River Mease Walkover Survey Report
Natural England
APEM Ref 413482
March 2016
This project is part of the IPENS programme (LIFE11NAT/UK/000384IPENS) which is financially supported by LIFE, a financial instrument of the European Community
Dr Peter Stone Client: Natural England
Address: APEX Court
City Link
Nottingham
NG2 4LA
Project reference: 413482
Date of issue: April 2015 ______
Project Director: Dr David Fraser
Project Manager: Dr Peter Stone
Other: Hugh Graham ______
APEM Ltd Riverview A17 Embankment Business Park Heaton Mersey Stockport SK4 3GN
Tel: 0161 442 8938 Fax: 0161 432 6083
Registered in England No. 2530851
“This is a draft document and should not be cited”
Registered in England No. 2530851, Registered Address Riverview A17 Embankment Business Park, Heaton Mersey, Stockport, SK4 3GN Revision and Amendment Register
Version Date Section(s) Page(s) Summary of Changes Approved by Number
1 10/2/15 Draft for client review PS 2 27/02/15 5 27 Final following client comment PS
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1
1.1 Project Background ...... 1
1.3 Aims and Objectives ...... 1
2. Methodology ...... 2
2.1 Survey and Mapping Considerations ...... 3
2.2 Walkover Survey ...... 3
2.3 Data Processing ...... 5
2.4 Wet Weather Sampling ...... 5
2.4.1 Limits of Detection (LOD) ...... 7
3. Results ...... 7
3.1 Diffuse Pollution Sources ...... 7
3.2 Diffuse Pollution Grade breakdown ...... 9
3.3 Diffuse pollution – Source Categories ...... 10
3.4 Wet Weather Sampling ...... 12
4. Summary ...... 21
4.1 Walkover Survey ...... 21
4.2 Wet Weather Sampling ...... 21
5. Key Recommendations ...... 21
List of Figures
Figure 1 River Mease location and study reach...... 2
Figure 2 Wet Weather sampling locations...... 6
Figure 3 Locations of Pollutant discharge on the River Mease ...... 8
Figure 4 Pollution site grade distribution on the River Mease ...... 9
Figure 5 Percentage contribution of each category to pollution sources on River Mease... 10
Figure 6 Frequency distribution of pollution source types on the River Mease...... 10
Figure 7 The locations and types of conduit sources observed during the walkover...... 11
Figure 8 Calcium concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling...... 13
Figure 9 Platinum concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling...... 13
Figure 10 ...... Palladium concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling...... 14
Figure 11 ...... Rhodium concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling...... 14
Figure 12 ...... Ruthenium concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling...... 15
Figure 13 ...... Lead concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling...... 15
Figure 14 ...... Cadmium concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling...... 16
Figure 15 ...... Arsenic concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling...... 16
Figure 16 ...... Zinc concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling...... 17
Figure 17 ...... Copper concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling...... 17
Figure 18 ...... Nickel concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling...... 18
Figure 19 ...... Iron concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling...... 18
Figure 20 ...... Manganese concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling...... 19
Figure 21 ...... Chromium concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling...... 19
Figure 22 ...... Aluminium concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling...... 20
List of Tables
Table 1 Definitions of Grades 1 to 3 sources, as classified during the walkover surveys ... 4
Table 2 Categories and recording codes of diffuse sources ...... 4
Table 3 Grade distribution on the River Mease ...... 9
APEM Scientific Report 413482
1. Introduction
1.1 Project Background
Natural England commissioned APEM to undertake a walkover survey to identify the extent and causes of diffuse and point source pollution along the River Mease. The River Mease and the Gilwiskaw Brook have been designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the EU Habitats Directive and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Following the completion of a survey and report in 2013/14 by APEM and Plymouth University it was found that a key source of sedimentation and pollution, in the catchment, was diffuse agricultural runoff. However, it was also confirmed that road networks play a major role in the conveyance of agricultural runoff and act as a source of numerous heavy metals.
The River Mease is currently achieving poor ecological potential under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) between Ashby-De-La-Zouch and the B4116 road bridge. This section of the upper Mease includes the tributary named the Gilwiskaw Brook. Between the B4116 and its confluence with the River Trent, the Mease is classed as having moderate ecological potential. The upper River Mease waterbody, number GB104028046590, is failing to meet WFD requirements for invertebrates and fish based on the Environment Agency data from 2011. The downstream reach of the River Mease is meeting good standards for invertebrates and high status for fish. However, the reach is rated as ‘bad’ for phosphorus concentrations.
To attempt to identify the potential sources of diffuse pollution within the catchment two approaches have been adopted. One is to use a sediment fingerprinting approach to determine the relative importance of different source types at a number of locations, the other is a walkover survey approach to attempt to identify specific locations where diffuse pollution enters the watercourse.
