evidence pack for savick brook and ribble...

17/02/2016

1

1

Evidence + Measures Phase 3: Tidal Ribble Water Bodies

Measures Workshop, 14 August 2012

Evidence Pack for Savick Brook and Ribble Link

pjHYDRO

Identifying causes of failure and selecting measures operationally

Prepared by P Hulme and N Rukin

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

For more details contact:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

2

Copyright

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

Agency to pjHYDRO Limited and to RUKHYDRO Limited.

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

Environment Agency.

Document Status

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

Measures Workshop, 14 August 2012.

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

numbering.)

Reviewed by the Environment Agency 2016.

Dissemination Status

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

Copyright and status

mailto:[email protected]




17/02/2016

2

3

Savick Brook & Ribble Link

Savick Brook & Ribble Link Overview Maps & Charts

Savick Brook & Subcatchments

– Top of Savick (u/s 88003570)

– Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573)

– Sharoe Brook u/s 88003574

– Bottom of Savick Brook (including Ribble Link) (u/s 88003575)

4

Savick Brook & Ribble Link

Overview Maps and Charts

17/02/2016

3

5

Fig 1.1 Savick Brook & Ribble Link:

Water bodies (WBs), catchments, monitoring points (MPs) & topo contours

OS 10 m contours

WFD monitoring points

Other monitoring points

Sandy BrookEaves Brook

Sharoe Brook

Savick Brook

Ribble Link

MP 8803575

6


Suspected problems identified by EA Staff

Dashed line marks divide between 2 WBs:

Ribble Link to the west (d/s)

Savick Brook WB to east (u/s)

MP 8803575

17/02/2016

4

7

Fig 1.3 Savick Brook & Ribble Link: Pressures

NIRS (Water_selected)

Discharges

MP 8803575

8

Fig 1.4 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :

Subcatchments (to WQ monitoring points)

OS 10 m contours




Sharoe Brook

Savick Brook

Ribble Link

MP 8803575

17/02/2016

5

9

5%5%7%18%17%

7%

21%

1%

9%14%

31%

53%48%

43%

37%

13%

71%61%

49%

18%20%

37%29%

73%

5%5%

3%1%3%5%5%

10%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

Above88003569

3569-3570Above88022980

3570-3571Above88003573

Above88003574

3571-35753575-3576

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f To

tal L

an

d U

se

in

Wa

ter

Bo

dy (

%)

Land Use - Summary CategoriesSea/Estuary

Saltmarsh

Inland Water

Woodland

Semi Natural

Arable

Grass

Suburban/rural development

Urban

Source of Data: Environment Agency summaries from CEH data

Sandy Brook

Eaves Brook

Sharoe Brook

Upper and lower sub-catchments are less

urban and dominated by managed

grassland

UpstreamDownstream


Land Use (2000)

10

Source: Historical urban development data provided by Lancashire County Council

Downstream of Sharoe Brook is

pre-1963 but some 1976-1991

Ptc Sandy Brook 1976-1991

Parts of Eaves Brook pre 1900

Parts of Sharoe Brook 1963-1991


Urban Development in Preston

17/02/2016

6

11

South Fylde Drain Sites (2010 onwards)

8800356988003569 -

88003570

88022980

(Sandy Brook)

88003573

(Eaves Brook)

03574

(Sharoe Brook)

88003570 -

8800357188003571 -

88003575

14.614.4

21.3

1.4

19.9

9.59.48.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

5.36.64.72.25.96.75.47.7

Above88003569

3569-3570Above88022980

3570-3571Above88003573

Above88003574

3571-35753575-3576

Nu

mb

er

of

Se

pti

c T

an

ks

pe

r k

m2

Density of Septic Tanks in Savick Brook Subcatchments

Septic Tank Density

88003575 -

88003576

Septic tanks throughout, although very few on

Savick Brook between Sandy Brook and Eaves

Brook

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


Septic Tanks

12

8800356988003569 -

88003570

88022980

(Sandy Brook)

88003573

(Eaves Brook)

03574

(Sharoe Brook)

88003570 -

8800357188003571 -

88003575

88003575 -

88003576

Many sewage related discharges (red and

amber) (some have been revoked now)

Come back to how consents have

changed over time soon.



Consented Discharges

17/02/2016

7

13

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

5.36.64.72.25.96.75.47.7

Above88003569

3569-3570Above88022980

3570-3571Above88003573

Above88003574

3571-35753575-3576

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

ns

en

ted

Dis

ch

arg

es

pe

r k

m2

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

Sewerage Network - Sewers - water company

Sewerage Network - Pumping Station - water company

Sewage Disposal Works - water company

Sewage disposal works - other

Other Tourist/Short Stay Accommodation

Mixed Farming

Domestic Property (Multiple)

Domestic Property (Single)

General Construction Work


Sandy Brook

Eaves Brook

Sharoe Brook


Consented Discharges (2005-2009)

14

Source: Maps from Lancs. River Authority Reports

Upstream of M6 “Very bad”,

Lower Eaves Brook, Sharoe

Brook and d/s of Sharoe Brook

“Poor and bad”

88003569

88003570

8800357188022980

88003574 88003573

Blue Very clean and clean

Grey Fairly clean and doubtful

Red Poor and bad

Yellow Very bad

Sharoe Brook -

- Eaves Brook

- Sandy Brook

88003575

88003576

Upstream bad quality predates main

intensification of agriculture in the 80s ?

Sandy Brook and

upstream of Eaves

Brook fairly clean


General Water Quality in 1962

17/02/2016

8

15

Source: Maps from Lancs. River Authority Reports

Upstream of M6 and Eaves

Brook “Grossly Polluted”, others

are “Doubtful Quality”

Class 1 Unpolluted

Class 2 Doubtful Quality

Class 3 Poor Quality

Class 4 Grossly Polluted

Sharoe Brook -

Eaves Brook

88003575


General Water Quality in 1970

16

45

43

54

2

2

3

3

1

5

3

1

3

34

1

5

3

1

2

33

2

2

2

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

at GrimsarghRoad Bridge

ptc SandyBrook

ptc SavickBrook

ptc EavesBrook

ptc SavickBrook

ptc SavickBrook

Ribble LinkCanal at Lea

Rd

ptc Ribble

8800356988003570880229808800357188003573880035748800357588003576

Savick BrookSavick BrookSandy BrookSavick BrookEaves BrookSharoe BrookSavick BrookSavick Brook

WF

D S

co

re (

Hig

h =

5, G

oo

d =

4, M

od

era

te =

3, P

oo

r =

2 &

Ba

d =

1)

Average WFD Water Quality Status (1990-1994)

Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score

90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score

90%ile BOD WFD Score

10%ile DO% WFD score


Sandy Brook

Eaves Brook

Sharoe Brook

Phosphate is generally poor

BOD & NH4-N poor through Preston

(except Sharoe Brook)Fig 1.12 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :

WFD WQ Status (1990-1994)

17/02/2016

9

17

555555

34

21

4

2

4

4

3

2

4

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20


ptc SandyBrook

ptc SavickBrook

ptc EavesBrook

ptc SavickBrook

ptc SavickBrook


Rd

ptc Ribble

8800356988003570880229808800357188003573880035748800357588003576


WF

D S

co

re (

Hig

h =

5, G

oo

d =

4, M

od

era

te =

3, P

oo

r =

2 &

Ba

d =

1)







Sandy Brook

Eaves Brook

Sharoe Brook

WQ improved generally since 1990-1994

– see Figure 1.9Fig 1.13 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :

WFD WQ Status (1995-1999)

18

555555

444333

444

334

222

32

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20


ptc SandyBrook

ptc SavickBrook

ptc EavesBrook

ptc SavickBrook

ptc SavickBrook


Rd

ptc Ribble

8800356988003570880229808800357188003573880035748800357588003576


WF

D S

co

re (

Hig

h =

5, G

oo

d =

4, M

od

era

te =

3, P

oo

r =

2 &

Ba

d =

1)







