2
55.7
32.7
0
11.6
88.4
10
UNCERTAINTIES & DATA GAPS
3.6.1 Key Data Gaps
The first pressures and impacts analysis presented in this characterisation report is essentially an initial
characterisation. A considerable amount of existing datasets have been collated during this initial
characterisation for Ireland. A number of significant new datasets have also been generated. The process
helps to identify gaps and uncertainties that need to be addressed by further characterisation. Thus the risk
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
will be more clearly refined in time for the draft River Basin Management Plans in 2008. The findings of
this first analysis represent the best attempt at the assessment of human activities and are based on the best
available information.
The assessment of risk is based on pressures as they are currently distributed and does not address future
changes for example those due to implementation of the National Spatial Strategy, investment in
wastewater treatment facilities or agricultural sector reform. The RBMP cycle process will ensure that the
implications of future changes in pressures and management measures are taken into account.
The WFD characterisation process includes investigation of a broader range of pressures and impacts than
has previously been fully considered across Europe. An extensive data collection process has been carried
out with Irish State Agencies, RBD projects and individual organisations collaborating to make
information available for this characterisation report. The exercise has revealed a number of key data gaps
with regard to pressure and impact datasets. These will have to be addressed during the process of further
characterisation and will drive the overall river basin management planning process forward.
Examination of the data requirements presented in the CIS Reporting Sheets identified some specific data
needs that must be addressed by further data collection and investigation during the preparation of the river
basin management plan, for example:
Further details of uncontrolled or private abstractions;
Examination of the impacts of morphology pressures such as river drainage works;
More quantitative data regarding point source pressures, to date the assessment includes a high
degree of expert judgement and the details of some activities such as oil infrastructure facilities and
farmyards is not available;
More quantitative data regarding diffuse source pressures, the resolution of datasets used is
generally only available to District Electoral Division level which does not provide adequate detail;
Compliance datasets for protected areas other than the Bathing Waters Directive was not nationally
available.
These shortfalls will be addressed in future monitoring and reporting programmes.
Table 3-31 summarises the key data gaps identified in the initial characterisation process.
page 103
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Table 3-31: Key Data Gaps
Pressure/Activity
Water abstraction and
flow regulation
Morphological
alterations
Point source pollution
page 104
Diffuse source pollution
Impact
Other assessments
Risk Assessment
Procedures
Key Issues
A number of unregulated activities abstract water – the impact of these
activities is unknown but may be significant in certain cases – improved
monitoring and/or management of these activities will be considered
The low flow water resource has been estimated based on a screening
tool – better hydrological data or models are required to increase the
confidence in this assessment
The impacts of activities including river drainage works is unknown –
further targeted assessment of such pressures is required
Datasets in relation to morphological pressures are held in disparate
organisations, some are incomplete or out of date and others had to be
generated from base mapping or aerial photographs – the knowledge of
morphological pressures needs to be improved
The point source risk assessments were dependant on available
monitoring data, in certain cases (for example Section 4 industries)
compliance datasets were not readily available – facilities monitoring
programmes will have to be improved to increase the confidence in this
assessment
Some key datasets are not available for example farmyard storage facility
assessments – these data would inform future assessments of agricultural
risk
Thresholds were applied dictated by available datasets - this means that
some significant pressures might not be included (e.g. overflow from
urban areas below 2000 population and petroleum stations are excluded
on the basis that locations are not readily available in GIS format) –
further characterisation will refine the level of detail included in the
assessments
More quantitative assessment of significant pressures will be required to
consider the broader objectives of the WFD – existing licenses may have
to be reviewed and modeling for license consents may have to be
introduced
The resolution of data available to some of the diffuse assessments was
limited (for example agricultural data is based on information at DED
level and therefore does not accurately represent farm level variations)
More quantitative assessment of significant pressures will be required –
mathematical modeling of diffuse pollution pressures will be undertaken
More data for all water categories will be required (in particular a gap
was evident within coastal waters) – future monitoring programmes will
have to cover all elements included under the WFD and to focus on at
risk water bodies
Alien species – the risk assessment was developed from expert
knowledge – improved recording of such pressures will be required
Fishing activities – the risk assessment was developed from expert
knowledge – improved recording of such pressures will be required
Protected area compliance – availability of National datasets is currently
limited and this issue needs to be addressed to provide necessary
information for WFD implementation
The initial characterisation has identified key pressures based on
screening or semi-quantitative assessments – both groundwaters and
surface waters will require more detailed assessment including
investigative monitoring and mathematical modelling studies during the
further characterisation process
The EPA has commissioned a number of research projects under the Environmental Research,
Technological Development and Innovation (ERTDI) programme (listed below) which will contribute to
the assessment of pressures and impacts and the implementation of the Water Framework Directive.
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
The EPA has commissioned a number of research projects under the Environmental Research,
Technological Development and Innovation (ERTDI) programme (listed below) which will contribute to
the assessment of pressures and impacts and the implementation of the Water Framework Directive.
Current research includes projects to investigate eutrophication from agricultural sources and fisheries and
hydromorphological indicators.
Project Code
2002-W-LS-7-M1
Title
Characterisation of Reference Conditions and Testing of Typology of Rivers
2002-W-DS-7-M1
Development of a Methodology for the Characterisation of Unpolluted
Groundwater
2002-W-DS-8-M1
Development of a Methodology for the Characterisation of a Karstic
Groundwater Body with Particular Emphasis on the Linkage with Associated
Ecosystems, such as Turlough Ecosystems
2002-W-DS-9-M1
Hydromorphology of Rivers
2002-W-DS-10-M1
Identification and Ranking of Nature Conservation Designated Areas, where
the Status of Water is an Important Factor
2002-W-DS-11-M1
An Assessment of the Role of Mathematical Modelling in the Implementation
of the Water Framework Directive in Ireland
2002-W-MS-16-M1
Recharge and Groundwater Vulnerability
2002-W-MS-17-M1
Palaeolimnological Investigation
2002-W-FS-5-M1
Pilot River Basin
2002-W-RS-1-M1
Preparation of an archive of historical information on high quality river sites
2002-W-RS-2-M1
A feasibility study for the collection of existing data on lakes and rivers
Other projects
There are several other large and medium scale research projects
investigating eutrophication from agriculture, impacts of forestry and road
drainage on water quality. These will provide valuable information for
refining risk assessment methods and developing programmes of measures.
3.6.2 Monitoring Proposals
The EU Reporting Sheets also require information regarding preliminary monitoring programmes for
surface and groundwaters. The WFD will most likely require additional monitoring activities to provide
data for the range of pressures and ecological indicators addressed with the WFD.
The first step in the development of monitoring programmes is a review of existing networks and systems.
The EPA is reviewing the surface water and groundwater surveillance site proposals in conjunction with
page 105
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
the RBD authorities. Consideration is being given to inclusion of the European Information Exchange,
OSPAR RID and selected EIONET Eurowaternet sites as part of the Surveillance Monitoring programme.
Eurowaternet is the European Environment Agency’s Monitoring and Information Network for Inland
Water Resources which was established in the late 1990s with the aim to monitor water quality trends
across Member States. The ‘representative’ Eurowaternet sites in particular may be suitable for
determining long-term trends – which is one of the primary goals of Surveillance Monitoring laid down
in the WFD. The EPA is reviewing the selection of these Eurowaternet sites with regard to the WFD
requirements. Specific guidance on groundwater monitoring has been developed by a subgroup of the
national Working Group on Groundwater for WFDRef 20.
For coastal and transitional waters EPA, in conjunction with all of the main regulatory and development
bodies involved in monitoring at national and local level, has completed a detailed review of all extant
monitoring activities being carried out (see www.epa.ie for further details). This review identified a
number of significant gaps in monitoring arrangements, particularly in relation to ecological monitoring
and monitoring of priority substances.
The monitoring programmes and Surveillance Monitoring in particular will be developed in conjunction
with ongoing further characterisation and refinement of the risk assessments. A large proportion of
Ireland’s water bodies are classified in the risk categories where confidence is lower (1b – probably at risk
or 2a – probably not at risk). It is envisaged that many of the uncertainties in the initial risk assessment of
these water bodies will be clarified by mid-2006 in advance of the finalisation and reporting of definitive
monitoring programmes.
The issue of dangerous substances is a significant, areas of uncertainty in Ireland which was highlighted
by considering the Reporting Sheet requirements. Currently there is an inability to quantify the range of
substances and annual load of pollutants. Consequently, there is at present a lower confidence in the risk
assessments related to dangerous substances. The lack of data in relation to dangerous substances will be
addressed by additional data collection and monitoring for the first river basin management plan.
page 106
In Ireland, as part of the implementation of the WFD, a National Dangerous Substances Expert Group was
established to assist with compiling a list of relevant dangerous substances for surface waters in Ireland
and to design a substances screening monitoring programme. The approach used for the identification of
the list of substances and monitoring programme was in accordance with guidance issued by the CIS
IMPRESS working group. The Irish expert group produced a "Discussion Document - Rationale for
Deriving National Priority Action, Candidate Relevant Pollutants and Candidate General Components
Substances Lists for Surface Waters"Ref 19 which provides information on the rationale behind the
development of the list and the monitoring programme. The current dangerous substances list are evolving
and will be reviewed periodically to take account of developments such as changes in human practices and
new scientific research findings which might identify additional substances that may warrant inclusion.
A National Substances Screening Monitoring Programme was started in early 2005 to address this data
gap. This includes monitoring for the full lists of over 200 dangerous substances identified. The
programme will test for the relevance of all candidate parameters and will provide data towards the further
requirement to establish EQS levels for Irish waters. The programme initially includes 23 sites, which
incorporates sites downstream of major towns, sites associated with agriculture, mining, forestry activities
and rural households and four groundwater sites.
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
3.6.3 Further Characterisation
The availability and detail of information will improve in future planning cycles ensuring greater
confidence in further characterisation assessments.
The National Co-ordination Groups, related Working Groups and the RBD projects established to drive
the implementation of the WFD will continue to collaborate during the preparation of the first draft river
basin management plan (2008). The GSI have prepared a detailed plan for implementation of further
characterisation of groundwater bodies identified as at risk. Monitoring programmes, research projects,
modelling studies and investigations will be implemented to address identified data gaps. Programmes of
measures will also be developed at national and RBD level. These activities will ensure that the draft river
basin management plan can be prepared for public consultation in accordance with the WFD’s delivery
milestone of December 2008.
Background Information for Chapter 3
Groundwater
Ref 1. Working Group on Groundwater & Working Group on Characterisation and Reporting (2003)
Guidance Report GW4: Guidance on Pressures and Impacts Methodology. Final report, August 2003, 40
pp. http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 2. Working Group on Groundwater (2004) Guidance Report GW5: Guidance on the Assessment of
the Impact of Groundwater Abstractions. Final report, August 2004, 23 pp. http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 3. Working Group on Groundwater (2004) Guidance Report GW7: Point Source Pressure Risk
Assessment for Groundwaters. Final report, November 2004, 31 pp. http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 4. Working Group on Groundwater (2004) Guidance Report GW8: Methodology for Risk
Characterisation of Ireland’s Groundwater. Final report, December 2004, 69 pp.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 5. Working Group on Groundwater Sub-Committee on Turloughs (2004) Guidance Report GW9:
Guidance on the Assessment of Pressures and Impacts on Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial
Ecosystems – Risk Assessment Sheet GWDTERA2a – Turloughs. Final report, December 2004, 19 pp.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 6. Working Group on Groundwater (2004) Guidance Report GW10: Verifying the Predictive Risk
Assessment Methodology for Mobile Diffuse Inorganic Pollutants (NO3). Final report, December 2004,
19 pp. http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 7. Working Group on Groundwater (2004) Guidance Report GW11: Guidance on the Application of
Groundwater Risk Assessment Sheets S2 1-6 And GWDTE 1-9 to Areas Designated for the Protection of
Habitats and Species. Final report, December 2004, 35 pp. http://www.wfdireland.ie/
page 107
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Surface waters
Ref 8. Surface Waters Risk Assessments – Checklist (December 2004). Risk Assessment Working
Group.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 9. Alien Species Risk Analysis (Republic of Ireland) (December 2004). Prepared by EPA on behalf
of Risk Assessment Working Group. Also, Alien Species Risk Assessment. Guidance for practitioners on
the methodology to be applied in Ireland’s River Basin Districts (March 2005). Prepared on behalf of
Risk Assessment Working Group.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 10. Fisheries and Aquaculture Risk Assessment. Guidance notes on the methodology and thresholds
applied in Ireland’s River Basin Districts (March 2005). Prepared on behalf of Risk Assessment Working
Group.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 11. Bathing Risk Assessment. Guidance note on the methodology applied in Ireland’s River Basin
Districts (March 2005). Prepared on behalf of Risk Assessment Working Group.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 12. Surface Water Hydrology Risk Assessment. Guidance on thresholds and methodology to be
applied in Ireland’s River Basin Districts (Draft, December 2004). Prepared on behalf of Risk
Assessment Working Group.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
page 108
Ref 13. Morphological Risk Assessment. Guidance on thresholds and methodology to be applied in
Ireland’s River Basin Districts. (Final, November 2004). Prepared on behalf of Risk Assessment Working
Group.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 14. Risk Assessment for Surface Waters From Point Source Discharges. Guidance on thresholds and
methodology to be applied in Ireland’s River Basin Districts. (Draft, October 2004). Prepared on behalf
of Risk Assessment Working Group.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 15. Risk Assessment for Surface Waters From Diffuse Source. Guidance on thresholds and
methodology to be applied in Ireland’s River Basin Districts. (Draft, December 2004). Prepared on
behalf of Risk Assessment Working Group.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 16. Ian Donohue, Martin L. McGarrigle and Paul Mills. Linking catchment characteristics and water
chemistry to the ecological status of Irish rivers (Submitted, December 2004).