Since 2009, APEM has been working in partnership with the Environment Agency to develop a methodology and deliver walkover surveys of rivers across England and Wales. The purpose of these surveys has been primarily to identify key sources of diffuse pollution in water bodies that are failing to achieve good status under the WFD.
1.3 Aims and Objectives
The main objective of the survey was to identify the extent and causes of specific sources diffuse pollution and road runoff along the River Mease. The following activities were used:
Access was permitted to the entire river reach of the study and a walkover survey identified potential sources and pathways of diffuse pollution which were then given a grade of severity; An attempt was then made to trace the sources of the pollution and provide information as to the cause of the pollution; Following completion of the walkover survey, wet weather snapshot samples are collected at key locations. Samples of Road runoff are taken from the source` as well as upstream and downstream of the input, during a storm event
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 1
APEM Scientific Report 413482
2. Methodology
This report details the findings of the walkover survey that was conducted in a section of the River Mease catchment (Figure 1) during December 2014. The results are accompanied by an interactive electronic record of the surveys’ findings.
Ashby de la Zouch
A42 Road Packington
Measham
Gilwiskaw Brook
River Mease
Figure 1 River Mease location and study reach.
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 2
APEM Scientific Report 413482
2.1 Survey and Mapping Considerations
The first step in our approach was to map out the network of diffuse pollution sources in the catchment in order to develop approaches with which to address them.
A standardised and cost effective approach has been developed for rural diffuse pollution surveys which identifies and categorises the prevalence and severity of diffuse and point discharges to rivers, streams and drainage ditches. The technique has been developed from the standardised approach to agricultural diffuse pollution which has now been used to map over 14,000 km of rivers in England & Wales.
Based on previous information obtained by APEM ltd and Plymouth University, Road runoff was considered to be a key contributor of pollutants to the River Mease. As such, particular care was taken to identify areas where road drainage was entering the river.
2.2 Walkover Survey
The Gilwiskaw Brook rises in a rural/agricultural setting, approximately 3km north of Ashby- de-la-Zouch. It then flows through the town, on occasion entering culverted sections. On leaving Ashby-de-la-Zouch, the river flows for a further 7km before joining with the river Mease, near the Measham road bridge (B4116). The end of the study reach is situated a further 6.5km downstream. The Mease continues for 16.5km, eventually joining the River Trent near Croxall in Staffordshire.
The survey involved a team of two trained field scientists who undertook standardised and systematic walkover surveys along continuous reaches of the River Mease and Gilwiskaw Brook. The Survey was undertaken following a period of wet weather events when sources were most likely to be discharging and there was evidence of sources which had discharged into the watercourse. The total surveyed length of the river and tributaries was 21 km.
Where critical sources of runoff, sediment or nutrients were found entering the watercourse, a grade and category were assigned, based on the observed severity and source type respectively.
Impacts were graded on a scale of Grade 1 to Grade 3; Grade 1 being the most severe. A qualitative outline of the grading system is presented in Table 1. Further to this grading, the issues identified were categorised according to the criteria in Table 2. This standardised categorisation facilitated subsequent analysis, enabling key issues to be identified and summarised for each catchment. Photographs and/or video footage were taken at each location, depending on the severity of the issues identified, along with comments to provide specific details of the observations made. The location of each source was recorded in the field using a GPS, enabling subsequent GIS analysis of the spatial distribution of sources to be undertaken. Images were then stored in a spatially referenced GIS.
Using this information, we provided a measure of prioritisation for the identified sources. The priority refers to those sites that we feel are most important to address. A high priority recommendation refers to a Grade 1 issue that should be addressed as soon as possible. A low priority issue needs to be dealt with but the impact, whilst still significant, is less urgent. However, where lower priority sites (grade 2 and 3) are present in very high densities they may present a cumulative risk, far in excess of the risk presented by these sites individually.
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 3
APEM Scientific Report 413482
Table 1 Definitions of Grades 1 to 3 sources, as classified during the walkover surveys
Grade Definition
Observed (or potential for) widespread propogation of sediment, polluted 1 discharge or effluent, which may cause localised and widespread impacts more than 100m from the point or diffuse source.
Observed (or potential for) local deposition of in-stream sediment or 2 effluent release which may cause noticeable impacts within 100m of the point or diffuse source.
Minimal observed (or potential for) deposition of in-stream sediment or 3 effluent with very localised effects in the immediate vicinity of the input.
Table 2 Categories and recording codes of diffuse sources
Category Source Type Example Abbr. Overland runoff (cropland) OR
Arable field drain FD A Arable ADP Arable drainage pipe Arable spreading ASP Farmyard surface runoff FR Farmyard discharge (infrastructure) FD
Poaching – direct input PO Livestock B Overland runoff (grassland) POR
PDD Drainage ditch Overgrazing OG Livestock spreading LSP Road RR Track TR C Conduits Ditch (non-agricultural) DD Footpath FP Pipe PI Sewage treatment works STW
Combined Sewage Overflows CSO Domestic and D UR industrial Urban runoff ST Septic tank Industrial effluent IE Spoil heap SH E Others Erosion ER Unknown UNK
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 4
APEM Scientific Report 413482
2.3 Data Processing
On completion of the walkover survey, results were incorporated into a GIS using ArcGIS 9.2. A detailed map was produced which shows each of the sources, coloured by respective grade. Clicking on a point brings up the attributes of the source including the field description. All pollution sources are hyperlinked to a folder containing photographic and video evidence of the source.