Sandy Brook

Eaves Brook

Sharoe Brook

Phosphate is generally poor, slightly

better in Eaves Brook

BOD & NH4-N poorest in Eaves / Sharoe


WFD WQ Status (2000-2005) (More recent data is limited)

WQ improved generally since 1995-1999

– see Figure 1.10

17/02/2016

10

19

82.7

88.885.2

81.483.484.282.7

89.486.0

79.7

84.981.5

67.2

72.469.4

54.8

73.1

66.4

53.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


ptc SandyBrook

ptc SavickBrook

ptc EavesBrook

ptc SavickBrook

ptc SavickBrook


Rd

ptc Ribble

8800356988003570880229808800357188003573880035748800357588003576


Ave

rag

e 1

0%

ile

Dis

so

lve

d O

xyg

en

(%

sa

t)

Average 10%ile Dissolved Oxygen (1990-2005)

2000-2005

1995-1999

1990-1994

Open symbols are tributaries


Sandy Brook

DO has improved since early

1990s, but there is still a

deterioration through Preston

Eaves & Sharoe Brook both have

lower DO than Savick Brook

UpstreamDownstream

Good

Bad


Downstream DO changes (1990 – 2005)

20

4.04.54.3

6.05.1

5.75.5

4.4

6.6

12.4

4.1

6.96.5

5.9

5.2

13.1

3.7

6.3

9.3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


ptc SandyBrook

ptc SavickBrook

ptc EavesBrook

ptc SavickBrook

ptc SavickBrook


Rd

ptc Ribble

8800356988003570880229808800357188003573880035748800357588003576


Ave

rag

e 9

0%

ile

BO

D (

mg

/l)

Average Annual 90%ile BOD Concentration (1990-2005)

2000-2005

1995-1999

1990-1994



Sandy Brook

BOD has improved since early



Eaves Brook not good for BOD

Sharoe Brook has changed

UpstreamDownstream

Bad

Good


Downstream BOD changes (1990 – 2005)

17/02/2016

11

21

0.40.3

0.4

0.9

0.9

0.5

0.50.3

0.9

1.6

0.60.6

0.70.7

0.5

3.0

0.3

0.7

2.8

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5


ptc SandyBrook

ptc SavickBrook

ptc EavesBrook

ptc SavickBrook

ptc SavickBrook


Rd

ptc Ribble

8800356988003570880229808800357188003573880035748800357588003576


Avera

ge 9

0%

ile A

mm

onia

cal N

itro

gen C

oncentr

ation (m

g/l)

Average 90%ile Ammoniacal Nitrogen (1990 -2005)

2000-2005

1995-1999

1990-1994



Sandy Brook

NH4 has improved since early



Eaves Brook not good for NH4-N

Sharoe Brook also adds to loading

UpstreamDownstream

Bad

Good


Downstream NH4-N changes (1990 – 2005)

22

0.371

0.3010.267

0.205

0.447

0.251

0.416

0.3230.328

0.256

0.413

0.319

0.310

0.2480.223

0.666

0.3420.328

0.668

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0


ptc SandyBrook

ptc SavickBrook

ptc EavesBrook

ptc SavickBrook

ptc SavickBrook


Rd

ptc Ribble

8800356988003570880229808800357188003573880035748800357588003576


Annual A

vera

ge P

hosphate

Concentr

ation (m

g/l)

Average Rolling Annual Average Phosphate Concentration (1990 -2005)

2000-2005

1995-1999

1990-1994



Sandy Brook

PO4 has improved since early

1990s and now improves

through Preston

Eaves Brook better now for PO4

Sharoe Brook has got worse

UpstreamDownstream

Bad

Good


Downstream PO4 changes (1990 – 2005)

17/02/2016

12

23

4.04.54.36.05.15.7

82.7

88.885.2

81.483.484.2

0.4

0.3

0.4

0.90.9

0.5

0.371

0.3010.267

0.205

0.447

0.251

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


ptc SandyBrook

ptc SavickBrook

ptc EavesBrook

ptc SavickBrook

ptc SavickBrook


Rd

ptc Ribble

8800356988003570880229808800357188003573880035748800357588003576


Am

mo

nia

ca

l N

itro

ge

n a

nd

Ph

os

ph

ate

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

ns

(m

g/l

)

Dis

so

lve

d O

xyg

en

(%

sa

t) a

nd

BO

D (

mg

/l)

Average WFD Water Quality Concentrations (2000-2005)

90%ile BOD (mg/l)

10%ile DO%

90%ile Tot NH4_N (mg/l N)

Rolling Annual Average PO4 (mg/l)


Sandy Brook

PO4 decreases

NH4-N & BOD increases

DO decreases (from 88003570)

Eaves & Sharoe Brook high NH4-N

Eaves low PO4, Sharoe high PO4

Savick

Brook

Trends

UpstreamDownstream Upstream

With

increasing

urban area


Downstream WFD WQ Trends (Average for 2000 – 2005)

24

SIMCAT Report (WRc, 2008 for UKWIR)

WW17C205 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS FOR POINT

AND DIFFUSE SOURCE POLLUTION TO ACHIEVE WFD GOOD STATUS: RIBBLE

SIMCAT PILOT STUDY, WRc, 2008 for UKWIR

Table 41 Concentration Change on Wet Days

Site Site Name BOD NH4-N TON PO4-P DO

88003569 Savick Brook at Grimsargh Rd Br 47.30% 18.30% 24.40% 27.90% -4.40%

88003570 Savick Brook PTC Sandy Brook 57.70% 52.80% 19.50% 38.20% -7.70%

88003571 Savick Brook PTC Eaves Brook 67.10% 76.70% -12.50% 41.90% -5.40%

88003573 Eaves Brook PTC Savick Brook 63.20% 137.10% -13.20% 60.50% -6.50%

Notes:

1 Analysis reported in UKWIR WW17c205 Ribble Pilot Study Final Report

2 Wet Against Dry Analysis (WADI) for Period 1996-2005

3 Site Name from Table 39

4 % change appears to be calculated by (Wet mean - Dry mean)/((Wet mean + Dry mean)/2), but not exactly

Water quality deteriorates in wet periods(and this seems to get worse downstream and in Eaves Brook)

Upstream

Downstream

DO, BOD, NH4 and PO4 all

deteriorated in 1996-2005


General WQ at High Flows

17/02/2016

13

25

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

5.36.64.72.25.96.75.47.7

Above88003569

3569-3570Above88022980

3570-3571Above88003573

Above88003574

3571-35753575-3576

No

of

Re

po

rte

d I

nc

ide

nts

(2

00

1-2

01

0)

pe

r k

m2

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

Specific Waste MaterialsSewage MaterialsPollutant Not IdentifiedOther PollutantOrganic Chemicals/ProductsOils and FuelInorganic Chemicals/ProductsInert Materials and WastesGeneral Biodegradable Materials and WastesContaminated WaterAtmospheric Pollutants and EffectsAgricultural Materials and WastesCategory 1 (Major)Category 2 (Significant)Category 3 (Minor)



Sharoe Brook

Between Sandy Brook and Eaves Brook

there has been a lot of pollution,

particularly from sewage.