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Ref 17. Lakes Risk Assessment – impact data. Guidance on thresholds and methodology to be applied
in Ireland’s River Basin Districts. (Draft, December 2004). Prepared on behalf of Risk Assessment
Working Group.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 18. Marine Direct Impacts Risk Assessment. Methodology applied to Ireland’s River Basin Districts.
(Second Draft, October 2004).
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Monitoring
Ref 19. Discussion Document - Rationale For Deriving National Priority Action, Candidate Relevant
Pollutant And Candidate General Component Substances Lists For Surface Waters. National Dangerous
Substances Expert Group. May 2004.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 20. Advice on the implementation of guidance on monitoring groundwater. National Working Group
on Groundwater. October 2004.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
General
Ref 21. Ireland’s Environment (2004). Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.epa.ie/
page 109
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
List of Maps for Chapter 3
Pressure Maps (National)
Map 3-1
National- Abstraction pressures
Map 3-2
National- Morphology pressures
Map 3-3
National- Main point source pressures
Map 3-4
National- Diffuse source pressures
Map 3-5
National- Water bodies impacted by alien species
Map 3-6
National- Water bodies affected by fishing activities
Map 3-7
National- Bathing waters risk assessment
Groundwater Risk Assessment Maps (abstractions and saline Intrusions) by RBD
Map 3-8
Eastern- groundwater bodies affected by abstractions and saline intrusion
Map 3-9
South-Eastern- groundwater bodies affected by abstractions and saline intrusion
Map 3-10
South-Western- groundwater bodies affected by abstractions and saline intrusion
Map 3-11
Shannon- groundwater bodies affected by abstractions and saline intrusion
Map 3-12
Western- groundwater bodies affected by abstractions and saline intrusion
Map 3-13
North-Western- groundwater bodies affected by abstractions and saline intrusion
Map 3-14
Neagh-Bann- groundwater bodies affected by abstractions and saline intrusion
Groundwater Risk Assessment Maps (diffuse source pollution) by RBD
Map 3-15
Eastern- groundwater bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3-16
South-Eastern- groundwater bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3-17
South-Western- groundwater bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3-18
Shannon- groundwater bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3-19
Western- groundwater bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3-20
North-Western- groundwater bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3-21
Neagh-Bann- groundwater bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
page 110
Groundwater Risk Assessment Maps (point source pollution) by RBD
Map 3-22
Eastern- groundwater bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3-23
South-Eastern- groundwater bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3-24
South-Western- groundwater bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3-25
Shannon- groundwater bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3-26
Western- groundwater bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3-27
North-Western- groundwater bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3-28
Neagh-Bann- groundwater bodies affected by point source pollution
Groundwater Risk Assessment Maps (assessment summary) by RBD
Map 3-29
Eastern- groundwater bodies assessment summary
Map 3-30
South-Eastern- groundwater bodies assessment summary
Map 3-31
South-Western- groundwater bodies assessment summary
Map 3-32
Shannon- groundwater bodies assessment summary
Map 3-33
Western- groundwater bodies assessment summary
Map 3-34
North-Western- groundwater bodies assessment summary
Map 3-35
Neagh-Bann- groundwater bodies assessment summary
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Map 3-351
LSO groundwater bodies (summary)
Rivers Risk Assessment Maps (abstraction and flow regulation) by RBD
Map 3.36
Eastern- river water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.37
South-Eastern- river water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.38
South-Western- river water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.39
Shannon- river water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.40
Western- river water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.41
North-Western- river water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.42
Neagh-Bann- river water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Rivers Risk Assessment Maps (morphology pressures) by RBD
Map 3.43
Eastern- river water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.44
South-Eastern- river water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.45
South-Western- river water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.46
Shannon- river water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.47
Western- river water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.48
North-Western- river water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Neagh-Bann- river water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.49
Rivers Risk Assessment Maps (point source pollution) by RBD
Map 3.50
Eastern- river water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.51
South-Eastern- river water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.52
South-Western- river water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.53
Shannon- river water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.54
Western- river water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.55
North-Western- river water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.56
Neagh-Bann- river water bodies affected by point source pollution
page 111
Rivers Risk Assessment Maps (diffuse source pollution) by RBD
Map 3.57
Eastern- river water bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3.58
South-Eastern- river water bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3.59
South-Western- river water bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3.60
Shannon- river water bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3.61
Western- river water bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3.62
North-Western- river water bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3.63
Neagh-Bann- river water bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Rivers Risk Assessment Maps (impacted) by RBD
Map 3.64
Eastern- river water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.65
South-Eastern- river water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.66
South-Western- river water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.67
Shannon- river water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.68
Western- river water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.69
North-Western- river water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.70
Neagh-Bann- river water bodies impacted by pollution
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Rivers Risk Assessment Maps (assessment summary) by RBD
Map 3.71
Eastern- river water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.72
South-Eastern- river water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.73
South-Western- river water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.74
Shannon- river water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.75
Western- river water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.76
North-Western- river water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.77
Neagh-Bann- river water bodies assessment summary
Lakes Risk Assessment Maps (abstraction and flow regulation) by RBD
Map 3.78
Eastern- Lake water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.79
South-Eastern- Lake water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.80
South-Western- Lake water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.81
Shannon- Lake water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.82
Western- Lake water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.83
North-Western- Lake water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.84
Neagh-Bann- Lake water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Lakes Risk Assessment Maps (morphology pressures) by RBD
Map 3.85
Eastern- Lake water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.86
South-Eastern- Lake water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.87
South-Western- Lake water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.88
Shannon- Lake water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.89
Western- Lake water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.90
North-Western- Lake water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.91
Neagh-Bann- Lake water bodies affected by morphology pressures
page 112
Lakes Risk Assessment Maps (point source pollution) by RBD
Map 3.92
Eastern- Lake water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.93
South-Eastern- Lake water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.94
South-Western- Lake water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.95
Shannon- Lake water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.96
Western- Lake water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.97
North-Western- Lake water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.98
Neagh-Bann- Lake water bodies affected by point source pollution
Lakes Risk Assessment Maps (diffuse source pollution) by RBD
Map 3.99
Eastern- Lake water bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3.100
South-Eastern- Lake water bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3.101
South-Western- Lake water bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3.102
Shannon- Lake water bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3.103
Western- Lake water bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3.104
North-Western- Lake water bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
Map 3.105
Neagh-Bann- Lake water bodies affected by diffuse source pollution
chapter 3
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Lakes Risk Assessment Maps (impacted) by RBD
Map 3.106
Eastern- Lake water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.107
South-Eastern- Lake water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.108
South-Western- Lake water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.109
Shannon- Lake water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.110
Western- Lake water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.111
North-Western- Lake water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.112
Neagh-Bann- Lake water bodies impacted by pollution
Lakes Risk Assessment Maps (assessment summary) by RBD
Map 3.113
Eastern- Lake water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.114
South-Eastern- Lake water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.115
South-Western- Lake water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.116
Shannon- Lake water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.117
Western- Lake water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.118
North-Western- Lake water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.119
Neagh-Bann- Lake water bodies assessment summary
Transitional Waters Risk Assessment Maps (abstraction and flow regulation) by RBD
Map 3.120
Eastern- Transitional water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.121
South-Eastern- Transitional water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.122
South-Western- Transitional water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.123
Shannon- Transitional water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.124
Western- Transitional water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.125
North-Western- Transitional water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Map 3.126
Neagh-Bann- Transitional water bodies affected by abstraction and flow regulation
Transitional Waters Risk Assessment Maps (morphology pressures) by RBD
Map 3.127
Eastern- Transitional water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.128
South-Eastern- Transitional water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.129
South-Western- Transitional water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.130
Shannon- Transitional water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.131
Western- Transitional water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.132
North-Western- Transitional water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.133
Neagh-Bann- Transitional water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Transitional Waters Risk Assessment Maps (point source pollution) by RBD
Map 3.134
Eastern- Transitional water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.135
South-Eastern- Transitional water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.136
South-Western- Transitional water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.137
Shannon- Transitional water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.138
Western- Transitional water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.139
North-Western- Transitional water bodies affected by point source pollution
Map 3.140
Neagh-Bann- Transitional water bodies affected by point source pollution
page 113
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Transitional Waters Risk Assessment Maps (impacted by pollution) by RBD
Map 3.141
Eastern- Transitional water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.142
South-Eastern- Transitional water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.143
South-Western- Transitional water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.144
Shannon- Transitional water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.145
Western- Transitional water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.146
North-Western- Transitional water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.147
Neagh-Bann- Transitional water bodies impacted by pollution
Transitional Waters Risk Assessment Maps (assessment summary) by RBD
Map 3.148
Eastern- Transitional water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.149
South-Eastern- Transitional water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.150
South-Western- Transitional water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.151
Shannon- Transitional water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.152
Western- Transitional water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.153
North-Western- Transitional water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.154
Neagh-Bann- Transitional water bodies assessment summary
Coastal Waters Risk Assessment Maps (morphology pressures) by RBD
Map 3.155
Eastern- Coastal water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.156
South-Eastern- Coastal water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.157
South-Western- Coastal water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.158
Shannon- Coastal water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.159
Western- Coastal water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.160
North-Western- Coastal water bodies affected by morphology pressures
Map 3.161
Neagh-Bann- Coastal water bodies affected by morphology pressure
page 114
Coastal Waters Risk Assessment Maps (impacted by pollution) by RBD
Map 3.162
Eastern- Coastal water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.163
South-Eastern- Coastal water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.164
South-Western- Coastal water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.165
Shannon- Coastal water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.166
Western- Coastal water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.167
North-Western- Coastal water bodies impacted by pollution
Map 3.168
Neagh-Bann- Coastal water bodies impacted by pollution
Coastal Waters Risk Assessment Maps (assessment summary) by RBD
Map 3.169
Eastern- Coastal water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.170
South-Eastern- Coastal water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.171
South-Western- Coastal water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.172
Shannon- Coastal water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.173
Western- Coastal water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.174
North-Western- Coastal water bodies assessment summary
Map 3.175
Neagh-Bann- Coastal water bodies assessment summary
chapter 4
ARTIFICIAL & HEAVILY MODIFIED WATER BODIES
ARTIFICIAL & HEAVILY MODIFIED WATER BODIES
4.1
IDENTIFICATION OF AWBS & HMWBS
Some man-made and natural water bodies, which have been physically altered to a significant degree to
facilitate human usage, may not be able to achieve all the elements that comprise good status. An example
of such a situation might be where an impoundment on a river creates a regime and habitat, which is more
akin to that of a lake than the natural river water body.