The attributes in the GIS are used to calculate some descriptive statistics covering grades and source types (Sections 3.3 and 3.4).
2.4 Wet Weather Sampling
The results from the wet weather samples collected on 20th February 2015. An outline of the findings is presented in this section of the report. However, a more detailed analysis is presented in section 3.5.1 of the main report.
Following the walkover survey, 8 high priority road crossings were selected for water sampling. The locations of these sites are shown in figure 2
Wet weather sampling took place on 20/02/15 during significant rainfall event that had been preceded by dry weather. Two sets of samples were collected, one at the beginning of the rain event (in the morning), capturing the ‘first flush’ of contaminants and a second set during the afternoon, allowing for the observation of chemistry changes over the course of a rain event. For each selected road crossing, a sample was taken upstream of the road drainage, from the road runoff itself and downstream of crossing at a location where road discharge and river water had fully mixed. This would provide information on how the discharge may be impacting the river chemistry and whether dilution effects were mitigating potential harm caused by road runoff.
Samples were analysed for the following:;
Aluminium (27Al) Calcium (Ca) Chromium (52Cr) Manganese (55Mn) Iron (56Fe) Nickel (60Ni) Copper (65Cu) Zinc (66Zn) Arsenic (75As) Cadmium (111Cd) Lead (208Pb) Ruthenium (101Ru) Rhodium (103Rh) Palladium (105Pd) Platinum (195Pt)
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 5
APEM Scientific Report 413482
Figure 2 Wet Weather sampling locations.
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 6
APEM Scientific Report 413482
2.4.1 Limits of Detection (LOD)
The limits of detection for the different chemical tests that were undertaken are provided in Table 3. This information is particularly important for those chemicals present in very low concentrations. No measurements for Calcium were found to be at or near the LOD therefore its value is not applicable.
Table 3 Parameters where concentrations below the limit of detection (LOD) were measured.
Parameter LOD Aluminium (27Al) 0.044 Calcium (Ca) N/A Chromium (52Cr) 0.03 Manganese (55Mn) 0.1 Iron (56Fe) 0.008 Nickel (60Ni) 0.05 Copper (65Cu) 1.6 Zinc (66Zn) 0.5 Arsenic (75As) 0.1 Cadmium (111Cd) 0.04 Lead (208Pb) 0.1 Ruthenium (101Ru) 0.00 Rhodium (103Rh) 0.003 Palladium (105Pd) 0.02 Platinum (195Pt) 0.1
3. Results
3.1 Diffuse Pollution Sources
Figure 3 shows the location and spatial distribution of the diffuse pollution sources, along the River Mease, that were identified during the walkover surveys. The colour coding of the source reflects the different grades that were ascribed to the individual sources.
Sources were identified throughout the catchment and it is evident that grade 3 sites are the most prevalent. No Grade 1 sources were identified on the surveyed reaches.
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 7
APEM Scientific Report 413482
Ashby de la Zouch
Packington
A42 Road
Measham
River Mease Gilwiskaw Brook
Figure 3 Locations of Pollutant discharge on the River Mease
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 8
APEM Scientific Report 413482
3.2 Diffuse Pollution Grade breakdown
Table 4 Grade distribution on the River MeaseTable 4 and Figure 4 show the grade distribution of pollution sources along the surveyed reach of the River Mease. Grade 3 sources were the most frequently observed pollution severity, totalling 70 entries and 80% of the overall identified sources. More information on the causes of the identified sources is provided in Section 3.3.
Table 4 Grade distribution on the River Mease
Grade Frequency Percentage
1 0 0
2 12 14
2/3 5 6
3 70 80
Total 87 100
14%
6% Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 2,3 Grade 3
80%
Figure 4 Pollution site grade distribution on the River Mease
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 9
APEM Scientific Report 413482
3.3 Diffuse pollution – Source Categories
Figure 5 shows the percentage contribution of each category to the pollution sources identified on the River Mease (Possible sources for these categories are outlined in Table 2). Of all the pollution sources identified, conduits were most frequently observed (68% of sources). Conduits, such as pipes, are pathways for diffuse pollution where as conduits such as roads or tracks may also act as a source of the pollution in addition to effectively conveying pollutants. Pipes were the most common type of conduits observed along the reach ( 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
0
Pipe
weir
Road
Track
Unknown
FieldDrain
(grassland)
Overflow
DrainagePipe
DrainageDitch
OverlandRunoff OverlandRunoff
IndustrialEffluent
CombinedSewage PoachingDirect - input
Arable Livestock Bar. Conduit Anth.& Ind.