Pollution Events (2001-2010)

26

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.36.64.72.25.96.75.47.7

Above88003569

3569-3570Above88022980

3570-3571Above88003573

Above88003574

3571-35753575-3576

No

of

Re

po

rte

d I

nc

ide

nts

(2

00

1-2

01

0)

pe

r k

m2

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

Storm Sewage

Other Sewage Material

Grey Water

Final Effluent

Crude Sewage

Category 1 (Major)

Category 2 (Significant)

Category 3 (Minor)


Sandy Brook

Eaves Brook

Sharoe Brook

Between Sandy Brook and Eaves Brook

there has been a lot of pollution related to

crude sewage.Fig 1.22 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :

Sewage Material Pollution Events (2001-2010)

Wrong connections problems between

Sandy Brook and Eaves Brook, in Eaves

Brook and especially in Sharoe Brook

17/02/2016

14

27

88003570 -88003571

Sharoe Brook(Lot of Grey Water)

3571-3575(+0.55 wrong connections as

"contaminated water")

WreaBrook

Pool Stream

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Se

wa

ge M

ate

ria

ls N

IRS

Po

llu

tio

n I

nc

ide

nts

(2

00

1-2

01

0)

(No

/km

2)

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

Sewage Materials: Discharge Consents and NIRS

Savick Brook Subcatchments

South Fylde Drains


Broad correlation between sewage

NIRS and consented sewage

related discharges = Failure rate?

Failure rate = 1 in 10 yrs

per consent

Failure rate = 1 in 20 yrs

per consent

(CSOs, PS EOs & STWs)


Sewage Pollution from Consented Discharges

28

16.6

68.9

1.6

44.3

4.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

GB112071065470

Ph

os

ph

ate

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (

µg

/l)

SAGIS Modelled and Measured Phosphate in Savick Brook

OnSiteSTWs

Background

Atmosphere

Urban

Highways

Arable

Livestock

Mines

Industry

Intermittents

Sewage Works

Measured

Livestock, Intermittents and “Urban” dominate

Measured

Source of Data: Environment Agency / Work done WRc, 2012

Source apportionment

to be developed

further in separate

presentation


General WQ at High Flows

17/02/2016

15

29

88003569

Surveys in 2001 ( ), (2004) and 2011


Fish Survey Locations

30

M6 Bridge

Migery Lane

Sharoe Green(d/s Sandy Brk)

Haslam Park(d/s Eaves, u/s Sharoe)

Barry Avenue(d/s Sharoe Brook)

Lea Road

Ashton & Lea Golf Course

PrestonGolf Course

(u/s Sandy Brook)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

348000 349000 350000 351000 352000 353000 354000 355000 356000 357000 358000

NF

CS

Gra

de

(A

=6

, F

=1

)

Easting

Downstream Changes in Fish on Savick Brook - Rheophillic Fish

May-01

May-04

Sep-11


Significant decline in

Rheophillic Fish since 2001

(Ribble Link constructed 2002)


Rheophillic Fish (Flowing water loving fish)

17/02/2016

16

31

M6 Bridge

Migery Lane

Sharoe Green(d/s Sandy Brk)

Haslam Park(d/s Eaves, u/s Sharoe)

Barry Avenue(d/s Sharoe Brook)

Lea Road

Ashton & Lea Golf Course

Grimsargh Rd Bridge

ptc with Sandy Brook

ptc with Eaves Brook

Ribble Link Canal at Lea Road

Eaves Brook

Sharoe Brook

0

3

6

9

12

15

348000 350000 352000 354000 356000 358000 360000

NF

CS

Gra

de

(A

=6

, F

=1

) &

WF

D W

ate

r Q

ua

lity

Sta

tus

Easting

Downstream Changes on Savick Brook - Rheophillic Fish & WQ in 2001

May-01∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15)∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15)

WFD Water Quality Status∑WFD scores DO, BOD and NH4-N each out of 5 where 5=High, 4=Good, 3=Moderate, 2=Poor, 1=Bad. So totalled 15=High, 12=Good, 9=Moderate, 6=Poor and 3=Bad.


Drop in Fish in 2001

plausibly related to WQ


Rheophillic Fish & WQ (Downstream Changes)

32


Top of Savick (u/s/ 88003570)

Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573)

Sharoe Brook u/s 88003574

Bottom of Savick (d/s 88003570) (including Ribble Link)

17/02/2016

17

33


Top of Savick (u/s 88003570) (split also to u/s 88003569)




34Fig 2.1 Top of Savick u/s 88003570: WFD classes

Savick Brook

u/s 88003570

Hydromorphological Status : Heavily Modified

Ecological Quality: Moderate Potential

Biological quality

Fish

MP 13817: Bad

MP 4364: Bad

Inverts

MP 68117: Mod

ASPT: Mod

NTAXA: Good

Physico-chemical quality

Ammonia

MP 88003569: Good

MP 88003570: Good

DO

MP 88003569: High

MP 88003570: High

pH

MP 88003569: High

MP 88003570: lower=High, upper=Mod

Phosphate

MP 88003569: Poor

MP 88003570: Poor

Sources: EA website,

WB_SPT_Classification_all_IAP.xls (A Hartland)

•WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate

17/02/2016

18

35

Fig 2.2 Top of Savick (u/s 88003570):


OS 10 m contours



36



17/02/2016

19

37Fig 2.4 Top of Savick (u/s 88003570): Pressures


Discharges

38


Orange blobs are

the combined

WFD status


General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH4 & PO4)

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010

Inve

rte

bra

tes

(A

SP

T S

co

re -

La

b d

ata

) &

GQ

A W

Q

WF

D S

co

re (

Hig

h =

5,

Go

od

= 4

, M

od

era

te =

3,

Po

or

= 2

& L

ow

= 1

)

Savick Brook at Grimsargh Rd Br - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates





∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15)

∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20)

ASPT

GQA WQ (No PO4) (A=6, F=1)

WQ was very bad in

1962 and poor in 1970PO4 is poor

17/02/2016

20

39




0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1950 to1959

1960 to1969

1970 to1979

1980 to1984

1985 to1989

1990 to1994

1995 to1999

2000 to2004

2005 to2009

2010 to2015

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

ns

en

ted

Dis

ch

arg

es

pe

r k

m2

Savick Brook Grimsargh Rd Br (88003569) Consented Discharges (Selected)

Sewerage Network - Sewers - water companySewerage Network - Pumping Station - water companySewage Disposal Works - water companySewage disposal works - otherOther Tourist/Short Stay AccommodationMixed FarmingDomestic Property (Multiple)Domestic Property (Single)Public Houses and Bars

40

Table 2.1a Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): Strength of Evidence

WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate

Suspected causes Line of evidence A

(variation across WBs)

Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score

1) Agriculture 1) Land use: 71%

managed grassland

(high), 9% Arable (Fig

1.5)

2) NIRS: 0.00/km2 (low)

(Fig 1.21)

0

-

1) WQ at 88003569 is

often good to high status

for DO, BOD and NH4

but poor for PO4, it

shows no long term

trend between 1990 and

2006 (Fig 2.5), in a

period when there was

increased consenting of

septic tanks and

Brambles PSO (Fig 2.6)

– suggests agriculture

(or septic tanks) could

be source of PO4.

2) DO, BOD, NH4 and

PO4 all deteriorated

during wetter weather

over period 1996-2005.

(Fig 1.20). Suggests

agr. runoff or storm

sewage.

0

0

1) No upstream WQ

monitoring.

2) Dairy Farm suspected

cause noted by EA –

see Fig 2.3.

NE

+

SAGIS suggests

livestock accounts for

(68.9/155.8=) 44% of

measured PO4 (Also see

Intro Table 1.3)

concentration for whole

of Savick Brook (Fig

1.24) and this

subcatchment has a

high proportion of

managed grassland.

+

2) Sewage Sludge

Spreading

1) None 0 NE 0

What does each piece of evidence tell us about each suspected cause of WFD failure in this WB?

Scores: evidence support s [+], evidence opposes [-], evidence is uncertain [0], no evidence [NE], evidence not applicable [NA]

Example: PO4 = good which opposes Ag being cause of P failure, so this line of evidence given [-] score;

NH3 = mod which supports Ag being cause of P failure, so this line of evidence given [+] score

17/02/2016

21

41

Table 2.1b Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): Strength of Evidence




Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)


2) Sewage 1) Land use: 14%

urb/suburban (low -

mod) (Fig 1.5)

2) NIRS: 0.75 /km2

(mod) (Fig 1.22)

0

+

1) See (1) under

Agriculture above.