As a further part of the risk assessment process, surface water bodies, which cannot achieve good status
as a result of hydrological or morphological alterations, have been provisionally identified. Hydrological
and morphological pressures (known as hydromorphological pressures) include activities such as
navigation, water abstraction and regulation, flood protection and land drainage. The designation process
relates only to these hydromorphological pressures and not, for example, to severe pollution effects even
if associated with the specified pressures.
The WFD recognises that there are cases where the benefits of such uses need to be retained and permits
identification and designation of Artificial Water Bodies (AWB) and Heavily Modified Water Bodies
(HMWB).
An AWB is a surface water body created by human activity in a location where no water body
existed before and which has not been created by the direct physical alteration, movement or
realignment of any existing water body (e.g. dry-cut canal).
A HMWB is a body of water, which, as a result of significant physical alterations by human
activity, is substantially changed in character and cannot, therefore, meet good ecological status
(e.g. dammed river).
The mere presence of a physical alteration does not automatically result in designation as a HMWB.
Furthermore, designation does not mean that mitigation measures will not be required. Designation
enables appropriate objectives to be set that allow the benefits of the use to be maintained but ensures that
other pressures (including physical pressures, not associated with the specified use), can be managed and
where possible the hydromorphological alterations can be mitigated.
The environmental objective for AWB and HMWB is good ecological potential (GEP) instead of "good
ecological status". This has to be achieved by 2015. GEP is a separate classification scheme, which
recognises the ecological effects of the alterations. It therefore represents a more realistic, although no less
stringent, ecological standard. Designated water bodies must also achieve the objective of good chemical
status, which again has to be achieved by 2015.
The procedure for designation of a water body as an AWB or a HMWB is clearly set out in the WFD and
further explained in a Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Guidance DocumentRef 1 which proposes
a stepwise approach to the identification and designation of AWB and HMWB.
This is an eleven-step process concluding with the design of a programme of measures to ensure GEP is
achieved by 2015. The full designation of water bodies and development of measures are to be included
in the draft River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) in 2008, however provisional identification (steps 1 to
6) must be completed as part of the characterisation process.
page 115
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
The stepwise approach guided the development of the Irish methodology for the identification and
designationRef 2 of pAWB and pHMWB (‘p’ refers to provisional status) for the characterisation process
which is summarised in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1: pHMWB & pAWB designation process
Step 1
Delineate Water Bodies
Step 2
YES
Is the water body Artificial?
NO
Apply Hydrology Risk
Assessment
Apply Morphology Risk
Assessment
Steps 3-5
Is the natural water body “At Risk”?
NO
YES
Examine Existing Ecological Status and nature of pressure.
Submit to experts for consideration
page 116
Step 6
Identify pHMWB & pAWB
No
Designation Objective is
Good
Ecological
Status
Identify Restoration Measures
Step 7
Step 8
Apply Tests for Other
Means
Step 9
NO
Designate HMWB & AWB
Establish MEP
Establish GEP
Step 10
Step 11
chapter 4
ARTIFICIAL & HEAVILY MODIFIED WATER BODIES
The "water body" is the management unit for the implementation of the WFD. Water body identification,
as described in Chapter 2 of this report, formed Step 1 of the stepwise process.
Artificial water bodies were differentiated in Step 2. The most obvious examples in Ireland are completely
man-made (dry-cut) canals and all such water bodies were identified as pAWB.
Steps 3-5 are part of the broader assessment of pressures and impacts which is described in the CIS
Pressures and Impacts Guidance Document (IMPRESS) guidance. The IMPRESS guidance confirms that
the hydrological and morphological risk assessments comprise the main tool for the identification of
pHMWB.
Irish surface water bodies identified by the hydrological and morphological risk assessments as being in
the 1a "at risk" category, were taken forward as a short list for the pHMWB designation exercise. It
should be remembered that designation is intended to be applied only to major infrastructure projects
associated with the specified uses listed in the guidance.
In designing the Irish approach, it was the expert opinion that for some pressures, even in situations where
1a "at risk" thresholds are exceeded, GES can be achieved by the inclusion of appropriate mitigation
measures and therefore the water bodies were not designated as pHMWB. Table 4-1 summarises the
pressures that were considered, indicating those that were judged to be significant enough to merit
pHMWB identification.
Table 4-1: Summary of Hydrological and Morphological Pressures leading to pHMWB designation
Hydrological & Morphological Risk Assessment
Pressures
Rivers & Lakes
Channelisation & Dredging
Flood Protection & Embankments
Impounding (dams)
Water Regulation (locks & weirs)
Intensive Land Use
Abstractions
Coastal & Transitional
Dredging
Dumping of Dredge Spoil
Coastal Defence & Embankments
Built Structures (ports, industrial intakes)
Intensive Land Use
Abstractions
Does the pressure ‘substantially change’
WB character and warrant further
pHMWB consideration?
Note
No
Yes
If substrate is artificial
Yes
If ecological effects observed
No
No
(Derogation for peatlands)
Yes
If ecological effects observed
Combined affect of marine pressures to be
considered for designation on a case by case
basis.
Channelisation & dredging - water bodies affected by channelisation and dredging pressures
require further monitoring and investigation, however they were considered to be capable of
achieving GES and were therefore not retained for pHMWB designation.
Flood protection & embankments - water bodies affected by flood defence works were
considered to be capable of achieving GES and were therefore not retained for pHMWB
designation, water bodies with artificial substrates (for example river channels with concrete bases)
were further considered on a case by case basis and recommended for pHMWB designation
depending on the details of the individual scheme.
page 117
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Impounding (dams) - water bodies affected by major impoundments such as hydro-electric power
facilities were recommended for pHMWB designation.
Water Regulation (locks & weirs) - water bodies affected by water regulation pressures were
considered to be capable of achieving GES and were therefore not retained for pHMWB
designation.
Intensive Land Use - water bodies affected by land use change were considered to be capable of
achieving GES and were therefore not retained for pHMWB designation. Water bodies affected by
peat exploitation will be returned to wet dry wilderness habitats once peat harvesting ceases. In
future they will be able to achieve GES but not until after 2015 and it is proposed to prepare a
derogation case so that the objectives can be achieved in the 2021 RBMP cycle.
Abstractions - water bodies affected by abstraction pressures were considered on a case by case
basis and recommended for pHMWB designation depending on the details of the individual
scheme.
Dredging, dumping of dredge spoil, coastal defence & embankments and built structures
(ports, industrial intakes) – transitional and coastal water bodies affected by these pressures were
considered on a case by case basis and recommended for pHMWB designation depending on the
details of the combined effects of the hydromorphological pressures on the individual water body.
page 118
Water bodies in the 1a "at risk" category due to hydromorphological pressures were examined in more
detail. Water bodies judged to be capable of achieving GES, despite significant hydromorphological
pressures, were not designated as pHMWB. The water quality history and the unique details of the
pressures on each of the water bodies being further considered were compiled by the River Basin District
(RBD) Projects and presented to experts from the EPA who are responsible under the Water Policy
Regulations for identification of pAWB and pHMWB. To complete step 6, the EPA experts reviewed each
case presented by the RBD Projects to finalise the schedules of pAWB and pHMWB as presented in Table
4-2 and Map 4-1.
The schedule of provisionally identified AWBs and HMWBs will proceed to Steps 7 to 11 in early 2005.
Steps 7 and 8 include the further designation tests: these are the ‘restoration’ and ‘alternative means’ tests.
As a result of these tests water bodies are either screened out and considered as natural water bodies with
a target of GES or are finally designated (Step 9) as AWB/HMWB requiring the target of GEP to be set.
Steps 10 and 11 entail the establishment of Maximum Ecological Potential MEP and GEP.
4.2
ESTABLISHMENT OF GEP FOR AWBS & HMWBS
MEP which is defined in Step 10 establishes the reference conditions for each designated water body or
group of water bodies against which the environmental quality objective of GEP is set (Step 11). For
provisionally designated water bodies, the determination of GEP and the consequent risk of failing the
GEP objective must be complete by December 2008. The assessment will require expert judgement and
will be undertaken by the EPA supported by relevant authorities. If a designated AWB or HMWB will not
be able to meet the objective of GEP by 2015, then a programme of measures or a case for derogation has
to be developed for the draft first RBMP which allows one year for consultation on the draft RBMP before
its publication in 2009.
chapter 4
ARTIFICIAL & HEAVILY MODIFIED WATER BODIES
Table 4-2: pAWB & pHMWB by RBD
RBD
E-RBD
pHMWB
Reporting
Category
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
E-RBD
pAWB
SE-RBD
pHMWB
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
SE-RBD
pAWB
SW-RBD
pHMWB
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
SW-RBD
pAWB
Shannon-IRBD
pHMWB
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Shannon-IRBD
pAWB
Water Body Reference List
09_ 1507
EA_Santry166_Santry1
09_1656 EA_Liffey168_Dodder2_Mid
09_1870 EA_Liffey168_Liffey1_Lower
10_1334 EA_Vartry170_Vartry3
10_1471 EA_Vartry170_Vartry2
09_68
Glenasmole Reservoir lwr
09_70
Glenasmole Reservoir upr
09_53
Golden Falls
09_69
Leixlip
09_71
Pollaphuca Reservoir
10_10
Vartry Reservoir lwr
10_11
Vartry Reservoir upr
EA_060_0100 Broadmeadow Water
EA_090_0300 Liffey Estuary
Boyne Navigation
Grand Canal
Grand Canal (Edenderry branch)
Grand Canal (Naas and Corbally branch)
Royal Canal
15_1269
SE_NoreMain_Breagagh_Lower
SE_100_0500
Lower Suir Estuary (Little Island - Cheekpoint)
SE_100_0200
New Ross Port
SE_045_0000
Rosslare Harbour
Grand Canal
Grand Canal Milltown Feeder & Old Barrow Line
Grand Canal Barrow Line
Cahore Canal
Courtown Canal
Castlebridge Canal
Ballynafagh Reservoir
19_138
Inniscarra Reservoir
19_139 Carrigdrohid Reservoir
SW_060_0900 Lee (Cork) Estuary Lower
SW_060_0700 Lough Mahon
SW_060_0000 Cork Harbour
Lismore Canal
27_1122_1
SH_Fergus_FergusMAIN_1Lower
27_1118_1
SH_Fergus_Spancelhill_1
28_82 Doo Lough
25_191_b
Lough Derg (Lower)
SH_060_0900
Limerick Dock
SH_060_0350
Foynes Harbour
SH_060_0200
Upper Feale Estuary
SH_060_0100
Cashen Estuary
Grand Canal
Royal Canal
Royal Canal- Longford Branch
Lacy’s Canal
Allen Canal
Cloondara Canal
page 119
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
RBD
W-RBD
pHMWB
W-RBD
pAWB
NW-RBD
pHMWB
Reporting
Category
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
NW-RBD
pAWB
page 120
Neagh/Bann RBD
pHMWB
Neagh/Bann
RBD
pAWB
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
Coastal
Water Body Reference List
Roosky Canal
Athlone Canal
Jamestown cut
Lecarrow Canal
Boyle Canal
Ardnacrusha Headrace
Ardnacrusha Tailrace
Limerick Park Canal
Plassey-Erina Canal
Killaloe Canal
Clonahenoge Canal
Canal east of Meelick
Ballinamore-Ballyconnell Canal
Tralee Ship Canal
Ballinasloe Canal
Cong Canal
Eglinton Canal
38_4124 NW_Clady23_Clady1
38_26
Lough Nacung (Upper)
38_649
Lough Salt
38_683
Lough Dunlewy
36_717
Assaroe Lake
NW_080_0100 North Western Atlantic Ocean (Killybegs Harbour)
Ulster Canal
chapter 4
ARTIFICIAL & HEAVILY MODIFIED WATER BODIES
Map 4-1: pHMWB & pAWB
page 121
Map 4-1 pHMWB & pAWB
de: WFDNS-ART5-C4-5/05 V2 (6 of 8)
4-7
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Background Information for Chapter 4
Ref 1. Guidance Document on Indentification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water
Bodies.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Ref 2. Guidance on the Indentification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
in Ireland.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
page 122
chapter 5
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USE
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USE
5.1
INTRODUCTION
Existing and readily available data have been collated and analysed to provide an initial characterisation
of the current and projected economic benefits and costs associated with the utilisation of water resources
in Ireland’s River Basin Districts (RBDs). This work, included in the Economic Analysis of Water Use in
Ireland study (CDM 2004)Ref 1, details the following for the Republic of Ireland nationally and for each of
its RBDs, as required by the WFD:
Overview of socio-economic importance of water uses
Assessment of costs and costs recovery of water services
Projections of demand, supply capacity, and costs of water services
Summary of work completed to establish baseline scenario
Framework for conducting future economic analysis
The sections of this Chapter provide only a brief overview of key findings reported in the Economic
Analysis of Water Use study as they relate to the topics listed above. The study itself should be consulted
for details on methodologies and findings, especially regarding RBD-level reporting, which is largely
absent in the proceeding sections.