Figure 6). After conduits, arable farm sources (e.g. field runoff) and then livestock sources (e.g. poaching and faecal runoff) were the most abundant. Figure 7 shows the locations of conduits throughout the catchment. It shows that the highest densities of pipe and road runoff discharges occur in semi-urban areas; Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Packington have the highest number of conduit sources.
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Figure 5 Percentage contribution of each category to pollution sources on River Mease.
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 10
APEM Scientific Report 413482
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
0
Pipe
weir
Road
Track
Unknown
FieldDrain
(grassland)
Overflow
DrainagePipe
DrainageDitch
OverlandRunoff OverlandRunoff
IndustrialEffluent
CombinedSewage PoachingDirect - input
Arable Livestock Bar. Conduit Anth.& Ind.
Figure 6 Frequency distribution of pollution source types on the River Mease.
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 11
APEM Scientific Report 413482
Figure 7 The locations and types of conduit sources observed during the walkover.
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 12
APEM Scientific Report 413482
3.4 Wet Weather Sampling
In total, the concentrations of 27 different metals were tested during the wet weather sampling. The dissolved concentrations of 15 metals which are most relevant to the water quality of the River Mease catchment are presented below. Samples taken during the morning are shown in blue and those from the afternoon are in green. Where available, Environmental Quality standards (EQS) have been added to the graphs to show the potential impacts of metal concentrations recorded during the wet weather sampling. A description of the EQS values that have been used is presented in table 5.
Table 5 Recommended freshwater standards for selected metals and Specific Pollutants
Element Exposure Annual New EQS Existing EQS Source Statistic μg/L μg/L Cu Long-term Mean 1 1–28 (dissolved)** WFD-UKTAG 2013 (bioavailable)* Ni Long-term Mean 4 50-200 EA 2011 (bioavailable) (dissolved)** Zn Long-term Mean 10.9 8-125 (total) WFD-UKTAG 2013 (bioavailable) plus Ambient Background Concentration Mn Long-term Mean 123 30 (dissolved)** WFD-UKTAG 2013 (bioavailable) Pb 1.2 4-250 WFD-UKTAG 2008 (bioavailable) (dissolved)** Cr Annual Mean 4.7 (Cr III) 5-50 (Cr VI) WFD-UKTAG 2008 3.4 (Cr VI) (dissolved)*** (dissolved) Cd Annual Mean EU UK EA2011 0.08 - 0.25** 5.0 Fe Annual Mean 730 1000 (dissolved) EA2011 (total) As Annual Mean 50 50 (dissolved) EA2011 (dissolved) Al*** Short-term Mean 0.25 (PNEC) 10.0 (pH < 6.5) EA2007 25.0 (pH > 6.5) Long-term 0.05 (PNEC_ 15.0 (pH > 6.5) *Bioavailable means the fraction of the dissolved concentration likely to result in toxic effects ** Depends on water hardness *** For a generic risk approach, a median background concentration for UK rivers of 6.0μgl-1 could be added to the values given
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 13
APEM Scientific Report 413482
Ca 250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00 Concentration(µg/L) 50.00
0.00
1_7S_d 2_8S_d
2_1D_d 2_8D_d
1_7U_d 1_8U_d 2_6U_d
1_2U-d
2_6S_d
1_6D_d 1_2D_d 1_4D_d 1_5D_d 1_8D_d 2_6D_d 2_7D_d
2_8U_d 1_4U_d 1_5U_d 2_1U_d 2_2U_d
1_4S_d 1_2S_d 1_6S_d 1_8S_d 2_2S_d 2_4S_d 2_7S_d
1_ATS_d 2_ATS_d
1_7D_d 2_2D_d 2_5D_d
2_4U_d 2_7U_d
1_1D-d
1_5S_d 2_5S_d
2_4D_d
1_1U_d 1_6U_d 2_5U_d
1_ATD_d
1_ATU_d 2_ATU_d 2_ATD_d
Figure 8 Calcium concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling.
Elevated Calcium levels are present in the source discharge of sites AT and 7 (Figure 8). There is an increase in Ca concentration during the event at site AT, whereas there is no significant change in Ca concentration between measurements at site 7. Following missing with the river water, there is a clear decrease in Ca at both sites.
0.18 0.16 195 Pt 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06
Concentration (µg/L) Concentration 0.04 0.02
0.00
1_7S_d 2_8S_d
2_1D_d 2_8D_d
1_7U_d 1_8U_d 2_6U_d
1_2U-d
2_6S_d
1_6D_d 1_2D_d 1_4D_d 1_5D_d 1_8D_d 2_6D_d 2_7D_d
1_4U_d 1_5U_d 2_1U_d 2_2U_d 2_8U_d
1_2S_d 1_4S_d 1_6S_d 1_8S_d 2_2S_d 2_4S_d 2_7S_d
1_ATS_d 2_ATS_d
2_2D_d 1_7D_d 2_5D_d
2_4U_d 2_7U_d
1_1D-d
1_5S_d 2_5S_d
2_4D_d
1_1U_d 1_6U_d 2_5U_d
1_ATD_d
1_ATU_d 2_ATU_d 2_ATD_d
Figure 9 Platinum concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling.