2) See (2) under

Agriculture above.

3) WQ was “Very Bad”

in 1962 implying a

sewage source if agr

expansion was in

1970s/1980s. (Fig 1.10)

0

0

+

1) No upstream WQ

monitoring.0

2a) STWs

(non-W Co)

1) 1 public house

2) No Final effluent

NIRS or NIRS linked to

consented discharges of

this type.

0

-

1) No upstream WQ

monitoring.0

2b) Septic tanks 1) 14.6/km2 (Mod)

2) 2 septic tank NIRS 0

+

1) See (1) under

Agriculture re ongoing

background PO4

pollution.

0 1) No upstream WQ

monitoring.

2) Septic tanks near

Longridge noted to be a

probable cause by EA

(see Fig 2.3)

0

+

PO4 S/Appt, SAGIS &

local estimate 2% - 3%

over whole of Savick

Brook (Intro Table 1.3).

But a higher density in

this area. (Fig 2.4)

+

42



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)


2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: 0.19 /km2 (low)

1 grey water event

related to a barn

conversion. (Fig 1.22)

+

2c) Intermittents

(CSOs & PSOs)

1) NIRS: 0.37 /km2

(mod) for Storm Sewage

related to 2 NIRS events

on Longridge CSO in

2009 and 2010. (Fig

1.22)

2) No work planned for

Longridge CSO or

Brambles PSO under

AMP5 (Preston 32 and

7) schemes.

-

0

1) WQ at 88003569

shows a number or

poorer WQ events with

poorer NH4, BOD and

DO (Fig 2.5) possibly

related to storm events

but could be agricultural

runoff or storm sewage.

2) See (2) under

Agriculture poorer WQ

during wetter periods

possibly related to storm

sewage (or agriculture).

0

0

Table 2.1c Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): Strength of Evidence


17/02/2016

22

43



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)


3) Landfill 1) 0.0% area of

catchment

2) No landfill related

NIRS

+

-

1) Fulwood District

Council Tip (1960-1975)

located ~500m NE of

WQ monitoring point.

Type of waste unknown

0

4) Geomorph 1) Straightened / re-

sectioned near

Longridge, but otherwise

semi-natural. (Intro Fig

1.16)

2) DO often high status

suggesting

geomorphology does

not limit aeration.

0

-

Not applicable

5) Industry 1) 1 Cat 2 NIRS event

related to acrylic paint

and 2 Cat 3 NIRS

events related to epoxy-

resins and timber.

(Events will not

necessarily change NH4,

BOD and PO4).

0

Table 2.1d Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): Strength of Evidence


44

Suspected

causes

Conclusions

Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team)

Agriculture The evidence for farming being a cause is

not strong, but it dominates the land use and

SAGIS notes it will be contributing PO4.

Dairy (and pig?) farming is likely to be a

significant part of the problem.

Develop measures to deal with livestock

problems (e.g. nutrient management

plans, slurry stores and silage clamps).

Sewage Sludge

Spreading

None Not part of the problem Review if sewage sludge spreading is

proposed in future.

Sewage (in

general)

Except for NIRS events, and increased

consenting of sewage related discharges,

evidence is inconclusive.

Part of the problem (at least in the past) See details below

STWs

(non-W Co)

Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem. None

Septic Tanks Evidence is limited and weak but points

towards septic tanks being part of the

problem.

Septic tanks are likely to be part of the

problem.

Monitor WQ u/s of UU CSO and PSO to

check for influence of septic tanks in

Longridge and if shows less than good

status WQ consider a septic tank

campaign, which if successful in

improving WQ can be used to

communicate benefits elsewhere.

Table 2.2a Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): ConclusionsWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate

Which suspected causes need to have something done about them?

You should expect that more than one suspected cause will need attention.

17/02/2016

23

45

Suspected

causes

Conclusions


CSWs Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem. Review NIRS in 2 years time to check for

any increase in wrong connection related

events.

Intermittents

(CSOs & PSs)

Evidence is limited, but NIRS and increased

consenting point towards CSOs and PSOs

being a problem (at least in the past) and

plausibly explain the deterioration in water

quality in wet periods.

Part of the problem (at least in the past) Check CSO and PSO failure rate with

UU. There are no planned schemes

under UU AMP5 plans.

Landfill Evidence is circumstantial only Cannot rule out, but insufficient

evidence to drive significant measure.

Review landfill impact again after farming

and septic tank / storm sewage (?)

problems addressed.

Geomorphology Limited evidence, but consistent in

suggesting not a significant problem.

Not a significant part of the problem. None

Industry Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem,

localised effect only.

Review NIRS in 2 years time and liaise

with industry re future pollution

prevention measures.

Table 2.2b Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): ConclusionsWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate

46

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010

Inve

rte

bra

tes

(A

SP

T S

co

re -

La

b d

ata

) &

GQ

A W

Q

WF

D S

co

re (

Hig

h =

5,

Go

od

= 4

, M

od

era

te =

3,

Po

or

= 2

& B

ad

= 1

)

Savick Brook ptc Sandy Brook - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates







BMWP



Orange blobs are

the combined

WFD status



WQ was very bad in

1962 and poor in 1970

PO4 is poor

DO & BOD improves

from 1985-1995

17/02/2016

24

47




0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1950 to1959

1960 to1969

1970 to1979

1980 to1984

1985 to1989

1990 to1994

1995 to1999

2000 to2004

2005 to2009

2010 to2015

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

ns

en

ted

Dis

ch

arg

es

pe

r k

m2

Savick Brook (Grimsargh to ptc Sandy Brook) Consented Discharges (Selected)

Sewerage Network - Sewers - water companySewerage Network - Pumping Station - water companySewage Disposal Works - water companySewage disposal works - otherOther Tourist/Short Stay AccommodationMixed FarmingDomestic Property (Multiple)Domestic Property (Single)General Construction Work

Mainly domestic property,

mixed farming, STWs and

Cow Hill CSO

48

Table 2.3a Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): Strength of Evidence




Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)



managed grassland

(high), 14% Arable. (Fig

1.5)

2) NIRS: 0.30/km2 (high)

– 1 Cat 2 event related

to leakage of silage

liquor from silo in 2010

and 1 Cat 3 event

related to dairy slurry

spreading in 2001 (Fig

1.21)

3) 2 Mixed Farming

consented discharges

(Greenhouse Farm and

The Mount)

0

+

0

1) WQ at 88003570

improved significantly

1985-1995 (Fig 2.7), in

a period when there was

increased consenting of

non-UU sewage

disposal works (Fig 2.8).

PO4 remains poor status

throughout suggesting

other source including

agriculture.

2) DO, BOD, NH4 and


worse than upstream at

88003569 during wetter

weather over period

1996-2005.

(Fig 1.20). Suggests

agr. Runoff or storm

sewage.

0

0

1) DO, BOD, NH4 and

PO4 all improve from

88003569 to 88003570

(Figs 1.15-1.19) – as a

result of proportionally

less agriculture

compared to u/s.

Suggest agriculture

could still be contributor.

2) 2 areas of dairy farm

suspected causes noted

by EA – see Fig 2.3.

0

+

SAGIS suggests


(68.9/155.8=) 44% of

measured PO4



1.24) and this

subcatchment has a

high proportion of

managed grassland.

+

2) Sewage Sludge

Spreading

1) None 0 NE 0

17/02/2016

25

49

Table 2.3b Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): Strength of Evidence




Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)



urb/suburban (low -

mod)

2) NIRS: 0.91 /km2

(mod-high) (Fig 1.22)

0

+

1) See (1) under

Agriculture above

(suggests at least past

problems with sewage).

2) See (2) under

Agriculture above.

+

0

1) See (1) under

Agriculture above – WQ

improves with greater

urban / less agriculture

-

2a) STWs

(non-W Co)

1) 0.61/km2 (4 disposals

in 2005-15, 3 disposals

1990 -2004) (Fig 1.22)




this type.