5.2
OVERVIEW OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF WATER USE
The socio-economic importance of water use in each RBD is characterised via reports of both economic
impacts and water-use values of selected key water-using agricultural, industrial, and miscellaneous
subsectors. Economic impacts of the entire Agricultural and Industrial Sectors and water-use values for
the Domestic Sector are also reported.
Economic impact parameters reported include establishment counts, gross output values, gross value
added estimates, employment, and wages and salaries. These parameters, including the gross output
values which are reported in this chapter, were obtained from over ten different government, nongovernmental organisation and industry sources, including Teagasc, the Central Statistics Office (CSO),
the Irish Seaweed Centre (ISC), Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM), the Electricity Supply Board (BIM), and the
Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
Water-use values reported are estimates of the monetary values of water to the various selected key waterusing subsectors and the domestic sector. They are derived from water rate data obtained from an original
rate survey of local authorities, and user-specific water consumption estimates adapted from values in
other studies. In addition, estimates of the partial values of wetlands and other protected riparian areas are
provided.
National economic impact data and local water-use value data were apportioned to RBDs primarily
through geographic information system (GIS) mapping techniques. The combination of the two sets of
page 123
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
reported figures (i.e., economic impacts and water-use values) describe the socio-economic importance of
water use in each RBD, both as an input in the production of water-dependent goods and services
(economic impacts) and as an output in and of itself for consumption (water-use values).
Key water-using subsectors are defined as those in which water-using activities are critical, due both to the
volume of water used as well as the absence of suitable substitutes. The key water-using agricultural,
industrial and miscellaneous subsectors that have been examined are listed below in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Key Water-using Subsectors
Agricultural
Subsectors
Potatoes
Cattle and Cattle
Products
Sheep and Sheep
Products
Industrial Subsectors
Miscellaneous Subsectors
Mining and Quarrying
Food Products and Beverages Mfg
Forestry
Inland Commercial Fishing
Pulp, Paper, and Paper Products Mfg
Seaweed Harvesting
Chemical and Chemical Products Mfg
Basic Metals Mfg
Machinery and Equipment n.e.c. Mfg
Electrical and Optical Equipment Mfg
Transport Equipment Mfg
Thermoelectric Power Generation
Hydroelectric Power Generation
Aquaculture
Water-Based Leisure
5.2.1 Economic Impacts of Water Users
Figure 5.1: Estimated National Annual Gross Output Values in Selected Key Water-using Agricultural (2002),
Industrial (2001), and Miscellaneous (2002, 2003) Subsectors (Sources: Teagasc, CSO, ESB, ISC, BIM, ESRI)
100,000
Annual Gross Output
Value
(€ million)
page 124
Collectively, the key water-using industrial subsectors have a significantly higher economic impact, in
terms of gross output value, than do those of the key agricultural subsectors or the miscellaneous
subsectors, as shown in Figure 5.1. This economic dominance of industry over agriculture is also evident
in comparing the Agricultural and Industrial Sectors in their entireties.
80,000
Agricultural
60,000
Industrial
Miscellaneous
40,000
20,000
0
Selected Key Water-using Subsectors
chapter 5
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USE
The relative economic impacts of the key water-using industrial and agricultural subsectors vary
significantly between RBDs (see Figures 5.2 and 5.3).
Figure 5.2: Estimated Annual Gross Output Values of Selected Key Water-using Agricultural Subsectors in River
Basin Districts (2002) (Source: CDM)
Annual Gross Output
Value
(€ million)
800
700
ERBD
600
SERBD
500
SWRBD
400
SIRBD
300
WRBD
200
NWIRBD
NBIRBD
100
River Basin Districts
Figure 5.3: Estimated Annual Gross Output Values of Selected Key Water-using Industrial Subsectors in River Basin
Districts (2001) (Source: CDM)
Annual Gross Output
Value
(€ million)
35,000
30,000
ERBD
SERBD
SWRBD
SIRBD
WRBD
NWIRBD
NBIRBD
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
River Basin Districts
5.2.2 Values of Water Resources
The estimated value of abstractive water to the domestic sector exceeds that of both the agricultural and
industrial key water-using subsectors (Figure 5.4). It is notable that water usage, and thus the value of
water, to the agricultural subsectors generally exceeds that of the industrial subsectors (Figure 5.4)
although the economic impacts of the key water-using industrial subsectors significantly exceed those of
the key water-using agricultural subsectors (Figure 5.1).
page 125
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Figure 5.4: Estimated National Annual Abstractive Water-use Values of Selected Key Water-using Subsectors (2001
Industrial, 2002 Agricultural) and the Domestic Sector (2003) (Source: CDM)
Annual Gross Output
Value
(€ million)
250
200
Agricultural
Industrial
Domestic
150
100
50
0
Selected Key Water-using Subsectors
Figure 5.5 depicts the results of a study to estimate the value of water-based recreation in Ireland. The
study, completed by the ESRI for the Marine Institute (ESRI 2004), analysed water-based leisure activities
in Ireland, including those associated with domestic tourism. At the national level beach visits are highly
valued by Irish residents and recreational fishing, boating, aquatic bird watching, etc. are significant
economic activities.
Figure 5.5: Estimated National Annual Values of Water-based Leisure (2003) (Source: ESRI)
page 126
Annual Values of Water
based Leisure
(€ million)
300
250
Recreational Fishing
Recreational Boating
Beach Visitation
Other Water-based Leisure
200
150
100
50
0
Water-based Leisure Categories
Natural Heritage Areas, Special Protection Areas, and Special Areas of Conservation in Ireland were
collectively deemed Special Riparian Areas (SRAs) for the purposes of estimating values associated with
these areas in the Economic Analysis of Water Use in Ireland report. The values of wetlands were also
estimated. Total monetary values of wetlands and SRAs were indeterminable due to the data constraints,
but an attempt was made to estimate the partial values of these areas with respect to non-uses such as
wildlife habitat. Figures 5.6 and 5.7 illustrate these partial values. It should be noted that due to
information constraints, such estimations could only be made with high levels of imprecision.
chapter 5
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USE
Figure 5.6: Estimated Ranges of Annual Non-Use Values of Special Riparian Areas in
River Basin Districts (2004) (Source: CDM)
45
40
Ranges of Annual
Non-use Values of
SRAs (€ million)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
-
River Basin Districts
Figure 5.7: Estimated Ranges of Annual Non-Use Values of Wetlands in River Basin Districts (2004) (Source: CDM)
70
Ranges of Annual
Non-use Values of
Wetlands (€ million)
60
50
40
30
20
page 127
10
-
River Basin Districts
Inclusion of this preliminary work to estimate various user groups’ willingness to pay for water resources
utilisation, conservation and/or restoration, in addition to the economic impact assessment (i.e., gross
output value, employment, etc.) , is done in recognition of the need to begin building the knowledge base
upon which user/polluter pays policies might in the future be systematically formulated. It is recognised
that such policies cannot be formulated with economic impact assessment information alone.
5.3
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS AND COSTS RECOVERY OF WATER SERVICES
The financial costs of water services – potable water supply and wastewater collection, treatment and
disposal – are reported for each RBD, as are partial estimates of the environmental/resource costs
associated with polluted wastewater discharges. The extent to which, and nature by which, the financial
costs of water services are recovered by water service authorities are also reported where such information
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
exists. The environmental/resource costs, by the nature of the fact that they are ‘externalised’ on parties
without compensation, are not accompanied by cost-recovery information.
Data on the financial costs of water services are sourced generally with the local authorities. The local
authorities summarise and report these data by ‘Programme Group’ to the Department of the Environment,
Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG). Programme Group 3 reports detail expenditures (costs) and
receipts (cost recovery) for public water supply (Group 3.1), public sewerage schemes (Group 3.2), private
installations (Group 3.3), and for the administrative and miscellaneous category (Group 3.8). It is of note,
however, that the costs and cost recovery figures under Programme Group 3 are not all-inclusive of even
public water services expenditures. A portion of the costs associated with public water services are
covered by local government borrowing, polluter-pays receipts, and development levies.
Environmental/resource costs (costs that competing water users impose on one another without making
compensation (i.e., externalised costs)) are not typically accounted for in monetary terms in Ireland. There
is little information available to estimate the total costs water users externalise on one another and no
monetary estimates of the distributions of these costs. But there are available estimates of the costs local
authorities anticipate having to incur through to 2012 to upgrade wastewater treatment facilities per
forthcoming increased service populations or heightened regulations (i.e., marginal costs). As such, these
estimates of marginal costs can be interpreted conditionally as partial estimates of the value of the
marginal benefits that would be foregone if these marginal expenditures were not undertaken. Thus, if the
anticipated marginal costs associated with needed future investment in wastewater treatment services are
less than or equal to the monetary values of marginal benefits restored or preserved, then the estimate of
the marginal costs can serve as a partial estimate of the environmental/resource costs. This is the logic and
methodology employed to arrive at partial estimates of environmental/resource costs for each RBD.
5.3.1 Financial Costs and Costs Recovery for Water Services
page 128
Financial costs of water services primarily include those associated with the provision of potable water
supply and wastewater treatment. Table 5.2 summarises the most recent and available data detailing the
partial financial costs and costs recovery associated with potable water and wastewater services.
chapter 5
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USE
Table 5.2: Partial National Costs and Costs Recovery of Water Services (Source: DEHLG)
Table 5.2 Partial National Costs and Costs Recovery of Water Services (Source: DEHLG)
Local Authority Current Receipts and Expenditures - Programme
2003
Group 3
Receipts
€
Group 3.1 (Public Water Supply)
141,571,209
Group 3.2 (Public Sewerage Schemes)
37,031,274
Group 3.3 (Private Installation)
9,419,298
Group 3.8 (Administration and Miscellaneous)
12,205,868
Expenditures
_
Group 3.1 (Public Water Supply)
198,898,031
Group 3.2 (Public Sewerage Schemes)
132,476,888
Group 3.3 (Private Installation)
9,851,649
Group 3.8 (Administration and Miscellaneous)
82,321,238
Cost Recovery
%
Group 3.1 (Public Water Supply)
71%
Group 3.2 (Public Sewerage Schemes)
28%
Group 3.3 (Private Installation)
96%
Group 3.8 (Administration and Miscellaneous)
15%
As shown in Table 5.2, there is a significant receipts shortfall across all Programme Group 3 reporting
subgroups with the exception of the Private Installations subgroup.
It should be noted that whilst local authorities are in the process of transparently identifying the cost of
delivering water and wastewater services to all sectors individually, Government policy and national
legislation currently prohibit direct charges for the Domestic Sector.
Figure 5.8 illustrates the growing gap between the general Programme Group 3 costs of water services and
the costs currently recovered. The source of funding for addressing this deficit is the General Purposes
Payments from central funds made to local authorities.
Figure 5.8: National Programme Group 3 Annual Receipts and Expenditure Trends: 1999-2003 (Source: DEHLG)
National Group 3 Trends
(€ million)
450
400
350
300
250
Reciepts
Expenditures
200
150
100
50
0
1999
2000
2001
Year
2002
2003
page 129
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
The proportion of receipts derived from public water schemes has declined from 78% in 1999 to 71% in
2003. Also, there have been declines over this period on proportionate expenditures on public water
schemes and rises in the proportionate expenditures on public sewerage schemes.
The current budget shortfall of public water schemes has widened from €48.3 million in 1999 to €58.3
million in 2003. This trend is even clearer for public sewerage schemes, where the current budget shortfall
increased from €54.4 million in 1999 to €95 million in 2003.