Only three sites recorded Platinum levels above the LOD (Figure 9). Platinum was not observed in any of the road discharge that was sampled during the wet weather survey.
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 14
APEM Scientific Report 413482
0.40 105 Pd 0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
Concentration(µg/L) 0.10
0.05
0.00
1_7S_d 2_8S_d
2_1D_d 2_8D_d
2_6U_d 1_7U_d 1_8U_d
1_2U-d
2_6S_d
1_4D_d 1_2D_d 1_5D_d 1_6D_d 1_8D_d 2_6D_d 2_7D_d
1_4U_d 1_5U_d 2_1U_d 2_2U_d 2_8U_d
2_2S_d 1_2S_d 1_4S_d 1_6S_d 1_8S_d 2_4S_d 2_7S_d
1_ATS_d 2_ATS_d
1_7D_d 2_2D_d 2_5D_d
2_4U_d 2_7U_d
1_1D-d
1_5S_d 2_5S_d
2_4D_d
1_1U_d 1_6U_d 2_5U_d
1_ATD_d
1_ATU_d 2_ATU_d 2_ATD_d
Figure 10 Palladium concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling.
The highest measurement of Palladium from a source was recorded at site 7 (Figure 10). There was no significant change in the Pd concentration at site 7 between sampling times. The highest measurement of Pd was recorded downstream of site 4; this value decreased by 0.32 µg/L between sampling events.
0.300 103 Rh 0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100 Concentration(µg/L)
0.050
0.000
1_7S_d 2_8S_d
2_1D_d 2_8D_d
1_7U_d 1_8U_d 2_6U_d
1_2U-d
2_6S_d
1_2D_d 1_4D_d 1_5D_d 1_6D_d 1_8D_d 2_6D_d 2_7D_d
1_4U_d 1_5U_d 2_1U_d 2_2U_d 2_8U_d
1_8S_d 2_4S_d 1_2S_d 1_4S_d 1_6S_d 2_2S_d 2_7S_d
1_ATS_d 2_ATS_d
1_7D_d 2_2D_d 2_5D_d
2_4U_d 2_7U_d
1_1D-d
1_5S_d 2_5S_d
2_4D_d
1_1U_d 1_6U_d 2_5U_d
1_ATD_d
1_ATU_d 2_ATU_d 2_ATD_d
Figure 11 Rhodium concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling.
The highest recorded values for Rhodium were downstream of site 4 (during the morning) and upstream of site 6 (during the afternoon) (Figure 11). No sources recorded high values of Rh.
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 15
APEM Scientific Report 413482
0.45 101 Ru 0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15 Concentration(µg/L) 0.10
0.05
0.00
1_7S_d 2_8S_d
2_1D_d 2_8D_d
1_7U_d 1_8U_d 2_6U_d
1_2U-d
2_6S_d
1_2D_d 1_4D_d 1_5D_d 1_6D_d 1_8D_d 2_6D_d 2_7D_d
1_4U_d 1_5U_d 2_1U_d 2_2U_d 2_8U_d
2_2S_d 2_4S_d 1_2S_d 1_4S_d 1_6S_d 1_8S_d 2_7S_d
1_ATS_d 2_ATS_d
2_5D_d 1_7D_d 2_2D_d
2_4U_d 2_7U_d
1_1D-d
1_5S_d 2_5S_d
2_4D_d
2_5U_d 1_1U_d 1_6U_d
1_ATD_d
2_ATU_d 1_ATU_d 2_ATD_d
Figure 12 Ruthenium concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling.
Levels of Ru, above the LOD, were recorded at 7 sites across the catchment (Figure 12). The highest values were recorded downstream of site 4 (during the morning) and upstream of site 6 (in the afternoon).
1.40 208 Pb 1.20
1.00 Pb (WFD- 0.80 UKTAG 2008) 0.60
Concentration(µg/L) 0.40
0.20
0.00
1_7S_d 2_8S_d
2_1D_d 2_8D_d
1_7U_d 1_8U_d 2_6U_d
1_2U-d
2_6S_d
1_2D_d 1_4D_d 1_5D_d 1_6D_d 1_8D_d 2_6D_d 2_7D_d
1_4U_d 1_5U_d 2_1U_d 2_2U_d 2_8U_d
1_2S_d 1_4S_d 1_6S_d 1_8S_d 2_2S_d 2_4S_d 2_7S_d
1_ATS_d 2_ATS_d
1_7D_d 2_2D_d 2_5D_d
2_4U_d 2_7U_d
1_1D-d
1_5S_d 2_5S_d
2_4D_d
1_1U_d 1_6U_d 2_5U_d
1_ATD_d
1_ATU_d 2_ATU_d 2_ATD_d
Figure 13 Lead concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling.