0

-

1) See (1) under

Agriculture above

(suggests at least past

problems with sewage

reduced through

increased consents).

+ 1) See (1) under

Agriculture above – if

STWs are contributing

their contribution is less

than from u/s sources

(ag + septic tanks?)

0

2b) Septic tanks 1) 14.4/km2 (Mod)

2) 1 septic tank NIRS

0

+

1) No upstream WQ

monitoring.

2) Septic tanks not

noted to be a probable

cause by EA (see Fig

2.3)

0

-

PO4 S/Appt, SAGIS &

local estimate 2% - 3%

over whole of Savick

Brook (Intro Table 1.3).

But a higher density in

this area. (Fig 2.4)

+

50



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)


2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: 0.30 /km2 (low)

2 wrong connections

noted (see Fig 2.4).

+ 1) New housing noted to

be a probable cause by

EA (see Fig 2.4)

+

2c) Intermittents

(CSOs & PSOs)

1) NIRS: 0.00 /km2 for

Storm Sewage related

but two related to crude

sewer outfalls.

2) 1 CSO at Cow Hill.

3) UU plan 3,510m3 of

extra “Storm storage,

Static Screen & Event

Logging” (UU ref

PRE0015)

+

0

+

1) See (2) under

Agriculture poorer WQ

during wetter periods

possibly related to storm

sewage (or agriculture).

2) Cow Hill CSO

consented in 1995,

improved in 2009 and

will be improved again in

2012 (suggests it

needed improving?)

0

+

Table 2.3c Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): Strength of Evidence


17/02/2016

26

51



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)



catchment) (Fig 1.4)


NIRS

0

-

1) Kitchen Green Tip –

Fulwood Row - received

some domestic waste

1981-1984.

0

4) Geomorph 1) Semi-natural


suggesting

geomorphology does

not limit aeration.

-

-

Not applicable N/A

5) Industry 1) No Industry related

NIRS

0

6) M6 1) Crosses WB

2) Unlikely source of

BOD, NH4 and PO4

3) No mention of M6 in

NIRS data.

0

-

-

Table 2.3d Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): Strength of Evidence


52

Suspected

causes

Conclusions



not strong, but it is still the largest land use

and SAGIS notes it will be contributing PO4.

Dairy (and pig?) farming is likely to be a

significant part of the problem.




Sewage Sludge

Spreading


proposed in future.

Sewage (in

general)

Except for NIRS events, and increased

consenting of sewage related discharges,

evidence is inconclusive.

Part of the problem (at least in the past) See details below

STWs

(non-W Co)

Evidence is limited and weak, but points

towards disposals at least being a past

problem.

Cannot rule out, and could be part of

the problem.

Review size and operation / maintenance

of these schemes.

Septic Tanks Evidence is limited and weak. Septic tanks are probably part of the

background PO4 problem.

Depending on outcome of 88003569

suggested measure, extend campaign to

this sub-catchment.

Table 2.4a Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): ConclusionsWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate

17/02/2016

27

53

Suspected

causes

Conclusions


CSWs Evidence is limited, but consistent. A minor part of the problem Review NIRS in 2 years time to check for


events. Take Yellow Fish campaign to

problem areas?

Intermittents

(CSOs & PSs)

Evidence is broadly consistent in suggesting

Cow Hill CSO has at least been part of the

problem in the past.

Part of the problem (at least in the past) Review WQ data after UU have

implemented plans for increased storm

storage at Cow Hill CSO.

Landfill Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem,


Review landfill impact again in future

once other causes have been addressed.

Geomorphology Limited evidence, but consistent in

suggesting not a significant problem.


Industry Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem,





M6 Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem. None

Table 2.4b Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): ConclusionsWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate

54


Top of Savick (u/s 88003570)




17/02/2016

28

55Fig 3.1 Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): WFD classes

Eaves Brook

u/s 88003573



Biological quality

Fish: NA Inverts

MP 65405: Bad

ASPT: Bad

NTAXA: Poor


Ammonia

MP 88003573: Poor

DO

MP 88003573: High

pH

MP 88003573: High

Phosphate

MP 88003573: Mod



•WFD failures: inverts, ammonia phosphate

56

Fig 3.2 Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573):


OS 10 m contours



MP 8803572

17/02/2016

29

57



MP 8803572

The locations of suspected problems were placed on this map at initial meetings. They do

not indicate locations of confirmed or ongoing problems. The information covers a period

from the early 1990s to 2011.

58Fig 3.4 Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Pressures


Discharges

MP 8803572

17/02/2016

30

59

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010

Inve

rte

bra

tes

(A

SP

T S

co

re -

La

b d

ata

)

WF

D S

co

re (

Hig

h =

5,

Go

od

= 4

, M

od

era

te =

3,

Po

or

= 2

& L

ow

= 1

)

Eaves Brook at Longridge Rd - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates

90%ile BOD WFD Score90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score10%ile DO% WFD scoreRolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15)∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20)BMWP


Orange blobs are

the combined

WFD status



PO4 was good to high

status until 1992

WQ variable and

dips in 1990

60

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010

Inve

rte

bra

tes

(A

SP

T S

co

re -

La

b d

ata

) &

GQ

A W

Q

WF

D S

co

re (

Hig

h =

5,

Go

od

= 4

, M

od

era

te =

3,

Po

or

= 2

& L

ow

= 1

)

Eaves Brook ptc Savick Brook - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates







BMWP



Orange blobs are

the combined

WFD status



WQ improves by 2000 ?

PO4 deteriorates

with BOD & NH4

WQ quite variable

17/02/2016

31

61

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1950 to1959

1960 to1969

1970 to1979

1980 to1984

1985 to1989

1990 to1994

1995 to1999

2000 to2004

2005 to2009

2010 to2015

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

ns

en

ted

Dis

ch

arg

es

pe

r k

m2

Eaves Brook Consented Discharges (Selected)





Poorly controlled until

1990, then mainly CSOs

62



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)



managed grassland

(high), 3% Arable.

2) Managed grassland

above appears to be

common land /

grassland rather than

farmed land.


3) 0 Mixed Farming


0

-

-

-

1) WQ at 88003572 at

Longridge Rd had

generally good to high

status PO4 although

variable DO, NH4 and

BOD (Fig 3.5). u/s of

here also contains Red

Scar Ind estate (with

non UU sewer or

septic?) and some

landfill.

0

1) DO, BOD, NH4 and

PO4 all deteriorate

downstream from

88003572 (Fig 3.5) to

88003573 (Fig 3.6)

where there is no

agricultural land.

2) Farming not flagged

as issue by EA staff –

see Fig 3.3.

-

-

2) Sewage Sludge

Spreading

1) None 0 NE 0

Table 3.1a Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: inverts, ammonia, phosphate

17/02/2016

32

63



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)



urb/suburban (high)

2) NIRS: 1.18 /km2 (mod

-high)

0

+

1) WQ at 88003573 at

Longridge Rd improves

from ~1995 to 1999 with

improved DO, BOD and

NH4 although worse PO4

(Fig 3.6) at time of

improved consenting of

discharges (Fig 3.7) and

thereafter has some

marked deteriorations in

WQ.

2) DO, BOD, NH4 and


during wetter weather

over period 1996-2005.

(Fig 1.20) and in

absence of significant

agriculture suggests

sewage.

+

+

1) See (1) under

Agriculture above – WQ

deteriorates significantly

through urban /

suburban catchment.

+

2a) STWs

(non-W Co)

1) None since 2000




this type.

-

-

Table 3.1b Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: inverts, ammonia, phosphate

64



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)


2b) Septic tanks (&

non UU sewerage)

1) 19.9/km2 (High)

properties more than 100

m from UU sewer but

many may be on private

sewer at Red Scar

Industrial Estate.