In 2003 there were an estimated 183,650 non-domestic users of public water and wastewater services in
Ireland. The charge per cubic metre averaged across all local authorities was €0.96, however there was a
considerable variance in this charge, and the local authorities with the highest per unit costs were not
always those experiencing the highest average cost of producing water to non-domestic users.
5.3.2 Environmental/Resource Costs
The only national estimate of the partial public environmental/resource costs available is €4,370,372,379
for the period between 2004 and 2012. This is the projected wastewater treatment expenditures needs
estimate presented by local authorities in their Water Services Investment Programme reports. These
estimates are valid partial estimates of the public environmental/resource costs of water pollution given
one fundamental assumption: the marginal costs of these wastewater treatment expenditures are less than
or equal to the marginal benefits preserved or restored due to these expenditures. Figure 5.9 illustrates the
disparities between RBDs for these estimates.
Figure 5.9: Estimated Partial Public Environmental/Resource Costs in River Basin Districts: 2004 – 2012 (if the
marginal costs of these wastewater treatment expenditures are less than or equal to the marginal benefits
preserved or restored due to these expenditures) (Source: CDM)
Partial Public
Environmental/Resource
Cost (€ million)
page 130
1,600
1,400
ERBD
SERBD
SWRBD
SIRBD
WRBD
NWIRBD
NBIRBD
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
River Basin Districts
chapter 5
5.4
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USE
PROJECTIONS OF DEMAND, SUPPLY CAPACITY, AND COSTS OF WATER SERVICES
Projections of demand, supply and costs of water services were undertaken to assess future water resources
pressures and impacts and how they might influence the use and value of water. Information is currently
not available to comprehensively project the extent to which, and nature by which, each of the major
sectors will impact Ireland’s water resources nationally and in each RBD through to 2015. However,
existing trend data is adequate to project quantities of water demand by customer classes. In addition,
information is available to describe future supply capacity for wastewater treatment services and to project
the future costs of water services in general.
A series of reports published as components of the National Water Study (W.S. Atkins Ireland 2000) was
reviewed and the water demand projections included in those reports for the agricultural, industrial,
commercial, and domestic sectors were collated for 28 local authorities and distributed to RBDs based on
percents of local authority populations in each RBD. Water demand forecasts for the additional four local
authorities in the Greater Dublin Area were obtained from the Water Services Investment Programme
Assessment of Needs report for Dublin City Council (Dublin City Council 2003). Estimates of
unaccounted for water for these local authorities were also collated for each RBD. Projections of
unaccounted water were made assuming the proportion of unaccounted for water to total water demand
would have a linear decline to 20% in urban areas and 25% in rural areas by the year 2015. These
projections were based on DEHLG Conservation Programme estimates.
National-level future water supply capacity predictions are not practicable with existing data, although
qualitative overviews for each RBD are provided by summarising information included in the National
Water Study. Conversely, information on the future projected supply capacity for wastewater treatment
services was available in part at the national level but not available at all for RBDs. This information, taken
from the National Urban Wastewater Study (DEHLG 2004), includes quantitative estimates of the
adequacy of current treatment facilities to treat and discharge future projected loadings.
Time series data from 2000 -2003 on Water Services Investment Programme and Rural Water Programme
water services expenditures were utilised to derive trends in the costs of providing water services.
Projections through to 2015 were made by applying growth rate trends. It is noteworthy that expenditures
for wastewater treatment and direct water abstractions which are external to the local authority reporting
system are not accounted for in these estimates. No estimates of these costs were available for evaluation.
5.4.1 Projected Water Demand
The projected national abstractive water demand and projection of unaccounted for water nationally is
presented in Figure 5.10. To illustrate its relative magnitude, the Dublin demand projection is graphed
independently.
page 131
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Figure 5.10: Projected Annual Water Demand and Unaccounted for Water (Source: CDM)
Projected Annual Water Demand
and Unaccounted for Water
(megalitres)
400,000
350,000
300,000
National (excluding
Dublin Area)
250,000
Dublin Area
200,000
150,000
Unaccounted for
Water (excluding
Dublin Area)
100,000
50,000
2005
2010
2015
Year
5.4.2 Future Supply Capacity of Water Services
In summary, roughly half of the wastewater treatment plants examined in the National Urban Wastewater
Study would be adequate to treat future projected loadings in year 2022 to the design standard used in the
study. Also, according to the same study, 85% of applicable receiving waters studied in 2002 limit
discharges based on their assimilative capacities. These findings are highlighted in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3: Supply Capacity of Wastewater Treatment Services (Source: DEHLG)
Relative Treatment Capacity of
Wastewater Treatment Plants in
2022 (projected loadings under
current design capacity)
page 132
Relative Assimilative Capacity of
Receiving Waters in 2002 (receiving
waters in each assimilate capacity
category)
Classification
Adequate
Under
Capacity
Not Known
Restricted
Unrestricted
Percent
48%
49%
3%
85%
15%
5.4.3 Projected Costs of Water Services
The partial national projected costs of water services through to 2015, estimated via trend analysis of
Water Services Investment Programme and Rural Water Programme data for 2000 – 2003, is presented in
Figure 5.11.
chapter 5
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USE
Figure 5.11: Partial National Projected Costs of Water Services – Water Services Investment Programme (WSIP) and
Rural Water Programme (RWP) Water and Sewerage Costs: 2005 and 2015 (Source: CDM)
Projected Annual Costs of Water
Services (€ million)
900
800
700
600
500
WSIP
400
RWP
300
200
100
0
2005
2010
2015
Year
5.5
SUMMARY OF WORK COMPLETED TO ESTABLISH BASELINE SCENARIO
With the contents of the Economic Analysis of Water Use in Ireland study, as described in summary in this
Chapter, a baseline scenario has been established that describes the current and future projected benefits
and costs of water resources in the Republic of Ireland nationally and in each of its RBDs.
With respect to current benefits, this baseline includes information on the economic impacts of the
Agricultural Sector, the Industrial Sector, and selected key water-using subsectors within those sectors.
The economic impacts of other miscellaneous subsectors are also part of the baseline, as are estimates of
the value of abstractive and in-stream water use to selected key water-using subsectors. Non-use values of
water resources, namely wetlands and SRAs comprise a portion of the economic baseline. In regards to
future beneficial uses of water, projections of water demand by customer class are detailed. This
information is sufficient for the purposes of preliminary determination of the extent to which the
expenditures associated with WFD compliance in each RBD will be cost-beneficial to the communities
that lie in each RBD.
The baseline of costs include current and projected estimates of the financial costs of water services and
environmental/resource costs. A major portion of the financial costs of water services in each RBD, as
accounted for in DEHLG’s Programme Group 3 expenditures and receipts assessments, also have attached
to them estimates of cost recovery. The economic baseline further includes summaries of rate structures
and water services cost-recovery practices in each RBD. Although water services total cost and costrecovery figures were unobtainable in establishing the baseline, and environmental/resource costs were
largely indeterminable, a usable baseline for analysing user/polluter pays policies at the national level is
in place. It is evident that future analysis of user/polluter pays policies pursuant to WFD requirements may
be more appropriately conducted for political jurisdictions within RBDs rather than for any given RBD as
a single unit. Cost-effectiveness analysis of programmes of measures will similarly be needed at spatial
scales sometimes different than the RBD scale. The economic baseline established in the Economic
Analysis of Water Use in Ireland study is an adequate foundation upon which all future required analysis
page 133
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
of costs can be conducted.
5.6
INFORMATION AND FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE ANALYSIS
Despite the wide range of findings in the initial economic characterisation study, there remains a body of
information potentially relevant to future economic analysis that currently does not exist. Supplementary
information will be needed to support three general types of economic analysis:
Cost-effectiveness Analysis. Only a ranking of impacting sources exists for each RBD; marginal
remediation costs across sub-sectors or geographical groupings of water users need to be
developed.
Cost-benefit Analysis. The benefits estimations needed to conduct the cost-benefit analysis are
only partially complete at the RBD level and absent at the water body or river segment level. These
information ‘gaps’ are not necessarily information ‘needs’, which will only become apparent as the
WFD planning process moves into the next phase.
Cost-incidence Analysis. In Ireland, the information necessary to comprehensively assess the
distribution of costs of water services in relevant hydrologic or political areas is not currently
available.
There remains a substantial amount of peripheral information that can be generated to continue building
the baseline. A framework has been developed that ensures the efficient allocation of data generation and
analytical resources (Figure 5.12). The framework includes several key activities:
Coordinate with other Member States to monitor methodologies and approaches
page 134
Research potential management measures and implementation methods consistent with the
polluter-pays and user-pays principles and with reference to their general types and spatial qualities
Develop selection methodologies and criteria to support evaluation and comparison of alternative
measures and programmes taking account of direct and indirect economic impacts, monetisation of
environmental outputs, cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes of measures and cost
incidence of charging schemes
Solicit cost and benefit estimates of achieving good status from stakeholders upon publication of
proposed generic programmes of measures
Based on the stakeholder input regarding the costs and benefits associated with the programme of
measures, classify water bodies into one of the four major economic analysis strategy paths listed
in Figure 5.12 (i.e., (1) cost-effectiveness analysis only; (2) cost-effectiveness and cost
incidence/impact analysis; (3) cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis; or (4) costeffectiveness analysis, cost incidence/impact analysis and cost-benefit analysis
Pilot test the methodologies on selected water bodies or groups of water bodies to evaluate the
methods and determine additional data requirements
Refine methodologies (if necessary) and develop a unified implementation strategy.
Document Code: WFDNS-ART5-C5-5/05 V2 (7 of 8)
Figure 5.12 Approach for Conducting Future Economic Analysis in Ireland’s RBDs
5-13
Figure 5.12: Approach for Conducting Future Economic Analysis in Ireland’s RBDs
chapter 5
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USE
page 135
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
page 136
chapter 5
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USE
Chapter 5 - Glossary of Economics Terms
Contingent valuation – A method that employs surveys of randomly sampled populations to enable
inferences to be made regarding that populations’ willingness to pay (and hence value) for non-market
goods and/or services. For example, since many wetlands are publicly owned and therefore not traded in
markets, a contingent valuation study might survey people proximal to a wetland and inquire as to their
hypothetical willingness to pay to protect that area.
Cost-beneficial – A term that indicates that the estimates of the monetary costs of a future policy or project
do not exceed the estimates of the monetary benefits derived from the effort. A cost-beneficial programme
of measures to achieve good water status under the WFD has estimated costs that are less than the
estimated benefits derived. (Derogations can only be granted under the WFD when a cost-effective (leastcost) programme of measures has been demonstrated to be not cost-beneficial.)
Cost-benefit analysis – A method that aims to estimate an appropriate level of additional public
expenditure (i.e. one that is consistent with establishing benefits greater than or equal to the costs
incurred). The WFD requires only that programmes of measures be ‘cost-effective’, and the benefits
associated with achieving or maintaining good water status need not necessarily be estimated unless the
costs of achieving the good status goal for a water body are suspected to be highly disproportionate to the
benefits. (For a derogation to be granted for any period of time for any water body, it must be
demonstrated that the cost-effective programme of measures is not cost-beneficial.)
Cost-effective – A term that indicates that the expenditures to achieve a predetermined goal have been
minimised. A cost-effective (least-cost) programme of measures to achieve good water status may or may
not be cost-beneficial depending on whether the costs associated with the programme of measures exceed
the benefits.
Cost-effectiveness analysis – A method that considers the implementation costs of individual measures
that can potentially be employed to achieve a predetermined water status objective and that reveals the
combination of those measures that will achieve the objective at the least cost. In order for cost-effective
programmes of measures to be identified (as required by the WFD), the relative costs of each measure
which can address issues currently contributing (or potentially contributing) to the failure to achieve this
goal must be estimated and compared.
Cost-incidence analysis – A measure of ‘who pays’ under various resource use scenarios. Critical to any
policy application of the user/polluter pays principle is an investigation of the real redistribution of costs
under various pricing/charging policy alternatives.
