Evidence + Measures Tidal Ribble Water Bodies

17/02/2016

Identifying causes of failure and selecting measures operationally

Evidence + Measures Phase 3: Tidal Ribble Water Bodies

Measures Workshop, 14 August 2012 Evidence Pack for Savick Brook and Ribble Link

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

For more details contact: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Prepared by P Hulme and N Rukin

pjHYDRO

Copyright and status 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.

1 17/02/2016

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)

Savick Brook & Ribble Link Overview Maps and Charts

2 17/02/2016

Fig 1.1 Savick Brook & Ribble Link: Water bodies (WBs), catchments, monitoring points (MPs) & topo contours 5 OS 10 m contours

Other monitoring points

Sharoe Brook

Savick Brook

Ribble Link

WFD monitoring points

Eaves Brook MP 8803575 Sandy Brook

Fig 1.2 Savick Brook & Ribble Link: Suspected problems identified by EA Staff 6

Dashed line marks divide between 2 WBs: Ribble Link to the west (d/s) Savick Brook WB to east (u/s)

MP 8803575

3 17/02/2016

Discharges Fig 1.3 Savick Brook & Ribble Link: Pressures

NIRS (Water_selected) 7

MP 8803575

Fig 1.4 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : Subcatchments (to WQ monitoring points) 8 OS 10 m contours

Other monitoring points

Sharoe Brook

Savick Brook

Ribble Link

WFD monitoring points

Eaves Brook MP 8803575 Sandy Brook

4 17/02/2016

Fig 1.5 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : Land Use (2000) 9

Sea/Estuary Land Use - Summary Categories 160%Saltmarsh Inland Water Upper and lower sub-catchments are less Woodland 140% urban and dominated by managed Semi Natural Arable grassland Grass 120% Eaves Brook Suburban/rural development Urban Sharoe Brook Sandy Brook 100%

10% 1% 5% 5% 3% 3% 5% 5% 80% 18% 20% 29% 37% 49% 60%

73% 61% 71% 53% 40% 37% 48%

Proportion of Total Land Use in Water Body Body (%) Water in LandUse Total of Proportion 43% 31% 20%

21% 14% 13% 17% 18% 9% 7% 7% 5% 0% 1% 5% 3575-3576 3571-3575 Above Above 3570-3571 Above 3569-3570 Above Downstream 88003574 88003573 88022980 88003569 Upstream Source of Data: Environment Agency summaries from CEH data

Fig 1.6 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : Urban Development in Preston Ptc Sandy Brook 1976-1991 10 Parts of Sharoe Brook 1963-1991

Parts of Eaves Brook pre 1900

Downstream of Sharoe Brook is pre-1963 but some 1976-1991

Source: Historical urban development data provided by Lancashire County Council

5 17/02/2016

Fig 1.7 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : Septic Tanks 11 Density of Septic Tanks in Savick Brook Subcatchments 25 Septic tanks throughout, although very few on Septic Tank Density Savick Brook between Sandy Brook and Eaves

20 Brook 2

21.3 10 South Fylde Drain19.9 Sites (2010 onwards)

14.4 14.6 Number of Septic Tanks per km per Tanks Septic of Number

5 9.5 8.7 9.4 88003569

1.4 88003569 - 0 7.7 5.4 6.7 5.9 2.2 4.7 6.6 5.3 88003570 3575-3576 3571-3575 Above Above 3570-3571 Above 3569-3570 Above 88003574 88003573 88022980 88003569

88003575 - 03574 88003576 (Sharoe Brook) 88022980 (Sandy Brook)

88003573 (Eaves Brook)

88003570 - 88003571 - 88003571 88003575 Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project

Fig 1.8 Savick Brook & Ribble Link: Consented Discharges 12 Many sewage related discharges (red and amber) (some have been revoked now)

Come back to how consents have changed over time soon.