2) No septic tank NIRS

3) 2 crude sewage NIRS

on Red Scar Ind Estate

0

-

+

1) WQ at 88003572 at

Longridge Rd had

generally good to high

status PO4 although

variable DO, NH4 and

BOD (Fig 3.5). u/s of

here also contains Red

Scar Ind estate (with non

UU sewer or septic?) and

some landfill.

0 1) No upstream WQ

monitoring.

2) Sewage at Red Scar

Ind Estate (non UU sewer

or septic tanks?) not



3.3)

0

+

2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: 0.00 /km2 (see

Fig X.3).-

2c) Intermittents

(CSOs & PSOs)


Crude and Storm

Sewage –detail shows 4

sewage events (2003-10)

related to CSOs.

2) CSOs No = 5 2000-4,

3 2005-9, 2 in 2010-15.

3) UU plan 800m3 of

extra “Storm storage at

Watling St CSO +Screen

& Event Logging there

and at Victoria Rd CSOs

+

+

+

1) See (1) under Sewage

above – WQ improves

when CSOs improved.

2) See (2) under Sewage

above – WQ deteriorates

in wet weather and

agriculture is unlikely to

be significant factor.

+

+

1) See (1) under

Agriculture

2) Several CSOs flagged

as issue by EA staff –

see Fig 3.3.

+

+

Table 3.1c Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: inverts, ammonia, phosphate

17/02/2016

33

65



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)



catchment)

2) Some of the landfills

are for building and

“inert waste” but others

contain household

waste.

2) No reference to

landfill in NIRS data

0

+

-

4) Geomorph 1) Straightened / re-

sectioned / re-aligned

for most of its length and

culverted d/s of

Garstang Road (near

Savick Brook)

2) DO has reached high

status (1995-2006)

suggesting

geomorphology does

not limit aeration.

-

-

1) Culvert has

insufficient fall and leads

to septic conditions

according to EA staff –

see Fig 3.3.

+ Not applicable N/A

Table 3.1d Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of Evidence


66



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)


5) Industry 1) Red Scar Industrial

Estate

2) 40 NIRS events

related to neither

sewage or oils, but

unclear of impact on

DO, BOD, NH4 and PO4.

0

0

1) WQ at 88003572 at

Longridge Rd

deteriorated in late

1980s (Fig 3.5). u/s of

here contains Red Scar

Ind estate (with non UU

sewer or septic?).

0

6) M6 1) Crosses WB


BOD, NH4 and PO4


NIRS data.

0

-

-

Table 3.1e Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of Evidence


17/02/2016

34

67

Suspected

causes

Conclusions


Agriculture Evidence is limited and weak, but consistent

in suggesting agriculture is not a problem.

Not part of the problem No action, until other measures have

been successfully implemented.

Sewage Sludge

Spreading

None Not part of the problem No action, sewage spreading unlikely in

the future.

Sewage (in

general)

Evidence is consistent and strong in pointing

towards sewage being a problem.

Main part of the problem (at least in the

past)

See details below

STWs

(non-W Co)

None Not part of the problem None

Septic Tanks Evidence is inconsistent and weak, but points

towards septic tanks or non-UU sewers at

Red Scar Ind Estate being a possible cause


the problem.

Once UU CSO schemes have been put

in place investigate sewerage / septic

tank arrangements at Red Scar Industrial

Estate.

CSWs Evidence is very limited, but suggests not a

significant problem.

Not a significant part of the problem. Review NIRS in 2 years time to check for


events. If so, take Yellow Fish campaign

to problem areas?

Intermittents

(CSOs & PSs)

Evidence is consistent and strong suggesting

CSOs have been a significant problem at

least in the past.

Main part of the problem (at least in the

past)

Review WQ data after UU have

implemented AMP5 plans.

Table 3.2a Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: inverts, ammonia, phosphate

68

Suspected

causes

Conclusions


Landfill Evidence is limited and weak, but there are a

lot of landfills in this subcatchment.


the problem.

Review landfill impact again in future

once other causes have been addressed.

Geomorphology Evidence is limited and weak, but suggests

culverting may cause localised problem.

Not a significant part of the problem,


Review options for preventing stagnant

conditions developing in culverted

section.

Industry A lot of pollution events, but not obviously

linked to DO, BOD, NH4 and PO4 problems.

Otherwise evidence is limited and weak.


the problem.





Table 3.2b Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: inverts, ammonia, phosphate

17/02/2016

35

69






70Fig 4.1 Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): WFD classes

Sharoe Brook

u/s 88003574



Biological quality

Fish

Inverts


Ammonia

MP 88003574: Good

DO

MP 88003574: High

pH

MP 88003574: High

Phosphate

MP 88003574: Mod



•WFD failures: phosphate

17/02/2016

36

71

Fig 4.2 Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574):


OS 10 m contours



72



17/02/2016

37

73Fig 4.4 Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Pressures


Discharges

74

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010

Inve

rte

bra

tes

(A

SP

T S

co

re -

La

b d

ata

) &

GQ

A W

Q

WF

D S

co

re (

Hig

h =

5,

Go

od

= 4

, M

od

era

te =

3,

Po

or

= 2

& L

ow

= 1

)

Sharoe Brook ptc Savick Brook - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates

90%ile BOD WFD Score90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score10%ile DO% WFD scoreRolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15)∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20)ASPTGQA WQ (No PO4) (A=6, F=1)


Orange blobs are

the combined

WFD status

(88003570)

PO4 is poor

WQ improves from

1985-1995

WQ variable and

some deterioration

since 2000



17/02/2016

38

75

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1950 to1959

1960 to1969

1970 to1979

1980 to1984

1985 to1989

1990 to1994

1995 to1999

2000 to2004

2005 to2009

2010 to2015

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

ns

en

ted

Dis

ch

arg

es

pe

r k

m2

Sharoe Brook Consented Discharges (Selected)



88003570 -88003571

Sharoe Brook(Lot of Grey Water)

3571-3575(+0.55 wrong connections as

"contaminated water")

WreaBrook

Pool Stream

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Se

wa

ge M

ate

ria

ls N

IRS

Po

llu

tio

n I

nc

ide

nts

(2

00

1-2

01

0)

(No

/km

2)

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

Sewage Materials: Discharge Consents and NIRS

Savick Brook Subcatchments

South Fylde Drains



CSOs stop ?, PS EOs

High proportion of sewage

related NIRS for relatively

few consents

76



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)



managed grassland

(low-mod), 5% Arable.

2) NIRS: 0.00/km2

3) No Mixed Farming


0

-

0

1) PO4 at 88003574 has

remained poor since

1975 (Fig 4.5) despite

improvements in DO,

BOD and NH4 1980-

1990 implying a

background source

unaffected by consents

(Fig 4.6). Could be

agriculture or septic

tanks?

0

1) Only one water

quality monitoring point.

2) Dairy farms at top of

catchment noted by EA

as a suspected cause

(see Fig 4.3).

NE

+

SAGIS suggests


(68.9/155.8=) 44% of

measured PO4



1.24) so some PO4 likely

from agricultural u/s part

of Sharoe Brook.

+

2) Sewage Sludge

Spreading

1) None 0 NE 0

Table 4.1a Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: phosphate

17/02/2016

39

77



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)



urb/suburban (mod-

high)

2) NIRS: 1.78 /km2

(mod-high)

3) Sharoe Brook has a

high proportion of

sewage related NIRS

compared to sewage

related consented

discharges (Fig 4.6)

0

+

+

1) WQ at 88003574

improved 1985-1990

(Fig 4.5) at a time when

a consented discharge

for housing development

work was put in place

(Fig 4.6). Tanterton

housing area developed

before 1991 (Fig 1.6)

2) There has been a

slight decline in WQ at

88003574 (Fig 4.5)

since 1995-2005

potentially with the

consented PSO (Fig

4.6) for Uplands Hall

Housing Development,

Tanterton.

+

0

1) Only one water

quality monitoring point.