Economic impact assessment – A method that estimates the contributions of specific economic
subsectors or categories of economic activity to economies of specified geographies. In Economic Analysis
of Water Use in Ireland, estimates of numbers of establishments, gross output values, gross values added,
employment, and wages and salaries for each key water-using subsector collectively provide economic
impact assessments nationally and for each river basin district. (Typically such assessments also include
‘multiplier effects’, where in addition to counting parameters such as employment attributable to the
primary economic subsector or category being assessed, spill-over jobs in complimentary subsectors or
categories that are attributable to the primary one of interest are also counted. Data necessary to measure
multiplier effects are presently not readily available in Ireland.)
page 137
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Environmental/resource costs – A term that denotes the devaluation of natural resources, typically by
public utilities or private interests, whereby the devaluating entity does not incur expenditures
commensurate with the value added to their enterprises. Environmental/resource costs, such as those
associated with water pollution and non-sustainable water source extractions, are ones that are
‘externalised’ on other parties (i.e., borne by other parties). As such, these costs fail to create positive
economic incentives for the devaluating entities to utilise the resource in a conserving, efficient manner.
The term has evolved from WFD discussion groups attempting to develop strategies to implement the
user/polluter pays principle, whereby such costs would be ‘internalised’.
Establishment Count – In Economic Analysis of Water Use in Ireland, establishment counts are numbers
of farms (also referred to as holdings) or numbers of local units (as defined in the Local Units Industrial
Census to include the satellite establishments of multi-regional enterprises).
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – In Economic Analysis of Water Use in Ireland, GDP at market prices
is reported. GDP at market prices is an estimate of the total annual value of goods and services physically
produced in Ireland and provided to consumers (not including the value of goods and services provided
from one producer to another). In Ireland, GDP is a composite value produced by two methodologies to
estimate consumer expenditures – one related to expenditures and the other to personal income.
Gross output value – The annual gross market value of the goods and services produced by a specified
economic sector or subsector.
Gross value added – In Economic Analysis of Water Use in Ireland, gross value added at basic prices is
reported. In simplest terms, gross value added at basic prices is total annual revenues attributable to a
sector or subsector less the outlays for the inputs to production plus subsidies. Gross value added estimates
are reported in the Enterprise Industrial Census.
page 138
Marginal cost – The cost incurred due to one additional unit of output. In the context of the WFD, a unit
of output could be the remediation or prevention of some pollution metric or the production and delivery
of a unit of potable water. In general, as additional units of pollutants are removed from waste streams, the
marginal costs (i.e., unit costs) of remediation increase. Alternatively, due to increasing economies of
scale, as larger volumes of potable water are produced and delivered from a single source (in the absence
of water scarcity), their associated marginal costs generally decrease.
Marginal benefit – The unit of societal benefit (expressed in Euros) that accrues as the result of
expenditures for one additional unit of output. A unit of output in the WFD context is typically a unit of
pollutant remediation or a unit of potable water production.
Non-use value – The value associated with the component of a resource that is not used, such as the value
people may place on being able to bequeath an undisturbed wetland to future generations or the value
people may place on simply knowing that a population of an endangered species is being restored. These
resources typically only have non-market values when the resources (such as wetlands) are not privately
owned.
Transfer coefficient – In Economic Analysis of Water Use in Ireland, transfer coefficients are estimates
of the annual Euro value per person per hectare of wetlands or special riparian areas. These coefficients
are multiplied by Irish hectarages and populations to arrive at estimates of the non use values of Irish
chapter 5
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USE
wetlands and special riparian areas. The coefficients are derived from surveys of populations near areas of
interest similar to those in Ireland and then transferred for application to Irish areas and proximal
populations.
User/polluter pays principle – In general, this principle states that the costs associated with the
consumption or degradation of a resource should accrue to those that derive benefit from the consuming
or degrading activity. In a theoretical, pure market economy, where markets do not allow some to
externalise their costs on others (e.g., pollute waterways without compensating those who suffer the effects
of the pollution downstream), users and polluters are burdened with the costs associated with their
activities in an amount equivalent to the monetary value of the benefits they derive from these activities.
The user/polluter pays principle, one that is fundamental to WFD implementation, aims to replicate these
pure market conditions through public intervention.
Wateco – From WATer and ECOnomics. A group of approximately 50 individuals from various
representative organisations brought together under the auspices of the European Union to develop
technical guidance on conducting the economic analyses required under the Water Framework Directive.
The Wateco Group evolved into drafting groups (ECO1 and ECO2) that were charged with publishing the
technical guidance.
Water resource value – An umbrella term used in Economic Analysis of Water Use in Ireland to describe
an estimate of the extent to which people attach importance to various uses of water itself (e.g., irrigating,
boating, etc.) as well as the non-uses of water bodies and their surrounding areas (e.g., ocean vistas,
wetland habitats, etc.). The term ‘value’ when referring to quantitative estimates of water resource value
typically indicates monetary value.
Water use valuation – In Economic Analysis of Water Use in Ireland, water use valuations are done for
a subset of abstractive water users and for domestic recreational in-stream users. For abstractive water
users, this method aims to estimate the amount of money users in various key water-using economic
subsectors and the domestic sector would be willing and able to pay under market (i.e., private and nonsubsidised) schemes for the provision of potable water. Water use valuations for abstractive users differ
from economic impact assessments of abstractive users in that water use valuations are estimates of the
value of water as a final product, whereas economic impact assessments are estimates of the values and
labour market effects of products in which water serves as a key input to production. For Irish users of
water resources for leisure purposes, this method aims to estimate the value of these in-stream water uses
by equating this value with the total value of expenditures associated with accessing and utilising the
resource.
Willingness to pay – A term used to describe an estimate of the amount of money people would pay in a
market for a non-market (e.g., public or predominantly subsidised) resource. In a cost-benefit analysis, a
method required under the WFD in certain circumstances, the monetary value of some water resources for
which there are no observable market prices must be estimated. This is done so that this willingness to pay
(i.e., value) can be compared with the monetary costs of such things as expenditures related to
implementation of programmes of measures. Also, in order to devise, propose, and ultimately implement
pricing policies pursuant to the user/polluter pays principle, the relative values among consumer groups of
some non-market water resources may have to be estimated in monetary terms.
page 139
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Background Information for Chapter 5
Ref 1. CDM (2004) Economic Analysis of Water Use in Ireland. Report to the Department of
Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
Associated Table 4-1 Gaps in Economic Characterisation Reporting Information and Potential
Gaps in Future Economic Analysis
Associated Figure 4-4 Proposed Project Schedule
Other References for Chapter 5
Department of Environment, Heritage, and Local Government, (2004). National Urban Wastewater
Study.
Dublin City Council, (2003). Water Services Investment Programme – Assessment of Needs: 2007-2012.
Williams, J. and B. Ryan (2004). Participation in Marine-Based Leisure Activities in Ireland. Economic
and Social Research Institute report to the Marine Institute, Dublin.
W.S. Atkins Ireland (2000). National Water Study Ireland.
page 140
chapter 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1
OVERVIEW OF IDENTIFICATION OF WATER BODIES 'AT RISK'
This report presents the results of the most systematic and comprehensive assessment of human impacts
on Ireland’s waters ever undertaken. This has been replicated across all of Europe’s waters, throughout
EU Member States and is in response to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive
(2000/60/EC). It has involved the grouping of all groundwaters into physically distinct types and surface
waters (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters) into physically and ecologically distinct types. These
typologies have been applied to all waters resulting in discrete water bodies, which will serve as the
management units for the future. All water bodies have been assessed to determine the likelihood of them
failing to achieve the objectives of the Water Framework Directive by 2015 as a result of impact from
human activities. It has involved a systematic assessment of each water body using nationally available
and locally gathered information on environmental pressures, the sensitivity of the water body, the
susceptibility of the water body to impact from these pressures and current information/knowledge on
known impacts. This is an initial characterisation, which will be greatly refined through further
characterisation in time for the production of the draft first River Basin Management Plans in 2008. The
next phase of the planning cycle (2005 - 2008) will involve further characterisation of 'at risk' water
bodies, the implementation of WFD compliant monitoring programmes and the development of
programmes of measures in response to the water management issues identified.
The application of typologies and the physical characterisation process to waters in Ireland has produced:
4 groundwater types, resulting in 383 water bodies, subsequent subdividing after risk assessments
resulted in 757 groundwater bodies (mean area: 65 km2)
266 groundwater bodies had Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE) or
Groundwater Dependent Surface Waters (GWDSW) associated with them1
page 141
12 river types, resulting in 4,468 water bodies (mean length: 5km)
11 lake types, resulting in 210 water bodies greater than or equal to 50ha and 535 which were less
than 50ha2
2 transitional types, resulting in 196 water bodies
5 coastal types, resulting in 113 water bodies
In accordance with WFD requirements reference conditions (chemical, biological, hydromorphological)
have been defined for the majority of the above surface water body types. However, for some water body
types, examples of reference conditions no longer exist and there is no record of such reference conditions.
In these cases expert judgment will have to be applied. The established reference conditions will provide
the framework for establishing status classification systems by 2006.
Having defined water bodies, which are the management units for instigating measures, the next step was
to assess the risk of negative impact posed by human activities. The approach has been precautionary,
looking beyond known impacts. The new approach under the WFD has involved the assessment of risks
1 Only those GWD-TEs or -SWs located in Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) were included
2
Lakes less than 50 ha were assessed if located in an SAC or used for abstraction
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
posed by other pressures not previously considered. Pressures have included abstractions, physical
alterations (e.g. channelisations, dam construction, urbanisation, etc.), commercial fishing and invasion by
aquatic alien species. Because many of these pressures are only now being considered the level of
confidence in the methods is variable. However, methods will be continually refined up to 2008.
The precautionary approach has resulted in water bodies being categorised into two broad groups based
on the level of confidence.
Secondly, those water bodies where confidence in the outcome of the risk assessment is lower i.e. category
1b (probably at risk) and category 2a (probably not at risk) will require further characterisation. This
can arise for a number of reasons: 1. much of the information needed to decide whether there is an impact
is not available (information on pressures, water body sensitivity, susceptibility and impacts), 2. there is
currently incomplete understanding of the impact of some pressures and 3. there is variable confidence in
the risk assessment methods used. Follow up actions to increase confidence will include; additional
monitoring, data collection or refinement of risk assessment methods.
Consequently, four risk categories have been defined for Ireland. Once the risk assessments were applied
water bodies were divided among the four categories. Table 6-1 provides the national percentage
breakdown for each risk category (by number). Pressures assessed were as follows:
Abstractions including public and private water supply and industrial use
Morphological alterations including structures such as hydroelectric dams and major water supply
reservoirs, and morphological pressures (or physical alterations) apply only to surface waters.
Morphological pressures include activities such as channel alterations, agricultural enhancement,
flood defences, locks and weir facilities, dredging, ports and tidal barrages.
page 142
Point source pressures including in relation to groundwaters migration of pollutants from
contaminated land, waste disposal sites and oil industry infrastructure and discharges to
groundwaters from mines and soakaways. Point source pressures identified for surface waters
include Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants (UWWT) plants, storm overflows, sludge treatment
plants, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) industries and non-IPPC industries.
Diffuse source pressures including widespread activities such as agriculture, non-sewered
population, urban land use, transport, some industrial activities and other main land uses which in
Ireland would include peat exploitation and forestry activities.
chapter 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Table 6-1: National summary of risk categories for all waters in Ireland
Risk category
Groundwater
River water
Lake water
Transitional
Coastal
bodies % (by
bodies % (by
bodies % (by
water bodies %
water bodies
number)
number)
number)
(by number)
% (by
number)
(1a) At risk
Main pressures
(1b) Probably at
risk
Main pressures
(1a+1b) T o t a l a t
risk
(2a) Probably not
at risk
(2b) Not at risk
5%
29%
18%
30%
12%
Diffuse source
pollution (0 %)
Diffuse source
pollution (13%)
Abstractions
(10%)
Morphological
alterations (21%)
Point source
pollution (4 %)
Morphological
alterations (6%)
Diffuse
pollution (1%)
Pollution impacts
(12%)
Morphological
alterations
(7%)
56%
35%
20%
23%
15%
Diffuse source
pollution (37 %)
Morphological
alterations
(33%)
Abstractions
(2%)
Morphological
alterations (15%)
Diffuse source
pollution (18%)
Pollution impacts
(5%)
Morphological
alterations
(12%)
Point source
pollution (35%)
Diffuse source
pollution (32%)
Pollution
impacts (4%)
Pollution
impacts (8%)
61%
64%
38%
53%
27%
23%
20%
13%
20%
31%
16%
16%
49%
27%
42%
Note: Figures have been rounded to nearest percent.