Figure 13 shows that lead concentrations at all sampling locations were far below the WFD recommended EQS.
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 16
APEM Scientific Report 413482
0.30 111 Cd 0.25
0.20 Cd EQS range dependent 0.15 on water hardness
0.10 (EA2011) Concentration(µg/L)
0.05
0.00
1_7S_d 2_8S_d
2_1D_d 2_8D_d
1_7U_d 1_8U_d 2_6U_d
1_2U-d
2_6S_d
1_2D_d 1_4D_d 1_5D_d 1_6D_d 1_8D_d 2_6D_d 2_7D_d
1_4U_d 1_5U_d 2_1U_d 2_2U_d 2_8U_d
1_2S_d 1_4S_d 1_6S_d 1_8S_d 2_2S_d 2_4S_d 2_7S_d
1_ATS_d 2_ATS_d
1_7D_d 2_2D_d 2_5D_d
2_4U_d 2_7U_d
1_1D-d
1_5S_d 2_5S_d
2_4D_d
1_1U_d 1_6U_d 2_5U_d
1_ATD_d
1_ATU_d 2_ATU_d 2_ATD_d Figure 14 Cadmium concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling.
Cadmium concentrations were found to exceed the lower EQS limit in 7 different locations (Figure 14). The effect to which this may impact the river system is dependent on water hardness (see table 5). The levels of Cd observed during the rain event provide an indication of maximum levels within the river; the EQS provided is based on an annual mean concentration. It is unlikely that the elevated levels observed on the day of sampling will cause the annual mean concentrations to exceed EQS values.
60.00 75 As 50.00
40.00 As - 30.00 Annual (EA2011)
20.00 Concentration(µg/L)
10.00
0.00
1_ATU… 1_ATD… 2_ATU… 2_ATD…
2_8S_d 1_7S_d
2_1D_d 2_8D_d
1_7U_d 1_8U_d 2_6U_d
1_2U-d
2_6S_d
1_2D_d 1_4D_d 1_5D_d 1_6D_d 1_8D_d 2_6D_d 2_7D_d
1_5U_d 1_4U_d 2_1U_d 2_2U_d 2_8U_d
1_2S_d 1_4S_d 1_6S_d 1_8S_d 2_2S_d 2_4S_d 2_7S_d
1_ATS_d 2_ATS_d
1_7D_d 2_2D_d 2_5D_d
2_4U_d 2_7U_d
1_1D-d
1_5S_d 2_5S_d
2_4D_d
1_6U_d 2_5U_d 1_1U_d Figure 15 Arsenic concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling.
Arsenic levels are far below the Annual mean EQS proposed by the Environment Agency at all sampled sites (Figure 15).
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 17
APEM Scientific Report 413482
160.00 66 Zn 140.00
120.00 Zn - Long 100.00 term (WFD- 80.00 UKTAG 2013) 60.00
Concentration(µg/L) 40.00
20.00
0.00
1_ATU… 2_ATU…
1_7S_d 2_8S_d
2_1D_d 2_8D_d
1_7U_d 1_8U_d 2_6U_d
1_2U-d
2_6S_d
1_2D_d 1_4D_d 1_5D_d 1_6D_d 1_8D_d 2_6D_d 2_7D_d
1_4U_d 1_5U_d 2_1U_d 2_2U_d 2_8U_d
1_2S_d 1_4S_d 1_6S_d 1_8S_d 2_2S_d 2_4S_d 2_7S_d
1_ATS_d 2_ATS_d
1_7D_d 2_2D_d 2_5D_d
2_4U_d 2_7U_d
1_1D-d
1_5S_d 2_5S_d
2_4D_d
1_1U_d 1_6U_d 2_5U_d
1_ATD_d 2_ATD_d Figure 16 Zinc concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling.
Zinc concentrations exceed the recommended long term WFD EQS at many sites across the catchment (Figure 16). The sources at sites AT and 8 were found to be particularly high. Concentrations of this magnitude are likely to persist only during intense rain events when runoff is significant.
65 Cu 30.00
25.00 Cu - Long 20.00 term (WFD- 15.00 UKTA…
10.00 Concentration(µg/L) 5.00
0.00
1_7S_d 2_8S_d
2_1D_d 2_8D_d
1_7U_d 1_8U_d 2_6U_d
1_2U-d
2_6S_d
1_2D_d 1_4D_d 1_5D_d 1_6D_d 1_8D_d 2_6D_d 2_7D_d
1_4U_d 1_5U_d 2_1U_d 2_2U_d 2_8U_d
2_2S_d 1_2S_d 1_4S_d 1_6S_d 1_8S_d 2_4S_d 2_7S_d
1_ATS_d 2_ATS_d
1_7D_d 2_2D_d 2_5D_d
2_4U_d 2_7U_d
1_1D-d
1_5S_d 2_5S_d
2_4D_d
1_1U_d 1_6U_d 2_5U_d
1_ATD_d
1_ATU_d 2_ATU_d 2_ATD_d Figure 17 Copper concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling.