2) Wrong connections

noted by EA as a

suspected cause (see

Fig 4.3).

-

+

2a) STWs

(non-W Co)

1) 0.00/km2 (although 1

at Jumps Farm 1994-

1996)

2) 1 No Final effluent

NIRS possibly related to

Jumps Farm (consent

revoked in 1996, now

exempt?).

0

+

1) See (1) under

Agriculture above

(possible background

source ?).

0 1) No STWs problems

noted by EA staff (Fig

4.3)

-

Table 4.1b Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: phosphate

78



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)


2b) Septic tanks 1) 9.5/km2 (Mod) (Fig

1.7)

2) 1 septic tank NIRS +

also see (2) under 2a

above.

0

+

1) See (1) under

Agriculture above

(possible background

source ?).

0 1) No upstream WQ

monitoring.

2) Septic tanks not



4.3)

0

-

2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: 1.04/km2 (low)

(Grey Water) 11 No

references to wrong

connections in NIRS

detail at five locations

(see Fig 4.4).

+ 1) See (1) and (2) under

Sewage suggesting

deterioration in WQ

related to housing

development.

+ 1) Wrong connections



4.4)

+

2c) Intermittents

(CSOs & PSOs)


Storm Sewage related

to 1 No CSO failure in

ten years.

2) 1 CSO at Lightfoot

Lane and 1 PSO for

Uplands Hall Housing

Development

(Tanterton).

+

0

1) See (1) under

Sewage.

2) WQ at 88003574 (Fig

4.5) is less variable than

on many parts of Savick

Brook, implying less

CSO, storm problems

+

-

1) No CSO / PSO

problems noted by EA

staff (Fig 4.3)

-

Table 4.1c Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: phosphate

17/02/2016

40

79



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)



catchment) (Fig 1.4)

2) The two main landfills

are reported as not

having household

waste, but inert or

construction waste.


NIRS

0

-

-

0

4) Geomorph 1) Mainly re-aligned or

straightened and with a

short culverted section

in Sharoe Green


suggesting

geomorphology does

not limit aeration.

0

-

Not applicable N/A

5) Industry 1) No Industry related

NIRS

-

Table 4.1d Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: phosphate

80



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)


6) M6 1) Crosses WB


BOD, NH4 and PO4


NIRS data.

0

-

-

Table 4.1d Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: phosphate

17/02/2016

41

81

Suspected

causes

Conclusions



not strong, but EA staff opinions and SAGIS

PO4 predictions from managed grassland

suggest agriculture is a contributing factor.

Dairy farming is likely to be part of the

problem.




Sewage Sludge

Spreading


proposed in future.

Sewage (in

general)


sewage (including wrong connections) is a

problem.

Part of the problem (and may have got

worse since the early 1990s)

See details below

STWs

(non-W Co)

None, although one (exempt?) discharge at

Jumps Farm could be a minor contributor

Possible minor part of the problem Review size and operation / maintenance

of the Jumps Farm discharge.

Septic Tanks Evidence is inconsistent and weak. Cannot rule out, and could be part of

the problem.

Address other likely causes first and then

if still a problem extend septic tank

campaign from upper parts of Savick

Brook.

Table 4.2a Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): ConclusionsWFD failures: phosphate

82

Suspected

causes

Conclusions


CSWs Evidence is consistent and strong for wrong

connections being a significant problem.

A significant part of the problem Focussed effort for Yellow Fish

campaign.

Intermittents

(CSOs & PSs)

Evidence is limited and weak, but could imply

a small impact on WQ since 1995 following

increased housing.

Probably a minor part of the problem. Liaise with UU over failure rates for CSO

at Lightfoot Lane and PSO for Uplands

Hall Housing Development (Tanterton).

Landfill Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem. None

Geomorphology Limited evidence, but suggests not a

significant problem (local influence only?).


Industry None Not a significant part of the problem. None


Table 4.2a Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): ConclusionsWFD failures: phosphate

17/02/2016

42

83






84Fig 5.1 Whole of Savick Brook: river WB WFD classification

Savick Brook(GB112071065470)



Biological quality: Poor

Fish: Poor

MP 13817: Bad

MP 4364: Bad

MP 4366: Mod*

Inverts: Poor

MP 68117: Mod

ASPT: Mod

NTAXA: Good

MP 65405: Bad

ASPT: Bad

NTAXA: Poor

MP 68135: Mod

ASPT:Mod

NTAXA: Mod

Physico-chemical quality: Moderate

Ammonia: Good

MP 88003569: Good

MP 88003570: Good

MP 88003573: Poor

MP 88003574: Good

DO: High

MP 88003569: High

MP 88003570: High

MP 88003573: High

MP 88003574: High

pH: High

MP 88003569: High

MP 88003570: lower=High, upper=Mod

MP 88003573: High

MP 88003574: High

Phosphate: Moderate

MP 88003569: Poor

MP 88003570: Poor

MP 88003573: Mod

MP 88003574: ModSources: EA website,


•WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate* Fish at MP 4366 improved to Good in 2010

17/02/2016

43

85Fig X.2 Ribble Link: river WB WFD classification

Ribble Link(GB71210217)

Hydromorphological Status: Artificial Ecological Quality: Moderate Potential

Biological quality: NA Physico-chemical quality: Moderate

Ammonia: High

MP ?? 88003575

DO: NA pH: High

MP ?? 88003575

Phosphate: Moderate

MP ?? 88003575

Specific Pollutants Quality: High

Ammonia: High

Copper: High

Zinc: High

Source: EA website

•WFD failures: phosphate

86

Fig 5.2 Bottom of Savick & Ribble Link:


OS 10 m contours

WFD monitoring points Other monitoring points

Ribble Link is d/s (west)

side of dashed line

17/02/2016

44

87

Fig 5.3 Bottom of Savick & Ribble Link:


88Fig 5.4 Bottom of Savick & Ribble Link: Pressures (legend next slide)

17/02/2016

45

89Legend for Fig 5.4

NIRS (Water_selected)Discharges

90

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010

Inve

rte

bra

tes

(A

SP

T S

co

re -

La

b d

ata

) &

GQ

A S

co

re

WF

D S

co

re (

Hig

h =

5,

Go

od

= 4

, M

od

era

te =

3,

Po

or

= 2

& B

ad

= 1

)

Savick Brook ptc Eaves Brook - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates






∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20)BMWP



Orange blobs are

the combined

WFD status

(88003570)

PO4 is better

than upstream

WQ improves from

1990-1995

WQ quite variable

Fig 5.5 Savick Brook prior to confluence (ptc) with Eaves Brook (u/s

88003571):


17/02/2016

46

91

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1950 to1959

1960 to1969

1970 to1979

1980 to1984

1985 to1989

1990 to1994

1995 to1999

2000 to2004

2005 to2009

2010 to2015

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

ns

en

ted

Dis

ch

arg

es

pe

r k

m2

Savick Brook between Sandy and Eaves Bks Consented Discharges (Selected)


Note: Scale is larger on this chart


Poorly controlled until

1990, then mainly CSOs

Fig 5.6 Savick Brook (between 88003570 to 88003571):


92

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010

Inve

rte

bra

tes

(A

SP

T S

co

re -

La

b d

ata

) &

GQ

A W

Q

WF

D S

co

re (

Hig

h =

5,

Go

od

= 4

, M

od

era

te =

3,

Po

or

= 2

& L

ow

= 1

)

Ribble Link Canal at Lea Road - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates







ASPT



Orange blobs are

the combined

WFD status

(88003570)

PO4 is poor

WQ improves

gradually 1990-2000

WQ variable

Fig 5.7 Savick Brook / Ribble Link at Lea Road (88003575):


17/02/2016

47

93

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1950 to1959

1960 to1969

1970 to1979

1980 to1984

1985 to1989

1990 to1994

1995 to1999

2000 to2004

2005 to2009

2010 to2015

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

ns

en

ted

Dis

ch

arg

es

pe

r k

m2

Savick Brook (88003571 - 88003575) Consented Discharges (Selected)



Few consents before late

1990s then CSOs (and

“UU Cattle Market STW?)