1. Groundwaters: 5% of water bodies (by number) are at risk/impacted from point and diffuse
source pollution. A further 56% of water bodies are probably at risk mostly due to diffuse and
point source pollution. However, the lack of adequate monitoring data means that monitoring
programmes will need to be implemented to confirm the risk from these pressures. It should be
noted that pollution from point sources only affect small localised areas within these large water
bodies (typically hundreds of square kilometres). Therefore, smaller water bodies were delineated
to focus further characterisation actions.
2. Rivers: 29% of water bodies (by number) are at risk/impacted mainly from diffuse source
pollution and morphological alterations. A further 35% of water bodies are probably at risk from
the same pressures. Additional monitoring will be required to confirm the risk.
3. Lakes: 18% of water bodies (by number) are at risk/impacted mainly from abstractions and
diffuse source pollution. A further 20% of water bodies are probably at risk from abstraction and
diffuse source pollution. Additional monitoring will be required to confirm the risk.
4. Transitional waters: 30% of water bodies (by number) are at risk/impacted from morphological
alterations and pollution impacts. A further 23% of water bodies are probably at risk from the
same pressures. The availability of impact information is currently very limited. This will have to
be addressed through a more comprehensive monitoring programme for transitional waters.
page 143
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
5. Coastal waters: 12% of water bodies (by number) are at risk/impacted from morphological
alterations and pollution. A further 15% of water bodies are probably at risk from the same
pressures. As with transitional waters the availability of impact information is currently very
limited and will have to be addressed through a more comprehensive monitoring programme for
coastal waters.
Further characterisation will be required for all waterbodies categorised as probably at risk and probably
not at risk. This will entail focused monitoring to confirm whether water bodies are at risk (impact data),
collation of more refined pressure datasets and the refinement of risk assessment methodologies.
Maps 6-1 to 6-5 present national summary risk assessment results for all RBDs for groundwater bodies,
river water bodies, lake water bodies, transitional and coastal water bodies.
In broad terms the Neagh-Bann IRBD, Eastern RBD, South Eastern RBD and the Shannon IRBD have the
highest proportion of water bodies across all water types at risk from pressures. The most significant
pressures on these water bodies were 1. diffuse pollution sources particularly from urban and agricultural
land use and 2. morphological alterations particularly channel drainage associated with rivers,
impoundments on lakes and activities associated with ports in transitional and coastal waters.
The South Western RBD followed by the North Western IRBD and the Western RBD show the lowest
proportions of water bodies identified as at risk across all water types from pressures. However, in the
South Western RBD a significant proportion of groundwater bodies were identified as probably at risk
from diffuse agricultural and urban land use pollution. This will require further characterisation to verify.
In the North Western IRBD the most significant issue is the pressure from diffuse source pollution and
morphological alterations on rivers. In the Western RBD the most significant issue is the pressure from
diffuse source pollution and morphological alterations on rivers and diffuse source pollution on
groundwater.
page 144
Shadow risk assessments were also undertaken to assess the impact of alien species, fishing pressures and
bathing water compliance to provide an overview on these issues for comment (presented in Section 3.1.3
of Chapter 3). These risk assessments were heavily reliant on expert opinion and will require more
development during further characterization.
The next question is what will be done on foot of this initial characterisation assessment? Table 6-2
illustrates the actions now required following this initial characterisation.
chapter 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Table 6-2: Actions required following the initial characterisation
Not at risk
Not at risk (2b)
Confidence
Priority actions (20052008)
Monitor driving forces &
pressures
Protection measures for
good/high status water
bodies
Fill data gaps
Refine risk assessment
methods
Investigative monitoring
Operational monitoring
Restoration measures for
impacted water bodies
Surveillance monitoring of
representative water bodies
High
At risk
Probably not at Probably at risk
risk (2a)
(1b)
Lower
Lower
At risk (1a)
High
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The categories where confidence is high (1a) at risk and (2b) not at risk will be subject to management
measures (restoration and protective, respectively) if not already the subject of management measures
under existing legislation or management programmes (e.g. Phosphorus Regulations, 1998; Urban
Wastewater Treatment Regulations, 2001). The nature of the priorities between both categories will differ
as follows;
page 145
1a – Water bodies at risk
Action: Additional measures will be put into effect to return the impacted water body to good status (e.g.
investment in wastewater treatment facilities, codes of practice and active intervention to reduce
pollutant emissions through increased regulation). Measures are currently in place for some pollutant
pressures such as under the Phosphorus Regulations (1998) and Dangerous Substances Regulations
(2000). Other measures will need to be formulated (e.g. forthcoming Nitrates Action Programme) as
appropriate.
2b – Water bodies not at risk
Action: Adequate/appropriate monitoring will be put in place for early detection of increasing driving
forces and pressures, which threaten the water body currently judged to be at good to high status. Where
the trend in driving forces and pressures is of concern measures will be implemented to protect the water
body from losing good or high status (e.g. restrictions on high risk activities/pressures). Some high-risk
activities may need to be prohibited entirely within the water body. In the case of high quality river water
bodies (Q5), for example, there has been a decline in their number. Measures may be required to protect
such water bodies.
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
The two categories where confidence is lower (1b - probably at risk or probably not at risk) will be the
focus of further characterisation as detailed in Section 6.3.
The findings of this first analysis represent the best assessment of the impact of current human activities
on our waters based on the best available information. The analysis is therefore considered to be as robust
as possible and provides an appropriate basis from which to develop the next phase of the river basin
management planning process. The assessment of risk is based on pressures as they are currently
distributed and does not address future changes in pressure management. For example, at this early stage
it has not been possible to take account of forthcoming changes due to implementation of the National
Spatial Strategy, investment in wastewater treatment facilities or agricultural sector reform. The
availability and detail of information will improve in future planning cycles ensuring greater confidence
in further characterisation assessments. The RBMP process will ensure that the implications of future
changes in pressures and management measures are taken into account in future planning cycles.
6.1.1 Groundwater bodies for which lower objectives are to be specified
The WFD requires groundwater bodies for which less stringent environmental objectives (LSO) are to be
specified to be listed in the Characterisation Report. These objectives may be set in cases where a body of
water is so affected by human activity that it may be unfeasible or unreasonably expensive to achieve good
chemical status within two further river basin planning cycles (i.e. by 2027).
The following candidate sites were reviewed and selected for further consideration and investigation:
Nineteen coalfield areas/significant mines were identified for further consideration – Munster,
Connacht, Leinster and Slieve Ardagh coalfields, Avoca, Silvermines, Navan, Galmoy, Lisheen,
Kingscourt, Gortdrum, Tynagh, Abbeytown, Clements, Ternakill, Keel, Kilnaleck, Victoria and
Glendalough mines;
page 146
Eleven groundwater bodies where sites with contaminated land issues were identified. It was
considered that these sites may not be capable of being remediated to good status by 2027 (sites
located in Enniscorthy, Monard, Kill, Cobh, Athlone, Portarlington, Clarecastle, Enfield, Galway,
Shannon and Waterford)
Groundwater bodies underlying five significant population centres (i.e. over 40,000 persons) were
listed as candidates for further consideration (Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford).
Major urban areas can include multiple industrial point sources and are likely to be associated with
localised impacts.
The candidate groundwater bodies and their associated surface water bodies listed in this Characterisation
Report will undergo detailed evaluation before confirmation of LSO or derogation applicability. The
evaluation will be undertaken on the basis of appropriate, evident and transparent criteria, which will be
developed during the further characterisation process. This preliminary list will be reviewed using more
detailed information, which will become available during the implementation of monitoring programmes
and further characterisation studies. The review may remove some candidates or identify further bodies
requiring LSOs.
The LSOs must be set and justified in the draft River Basin Management Plan by 2008. All practicable
steps should be taken to prevent any further deterioration of the status of these waters.
chapter 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1.2 Waterbodies at risk from hydromorphological pressures and their further
consideration as AWBs or HMWBs
Water bodies in the (1a) at risk category due to hydromorphological pressures were examined in more
detail. Water bodies judged to be capable of achieving GES, despite significant hydromorphological
pressures, were not designated as provisional Heavily Modified Water Bodies (pHMWBs). The water
quality history and the unique details of the pressures on each of the water bodies being further considered
were compiled by the River Basin District (RBD) Projects and presented to experts from the EPA who are
responsible under the Water Policy Regulations for identification of provisional Artificial Water Bodies
(pAWB) and pHMWB. To complete step 6 (see Chapter 4), the EPA experts reviewed each case presented
by the RBD Projects to finalise the schedules of pAWB and pHMWB.
Following the above process 37 pAWBs have been identified: 5 in theEastern RBD, 7 in the South Eastern
RBD, 1 in the South Western RBD, 21in the Shannon IRBD, 2 in the Western RBD and 1 in the Neagh
Bann IRBD. In addition, 37 pHMWBs have been identified: 14 in the Eastern RBD, 4 in the South Eastern
IRBD, 5 in the South Western RBD, 8 in the Shannon IRBD and 6 in the North Western IRBD. These
include river, lake, transitional and coastal water bodies.
6.2
FINDINGS OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USE
An economic baseline scenario has been established that describes the current and future projected
benefits and costs of water resources in the Republic of Ireland nationally and in each of its RBDs.
Socio-economic importance of water use
The various industrial users of water contribute considerably more to the national economy than either the
agricultural or the other miscellaneous water-using sub-sectors that were analysed. The relative economic
importance of these different user groups varies significantly between RBDs.
page 147
The estimated consumption, and thus value, of abstractive water (i.e. the amount the user is willing to pay)
to the domestic sector exceeds that of both the agricultural and industrial water-using activities that were
analysed.
For each unit of water used, the economic value of output from key industrial users is significantly higher
than from the key agricultural users.
Beach visits and other water based leisure activities such as recreational fishing, boating, aquatic bird
watching, etc. are relatively significant economic activities in Ireland.
Estimates of willingness to pay for the conservation or restoration of wetlands and Special Riparian Areas
(SRAs), or areas protected for conservation reasons, vary widely across RBDs. These estimates are based
on international surveys converted to the applicable Irish populations and hectarages. Due to the amount
of wetlands and SRAs in the Shannon-IRBD and Western-RBD values they generally show the highest
non-use value among the RBDs.
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Costs and costs recovery of water services
Government policy and national legislation currently prohibit direct charges for water services for the
domestic sector. In terms of cost recovery for domestic water services, there is a significant shortfall of
revenue across the reporting sub-groups:
public water supply – 71% recovery
public sewerage schemes – 28% recovery
administration & miscellaneous – 15% recovery.
The Private Installations are the exception with 96% recovery.
The gap between the costs of water services and the costs currently recovered has grown in recent years.
Cost recovery from public water schemes declined from 78% in 1999 to 71% in 2003 (equating to a budget
shortfall growth of €48.3 million in 1999 and €58.3 million in 2003).
In 2003 there were an estimated 183,650 non-domestic users of public water and wastewater services in
Ireland. The charge averaged across all local authorities was €0.96/m3, but there was considerable
variability. The local authorities charging the highest per unit costs are not always those experiencing the
highest water production costs.
The only available estimate of environmental/resource cost is €4,380,887,402 for the period between 2004
and 2012. These estimates vary considerably between the RBDs.
Projections of demand, supply capacity, and costs of water services
page 148
Annual water demand in Ireland is projected to increase by 76,707 million litres by 2015. However,
unaccounted for water (leakage, illegal connections, etc) is projected to decline by at least 65,494 million
litres (excluding Dublin) over the same period, resulting in the projections for net increases in national
water demand being negligible.
The National Urban Wastewater Study concluded that 48% of the wastewater treatment plants in Ireland
would be adequate to treat future projected loadings in year 2022. 85% of wastewater treatment plants
studied in 2002 currently limit discharges to meet environmental quality objectives in the receiving waters.
This should contribute to the objectives of the WFD which requires a combined approach to discharges
(Environmental Quality Objectives and discharge limits).
Nationally, if 1999-2003 trends hold, the cost of water services will increase by 75% by 2015.
Section 6.3 describes the uncertainties and data gaps associated with the Economic Analysis of Water Use
and the proposed next steps to address them.