Copper concentrations were found to exceed the long term WFD EQS values at all sites (Figure 17). Sources with particularly high concentrations of Cu include sites: AT, 5 and 8.
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 18
APEM Scientific Report 413482
60Ni 5.00
4.50 Ni - 4.00 Long Term 3.50 (EA 3.00 2011)
2.50
2.00
Concentration(µg/L) 1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1_7S_d 2_8S_d
2_1D_d 2_8D_d
1_7U_d 1_8U_d 2_6U_d
1_2U-d
2_6S_d
1_2D_d 1_4D_d 1_5D_d 1_6D_d 1_8D_d 2_6D_d 2_7D_d
1_4U_d 1_5U_d 2_1U_d 2_2U_d 2_8U_d
1_2S_d 1_4S_d 1_6S_d 1_8S_d 2_2S_d 2_4S_d 2_7S_d
1_ATS_d 2_ATS_d
1_7D_d 2_2D_d 2_5D_d
2_4U_d 2_7U_d
1_1D-d
1_5S_d 2_5S_d
2_4D_d
1_1U_d 1_6U_d 2_5U_d
1_ATD_d
2_ATU_d 1_ATU_d 2_ATD_d
Figure 18 Nickel concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling.
Nickel concentrations were below the long term EQS values at all sites other than upstream of site 7, during the morning (Figure 18). By the time of that the second sample was taken, the concentration had dropped to below the recommended EQS value.
800.000 56 Fe 700.000 600.000 500.000 Fe - 400.000 Annual (EA2011) 300.000
Concentration(µg/L) 200.000 100.000
0.000
1_7S_d 2_8S_d
2_1D_d 2_8D_d
1_7U_d 1_8U_d 2_6U_d
1_2U-d
2_6S_d
1_2D_d 1_4D_d 1_5D_d 1_6D_d 1_8D_d 2_6D_d 2_7D_d
2_1U_d 1_4U_d 1_5U_d 2_2U_d 2_8U_d
1_2S_d 1_4S_d 1_6S_d 1_8S_d 2_2S_d 2_4S_d 2_7S_d
1_ATS_d 2_ATS_d
1_7D_d 2_2D_d 2_5D_d
2_7U_d 2_4U_d
1_1D-d
1_5S_d 2_5S_d
2_4D_d
1_1U_d 1_6U_d 2_5U_d
1_ATD_d
1_ATU_d 2_ATU_d 2_ATD_d Figure 19 Iron concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling.
Figure 19 shows that all sites had iron levels that were far below the EA’s recommended mean annual EQS limit.
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 19
APEM Scientific Report 413482
350.000 55 Mn 300.000
250.000 Mn - Long 200.000 term (WFD- 150.000 UKTAG…
Concentration(µg/L) 100.000
50.000
0.000
1_ATU… 1_ATD… 2_ATU… 2_ATD…
1_7S_d 2_8S_d
2_1D_d 2_8D_d
1_7U_d 1_8U_d 2_6U_d
1_2U-d
2_6S_d
1_2D_d 1_4D_d 1_5D_d 1_6D_d 1_8D_d 2_6D_d 2_7D_d
1_4U_d 1_5U_d 2_1U_d 2_2U_d 2_8U_d
1_4S_d 1_2S_d 1_6S_d 1_8S_d 2_2S_d 2_4S_d 2_7S_d
1_ATS_d 2_ATS_d
1_7D_d 2_5D_d 2_2D_d
2_4U_d 2_7U_d
1_1D-d
1_5S_d 2_5S_d
2_4D_d
1_1U_d 1_6U_d 2_5U_d Figure 20 Manganese concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling.
Manganese concentrations were found to be in excess of the long term EQS value in the source discharge of sites AT and 5 (Figure 20). Concentrations reduced slightly between sampling times at site 5 but increased at site AT. The concentrations at both sites were reduced significantly following dilution in the river.
7.00 52 Cr
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00 Concentration(µg/L)
1.00
0.00
1_7S_d 2_8S_d
2_1D_d 2_8D_d
1_7U_d 1_8U_d 2_6U_d
1_2U-d
2_6S_d
1_2D_d 1_4D_d 1_5D_d 1_6D_d 1_8D_d 2_6D_d 2_7D_d
1_4U_d 1_5U_d 2_1U_d 2_2U_d 2_8U_d
1_2S_d 1_4S_d 1_6S_d 1_8S_d 2_2S_d 2_4S_d 2_7S_d
1_ATS_d 2_ATS_d
1_7D_d 2_2D_d 2_5D_d
2_4U_d 2_7U_d
1_1D-d
1_5S_d 2_5S_d
2_4D_d
1_1U_d 1_6U_d 2_5U_d
1_ATD_d
1_ATU_d 2_ATU_d 2_ATD_d Figure 21 Chromium concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling.