94

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010

Inve

rte

bra

tes

(A

SP

T S

co

re -

La

b d

ata

) &

GQ

A W

Q

WF

D S

co

re (

Hig

h =

5,

Go

od

= 4

, M

od

era

te =

3,

Po

or

= 2

& B

ad

= 1

)

Savick Brook ptc Tidal Ribble - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates









Orange blobs are

the combined

WFD status

(88003576)

PO4 is poor

WQ poor

Fig 5.9 Savick Brook ptc River Ribble (88003576):


17/02/2016

48

95

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1950 to1959

1960 to1969

1970 to1979

1980 to1984

1985 to1989

1990 to1994

1995 to1999

2000 to2004

2005 to2009

2010 to2015

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

ns

en

ted

Dis

ch

arg

es

pe

r k

m2

Savick Brook (88003575 - 88003576) Consented Discharges (Selected)



Few consents before late

1990s then Domestic, a

Non UU STW & Tourism



96



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)



managed grassland =

parkland (low), 1%

Arable.

2) NIRS: 0.00/km2

3) (Sandy Brook Land

Use = 49% managed

grassland 3% Arable)

but 2012 WQ for Sandy

Book appears to be of

Good Status.

0

-

-

1) No farm or parkland

issues noted by EA as a


Fig 5.3).

-

2) Sewage Sludge

Spreading

1) None 0 NE 0

Table 5.1a Bottom of Savick (88003570-3571): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate

17/02/2016

49

97



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)



urb/suburban (high)

2) NIRS: 4.08 /km2

(high)

0

+

1) WQ (particularly BOD

and NH4) at 88003571

(Fig 5.5) more variable

than upstream at

88003570 (Fig 2.7)

2) DO, BOD, NH4 and


worse than upstream at

88003570 during wetter

weather over period

1996-2005. In absence

of agriculture suggests

storm sewage (Fig

1.20).

+

+

1) See Line of Evidence

B1.

2) Wrong connections

noted by EA as a


Fig 5.3).

0

+

2a) STWs

(non-W Co)

1) None - 0 -

2b) Septic tanks 1) 1.4/km2 (low) (Fig

1.7)


-

-

1) Septic tanks not



4.3)

-

-

Table 5.1b Bottom of Savick (88003570-3571): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate

98



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)


2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: No wrong

connection NIRS ( 1

grey water related to

CSO).

- 1) Wrong connections

noted to be a possible


4.4)

+

2c) Intermittents

(CSOs & PSOs)


Crude Sewage largely

related to CSOs.

2) 3.62 /km2 CSOs

(high).

+

+

1) See (1) under

Sewage.

2) See (2) under

Sewage

+

+

1) No CSO / PSO


staff (Fig 4.3)

-

3) Landfill None -

4) Geomorph 1) Mainly re-aligned / re-

sectioned


suggesting

geomorphology does

not limit aeration.

0

-

Not applicable N/A

Table 5.1c Bottom of Savick (88003570-3571): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate

17/02/2016

50

99

Suspected

causes

Conclusions


Agriculture None (except in Sandy Brook and WQ from

Sandy Brook appears ok in 2012 – not

presented)

Not part of the problem for this

subcatchment

None

Sewage Sludge

Spreading


Sewage (in

general)


sewage (primarily CSOs) is a problem.

Main problem See details below

STWs

(non-W Co)


Septic Tanks Evidence is consistent and suggests septic

tanks are not main problem in this area.

Cannot rule out, but not likely to be a


None

CSWs Evidence is limited and weak. Cannot rule out, but not likely to be a


None

Intermittents

(CSOs & PSs)

Evidence is consistent and strong that CSOs

have been or are the problem.

Main problem (unless addressed by UU

schemes in recent years)

Liaise with UU over whether

improvements to CSOs in this area will

have addressed these WQ problems

Landfill None Not part of the problem None

Geomorphology Limited evidence, but suggests not a




Table 5.2a Bottom of Savick (88003570-3571): ConclusionsWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate

100



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)



managed grassland (inc

parkland (low-mod), 5%

Arable.

2) NIRS: 0.00/km2

0

-

1) No farm or parkland

issues noted by EA as a


Fig 5.3).

-

2) Sewage Sludge

Spreading

1) None 0 NE 0

Table 5.3a Bottom of Savick (88003571-3575): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate

17/02/2016

51

101



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)



urb/suburban (mod-

high)

2) NIRS: 0.37 /km2 (low-

mod)

0

+

1) WQ at 88003575 (Fig

5.7) likely to be

dominated by that at

88003571 (Fig 5.5) and

from Eaves Brook (Fig

3.5) and Sharoe Brook

(Fig 4.5) – cannot

unpick additional effects

from this subcatchment.

0 1) See Line of Evidence

B1.

2) No sewage issues

noted by EA as a


Fig 5.3).

0

-

2a) STWs

(non-W Co)

1) None - 0 -

2b) Septic tanks 1) 9.4/km2 (mod) (Fig

1.7)


-

-

1) Septic tanks not

noted as a suspected


5.3)

-

2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: 4 wrong

connection NIRS near

WQ monitoring point

(Fig 5.4)

+ 1) Wrong connections

noted to be a possible


4.4)

+

Table 5.1b Bottom of Savick (88003571-3575): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate

102



Line of evidence B

(variation in time)

Line of evidence C

(d/s changes)

Line of evidence D

(s/apportionment)


2c) Intermittents

(CSOs & PSOs)

1) NIRS: 0.00/km2 Storm

Sewage (1 for Crude

Sewage but detail says

misconnection).

2) 0.55 /km2 CSOs (low-

mod).

-

0

1) No CSO / PSO


staff (Fig 5.3)

-

3) Landfill Cottam Hall Brick Works

but mainly demolition

waste (and unlikely to

be significant source of

BOD, NH4 and PO4

- 1) No landfill problems


5.3)

4) Geomorph 1) Section from

88003571 to ~600 m d/s

of confluence with

Sharoe Brook is semi-

natural. Lower section to

88003575 is canalised

(Ribble Link)

0

-


(including after Ribble

Link complete in 2002)

suggesting

geomorphology does

not limit aeration.

2) Rheophillic Fish

numbers have dropped

significantly since Ribble

Link completed 2002.

-

+

1) Barriers and locks

affecting fish migration


5.3)

Not applicable N/A

Table 5.1c Bottom of Savick (88003571-3575): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate

17/02/2016

52

103

Suspected

causes

Conclusions


Agriculture Evidence is limited and weak, but consistent

in suggesting agriculture is not the main

problem.



None

Sewage Sludge

Spreading


Sewage (in

general)

Evidence is limited, weak and inconsistent,

except fro wrong connections.


significant problem, except wrong

connections.

See details below

STWs

(non-W Co)


Septic Tanks Evidence is limited, weak, but consistent in

suggesting septic tanks are not a significant

problem in this area.



None

CSWs Evidence is limited, but consistent in

suggesting wrong connections are a problem

Part of the problem (although WQ

generally dominated by upstream)

Focussed effort for Yellow Fish

campaign.

Intermittents

(CSOs & PSs)

Evidence is limited, but consistent in

suggesting CSOs are not a problem.



Liaise with UU over satisfactory CSO

failure rates in this subcatchment.

Landfill None Not part of the problem None

Geomorphology Limited evidence, but suggests a problem for

fish rather than water quality.

Not significant for general WQ, but a

problem for fish (and invertebrates?)

Work with the Canal and River Trust

regarding impacts of Ribble Link


Table 5.2a Bottom of Savick (88003571-3575): ConclusionsWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate

evidence pack for savick brook and ribble...

Documents