6.3
UNCERTAINTIES, DATA GAPS AND NEXT STEPS
The two risk categories where confidence is lower (1b - probably at risk or 2a - probably not at risk)
represent a significant proportion of water bodies nationally: groundwaters–79%, rivers–55%. lakes–33%,
chapter 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
transitional waters–43%, coastal waters 46%. (Note: Figures for coastal waters are less reliable due to a
lack of information necessary for carrying out the risk assessment). The above highlights the significant
uncertainties and data gaps which currently exist in determining risk with a high degree of certainty for all
water bodies. The immediate next task facing Irish authorities is to address these uncertainties and data
gaps to increase the confidence in the risk assessment in time for the first draft River Basin Management
Plans in 2008.
The water bodies in category 1b - probably at risk will receive higher priority which will entail the
intensive and focused collection of key datasets to confirm the risk by 2008. This will also inform the
development of measures if the water body is confirmed to be at risk.
The water bodies in category 2a - probably not at risk are of lower priority and will be investigated
further involving less intensive, although targeted data collection to confirm the absence of risk.
Generally these uncertainties and data gaps will be addressed by:
1. Delivery of water status classification schemes in 2006 to assess impact
2. Implementation of monitoring programmes by 2006 applying the new water status classification
scheme.
3. Collection of additional key driving force, pressures, state, impact datasets necessary to complete
the risk assessment with a high level of confidence.
4. Improvements in risk assessments using modelling techniques to maximise use of all available
data.
5. Formulation of responses (Measures) taking into account economic aspects, thus providing the
most cost effective options for achieving good status in each water body.
page 149
The following tables (Table 6-3 to 6-5) provide details on uncertainties and data gaps and the proposed
next steps under the headings of 1. Review of Impacts of human activities, 2. AWBs and HMWBs and 3.
Economic Analysis of Water Use.
page 150
Point source pollution
Morphological alterations
Water abstraction and flow
regulation
Further characterisation will refine the level of
detail included in the assessments
Existing licenses may have to be reviewed and
modelling for licence consents may have to be
introduced
Thresholds were applied dictated by available datasets - this means that
some significant pressures might not be included
More quantitative assessment of significant pressures will be required
to consider the broader objectives of the WFD
Some key datasets are not available for example farmyard storage
facility assessments
The point source risk assessments were dependent on available
monitoring data, in certain cases (for example Section 4 industries)
compliance datasets were not readily available
The impacts of activities involving morphological changes including
river drainage works is unknown
Improved monitoring and/or management of these
activities will be considered
Better hydrological data or models are required to
increase the confidence in this assessment
The knowledge of morphological pressures needs
to be improved. Protocols for assessment of
morphological metrics have been developed
including aerial photography, GIS-based metrics
and field-based measurements. A monitoring
programme will be based on these techniques.
A national hydromorphology assessment
committee and ERTDI Hydromorph Project,
NSSHARE Project are planned
Facilities monitoring programmes will have to be
improved to increase the confidence in this
assessment. Improved electronic data transfer is
required for results of both self-monitoring and
compliance monitoring programmes.
These data would inform future assessments of
agricultural risk.
See Economic strategy in Table 6-5 (below)
Next Step
A number of unregulated activities abstract water. The impact of these
activities is unknown but may be significant in certain cases
The low flow water resource has been estimated based on a screening
tool
Datasets in relation to morphological pressures are held in disparate
organisations, some are incomplete or out of date and others had to be
generated from base mapping or aerial photographs
Driving Forces need to be quantified at water body level (e.g.
population growth, future changes resulting from reform of the
Common Agricultural Policy, future changes as a result of
implementation of the forthcoming Nitrates Action Programme).
Driving forces
Pressure/Activity
Uncertainty / Data Gap
Topic/Issue
Table 6-3: Review of Impacts of human activities (Uncertainties, data gaps and next steps)
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Diffuse source pollution
Topic/Issue
Improved understanding and quantification of diffuse
urban and road runoff.
In many cases chronic diffuse pollution occurs as
indicated by downstream ecological assessments but
pinpointing precise sources of pollution ‘hot spots’
within catchments may be quite difficult. This will lead
to imprecision in the design of remedial measures.
Improved understanding of nutrient and silt losses from
forestry planted on deep peat soil (mineral poor soils).
Similarly improved assessment of coniferous forestry
plantations in low and mid-alkalinity, acid sensitive
catchments.
The impact of ‘septic tanks’ in one-off houses needs to
be quantified in relation to soil type, distance from and
pathways to nearest surface water or groundwater body.
Detailed assessment of existing monitoring datasets on P
and N loss from coniferous plantations – at planting stage,
re-fertilisation and clear-felling with or without refertilisation. Detailed additional monitoring in a limited
number of representative catchments where gaps in
understanding still exist.
Research and monitoring of urban and road runoff in the
Irish situation.
Higher resolution datasets will need to be generated to
increase confidence in risk assessments. A major ERTDI
research project on nutrient loss from agriculture is due to
report in mid 2005, which will deliver a range of new tools
for the prediction of phosphorus loss from soils. A project
aimed at assessing the importance of pollution delivery via
first order streams has also been initiated.
Greater application of suitable mathematical models is
required. A farm risk assessment procedure is also being
developed.
Improved mapping, monitoring and modelling of individual
septic tank discharges is required. An assessment and risk
rating system is required for the existing stock in order to
support future measures.
Improved temporal monitoring using electronic sensors and
telemetry placed on a large number of points along a river
network, for example, should be trialled as a means of
pinpointing pollution events both spatially and temporally.
The resolution of data available to some of the diffuse
assessments was limited (for example agricultural data is
based on information at District Electoral Division level
and therefore does not accurately represent farm level
variations)
More quantitative assessment of significant pressures
will be required
Next Step
Uncertainty / Data Gap
Table 6-3: (continued) Review of Impacts of human activities (Uncertainties, data gaps and next steps)
chapter 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
page 151
page 152
Protected area
compliance
Fishing activities
Other Assessments
Alien species
Risk Assessment Procedures
Impact
Dangerous substances
State
General pollutants
Availability of national datasets is currently limited
The risk assessment was developed from expert
knowledge
The risk assessment was developed from expert
knowledge
The initial characterisation has identified key pressures
based on screening or semi-quantitative assessments –
Pollutant monitoring data is not currently available for all
water bodies categorised as (1a) at risk or (1b) probably
at risk
The issue of dangerous substances is a significant, data
gap/area of uncertainty in Ireland. Currently there is an
inability to quantify the range of substances and annual
load of pollutants. Consequently, there is lower
confidence in the risk assessments related to dangerous
substances.
More data for all water categories will be required (in
particular a gap was evident within coastal waters)
The mapping of ‘wet soils and ‘extremely’ vulnerable
areas was incomplete for some risk assessed areas
Assumptions were made concerning the sensitivity of
estuaries and certain GWDTEs
Pathway susceptibility
Receptor sensitivity
Uncertainty / Data Gap
Topic/Issue
While detailed assessment of fishing pressure is available
for some species such as Atlantic salmon, in general
improved recording of fishing pressures will be required.
This issue needs to be addressed to provided necessary
information for WFD implementation
Improved recording of such pressures will be required.
The lack of data in relation to dangerous substances will be
addressed by additional data collection and monitoring for
the first river basin management plan.
A National Substances Screening Monitoring Programme
was started in 2005. This is to include monitoring over 200
dangerous substances identified.
Future monitoring programmes will have to cover all
elements included under the WFD and to focus on at risk
water bodies
Surface waters and groundwaters will require more detailed
assessment including investigative monitoring and
mathematical modelling studies during the further
characterisation process.
Monitoring will need to be extended to cover all water
bodies identified as (1b) probably at risk
Further data collection and analysis will be needed to clarify
issues regarding receptor sensitivity
Due for completion by end 2005.
Next Step
Table 6-3 continued) Review of Impacts of human activities (Uncertainties, data gaps and next steps)
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
Establishment of GEP for
AWBs & HMWBs
Identification of AWBs &
HMWBs
Topic/Issue
For provisionally designated water bodies, the determination of
GEP and the consequent risk of failing the GEP objective are
currently unknown but must be complete by December 2008.
The economic cost of alternative restoration measures are
currently unknown. Equally the economic benefits of such
restoration against the economic benefits of maintaining the
AWBs and HMWBS are also unknown.
Uncertainty / Data Gap
The assessment will require expert judgement and will be
undertaken by the EPA supported by relevant authorities. If a
designated HMWB or AWB will not be able to meet the objective
of GEP by 2015, then a programme of measures or a case for
derogation has to be developed for the draft first RBMP which
allows one year for consultation on the draft RBMP before its
publication in 2009.
The schedule of provisionally identified HMWBs and AWBs will
proceed to Steps 7 - 11 in early 2005. Steps 7 and 8 include the
further designation tests: these are the ‘restoration’ and ‘alternative
means’ tests. As a result of these tests water bodies are either
screened out and considered as natural water bodies with a target
of GES or are finally designated (Step 9) as AWB/HMWB
requiring the target of GEP to be set. Steps 10 and 11 entail the
establishment of Maximum Ecological Potential MEP and GEP.
Next Step
Table 6-4 AWBs & HMWBs (Uncertainties, data gaps and next steps)
chapter 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
page 153
page 154
A body of information potentially relevant to future economic analysis
currently does not exist.
Future Economic Analysis
Research potential management measures and implementation
methods consistent with the polluter-pays and user-pays
principles and with reference to their general types and spatial
qualities
Develop selection methodologies and criteria to support
evaluation and comparison of alternative measures and
programmes taking account of direct and indirect economic
impacts, monetisation of environmental outputs, costeffectiveness analysis of alternative programmes of measures
and cost incidence of charging schemes
Pilot test the methodologies on selected water bodies or groups
of water bodies to evaluate the methods and determine additional
data requirements
Refine methodologies (if necessary) and develop a unified
implementation strategy.
•
•
•
•
Economic analysis - Proposed strategy to simultaneously
supplement the baseline and generate the priority information
needed in the short-term for developing the programme of
measure
In Ireland, the information necessary to comprehensively assess the
distribution of costs of water services in relevant hydrologic or
political areas is not currently available.
Cost-incidence Analysis.
Coordinate with other Member States to monitor methodologies
and approaches
These information ‘gaps’ are not necessarily information ‘needs’, which
will only become apparent as the WFD planning process moves into the
next phase.
The benefits estimations needed to conduct the cost-benefit analysis
are only partially complete at the RBD level and absent at the water
body or river segment level.
Cost-benefit Analysis.
•
Marginal remediation costs across sub-sectors or geographical groupings
of water users need to be developed.
Only a ranking of impacting sources exists for each RBD;
Next Step
Cost-effectiveness Analysis.
Supplementary information will be needed to support the three general
types of economic analysis below:
Uncertainty / Data Gap
Topic/Issue
Table 6-5: Economic analysis of water Use (Uncertainties, data gaps and next steps
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
chapter 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The immediate next steps to be taken are to plan detailed work programmes in early 2005 to address the
uncertainties and data gaps listed above by 2008. This will be directed by the National Coordination
Group led by the Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government, coordinated through the
National Technical Coordination Group led by the EPA and implemented by local authorities through the
River Basin Districts.
Looking forward, the Irish Regulations (SI 722, 2003) specified the key milestones in the next phase of
the planning cycle, leading up to the production of the draft River Basin Management Plan in 2008. They
are:
Develop Classification systems for surface waters and groundwater
Establishing and maintaining appropriate Monitoring Programmes Such monitoring must cover both surface and groundwater and must be
operational by 22nd December 2006.
Prepare and publish a Work Programme and Timetable for the
production of River Basin Management Plans.
22nd June 2007
Prepare and publish an overview of the significant water management
issues identified in each river basin.
22nd June 2008
Prepare and publish draft River Basin Management Plans and allow six
months for written comment.
Publish a draft Programmes of Measures and allow six months for
written comment.
22nd June 2006
page 155
[ The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts ]
List of Maps in Chapter 6
Map 6-1
Map 6-2
Map 6-3
Map 6-4
Map 6-5
page 156
National Groundwater Bodies Assessment Summary
National River Water Bodies Assessment Summary
National Lake Water Bodies Assessment Summary
National Transitional Water Bodies Assessment Summary
National Coastal Water Bodies Assessment Summary