Chromium EQS limits were exceeded in the source discharge at site 6 during both the morning and afternoon (Figure 21). Following discharge into the river, Cr concentrations at site 6 declined far below the EQS limits. Cr concentrations at all other sites were far below the EQS values.
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 20
APEM Scientific Report 413482
0.300 27 Al
0.250
Al - Long 0.200 Term (EA 2007)
0.150 Al - Short Term (EA 2007)
Concentration (µg/L) Concentration 0.100
0.050
0.000
1_7S_d 2_8S_d
2_1D_d 2_8D_d
1_7U_d 1_8U_d 2_6U_d
1_2U-d
2_6S_d
1_8D_d 1_2D_d 1_4D_d 1_5D_d 1_6D_d 2_6D_d 2_7D_d
1_4U_d 1_5U_d 2_1U_d 2_2U_d 2_8U_d
1_6S_d 1_2S_d 1_4S_d 1_8S_d 2_2S_d 2_4S_d 2_7S_d
1_ATS_d 2_ATS_d
1_7D_d 2_2D_d 2_5D_d
2_4U_d 2_7U_d
1_1D-d
1_5S_d 2_5S_d
2_4D_d
1_1U_d 1_6U_d 2_5U_d
1_ATD_d
1_ATU_d 2_ATU_d 2_ATD_d
Figure 22 Aluminium concentrations recorded during wet weather sampling.
Figure 22 shows that Aluminium concentrations were below both long and short term EQS limits at all sites apart from site 1. Al concentrations exceeded the long term EQS value both up and downstream of the site 1 road crossing (during the morning). This suggests that the main source of Al is likely to be upstream of site 1. By the time that the second samples were taken, the concentration had declined to below the EQS limit.
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 21
APEM Scientific Report 413482
4. Summary
4.1 Walkover Survey
The walkover survey has identified a total of 87 sources of diffuse urban pollution. No grade 1 sources were identified during the walkover. However, the abundance of low grade pollution sources may still present a significant risk to the catchment. Conduit sources are the most abundant in the catchment with particularly high densities in developed / semi-urban areas. A total of 60 conduits were identified, 36 of which are pipes and 18 of which were classed as road runoff. The types of effluents that are commonly associated with these types of discharges include nutrients and heavy metals. Elevated levels of heavy metals and nutrients, within the water body, are likely to have a detrimental effect on the river’s ecosystem.
The Gilwiskaw Brook, in Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Packington, appears to have a particularly high number of conduit source inputs. This is most likely due to the higher number of roads and hard standing areas in these semi-urban environments. These areas, in particular, require the introduction of measures that will help to mitigate the impact of both pipe discharges and road runoff.
The walkover survey presented in this report needs to be considered alongside sediment fingerprinting that has also been undertaken to attempt to identify sources of diffuse pollution in the rivers related to the road hierarchy.
4.2 Wet Weather Sampling
Overall the findings of the wet weather sampling suggest that it is unlikely that long term or annual mean EQS values for dissolved metals are being exceeded as a result of road discharge. However, sites AT, 5, 6, 7 and 8 show elevated metal concentrations that, at the time of sampling, were in excess of recommended limits. Failures to meet Copper and Zinc standards were identified at most sites. These sources of pollutants may therefore present a localised threat the environmental quality of the River Mease and Gilwiskaw Brook.
A more detailed analysis of the results from the wet weather sampling have been included in section 3.5.1 of the main report.
5. Key Recommendations
Through the undertaking of this walkover survey, key areas requiring further action (Ashby- de-la-Zouch and Packington) have been identified and recorded in the accompanying GIS to the report. Consequently it is recommended that consultation should be sought with the Highways Agency and the County Council Highways department in order to address the number of locations and the speed at which road runoff enters into the river. The creation of wetland areas or soakaways in viable locations could help to significantly reduce the number of locations where discharges are occurring. These measures could also help to increase the lag times between the roads and the river by reducing connectivity. This increase in lag time will help to promote the deposition of fine sediments and pollutants, therefore reducing the impact on the river.
The high number of pipes that discharge into the river Mease presents a significant risk to the catchment. The importance of these needs further investigation and some may turn out to be
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 22
APEM Scientific Report 413482 historic conduits that do not discharge into the watercourse. Others, whilst not continually discharging may be important drainage pathways during periods of rainfall induced runoff. Further information relating to the harm that these discharges present could be obtained by conducting an ongoing wet weather sampling survey. By recording the chemical condition up and downstream of outfalls, it is possible to determine the potential harm that the outfall presents. Where harmful pipe discharges are identified, their origin should be traced (where possible) and mitigation measures should be employed. In the semi-urban areas, sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) such as: permeable paving, soakaways and filter strips (Wide, gently sloping areas of vegetated land which are placed alongside impermeable ground to encourage infiltration and reduce overland flow velocities). These SUDS will help to increase lag times within the catchment, promoting the settling of sediments and the deposition of pollutants.
March 2016 v2 - Final Page 23