88003569 88003569 - 88003570

88003575 - 03574 88003576 (Sharoe Brook) 88022980 (Sandy Brook)

88003573 (Eaves Brook)

88003570 - 88003571 - 88003571 88003575 Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project

6 17/02/2016

Fig 1.9 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : Consented Discharges (2005-2009) 13

Consented Discharges (2005-2009) per km2 - Main Categories 3.0 Sewerage Network - Sewers - water company Sewerage Network - Pumping Station - water company Sewage Disposal Works - water company

2 2.5 Sewage disposal works - other Other Tourist/Short Stay Accommodation Mixed Farming Domestic Property (Multiple) 2.0 Domestic Property (Single) General Construction Work

1.5

1.0 Eaves Brook Sandy Brook Sharoe Brook

Number of Consented Discharges perkm DischargesConsented of Number 0.5

0.0 7.7 5.4 6.7 5.9 2.2 4.7 6.6 5.3 3575-3576 3571-3575 Above Above 3570-3571 Above 3569-3570 Above 88003574 88003573 88022980 88003569

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

Fig 1.10 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : General Water Quality in 1962 14 Upstream bad quality predates main Blue Very clean and clean intensification of agriculture in the 80s ? Grey Fairly clean and doubtful

Red Poor and bad 88003569 Sandy Brook and Yellow Very bad upstream of Eaves 88003570 - Sandy Brook Brook fairly clean

Sharoe Brook - 88003571 88022980 - Eaves Brook 88003574 88003573

88003575

88003576

Upstream of M6 “Very bad”, Lower Eaves Brook, Sharoe Brook and d/s of Sharoe Brook “Poor and bad”

Source: Maps from Lancs. River Authority Reports

7 17/02/2016

Fig 1.11 Savick Brook & Ribble Link: General Water Quality in 1970 15

Class 1 Unpolluted

Class 2 Doubtful Quality

Class 3 Poor Quality

Class 4 Grossly Polluted

Sharoe Brook - Eaves Brook

88003575

Upstream of M6 and Eaves Brook “Grossly Polluted”, others are “Doubtful Quality”

Source: Maps from Lancs. River Authority Reports

Phosphate is generally poor Fig 1.12 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : BOD & NH4-N poor through Preston (except Sharoe Brook) WFD WQ Status (1990-1994) 16

Average WFD Water Quality Status (1990-1994)

20 Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score

90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score 18 Sharoe Brook 90%ile BOD WFD Score

16 2 10%ile DO% WFD score

5 3 3 12 2 Eaves Brook 10 2 3 4 3 8 5 3 3 6 2 3 3 2 2 1 4 (High = 5, Good = 4, Moderate = 3, Poor = 2 & Bad = 1) 2 = Bad= & Poor3, Moderate 4, Good5, = = (High = 1 1 1 5 5 2 4 4 4 3 2 Sandy Brook

0 WFD ScoreWFD ptc Ribble Ribble Link ptc Savick ptc Savick ptc Eaves ptc Savick ptc Sandy at Grimsargh Canal at Lea Brook Brook Brook Brook Brook Road Bridge Rd 88003576 88003575 88003574 88003573 88003571 88022980 88003570 88003569 Savick Brook Savick Brook Sharoe Brook Eaves Brook Savick Brook Sandy Brook Savick Brook Savick Brook Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project

8 17/02/2016

WQ improved generally since 1990-1994 Fig 1.13 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : – see Figure 1.9 WFD WQ Status (1995-1999) 17

Average WFD Water Quality Status (1995-1999) 20 Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score

90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score 18 90%ile BOD WFD Score

16 10%ile DO% WFD score Sharoe Brook

14 2 2 2 12 2 4 Eaves Brook 2 4 10 4 4 2 3 8 4 2 4 3 6 2 2 1

4 (High = 5, Good = 4, Moderate = 3, Poor = 2 & Bad = 1) 2 = Bad= & Poor3, Moderate 4, Good5, = = (High = 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 Sandy Brook

WQ improved generally since 1995-1999 Fig 1.14 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : – see Figure 1.10 WFD WQ Status (2000-2005) (More recent data is limited) 18

Average WFD Water Quality Status (2000-2005) 20 Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score Phosphate is generally poor, slightly

18 90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score better in Eaves Brook BOD & NH4-N poorest in Eaves / Sharoe 90%ile BOD WFD Score 16 10%ile DO% WFD score Eaves Brook 14 Sharoe Brook 2 2 2 2 3 12 2 4 4 4 10 4 3 3

8 4 4 4 3 3 3 6

4 (High = 5, Good = 4, Moderate = 3, Poor = 2 & Bad = 1) 2 = Bad= & Poor3, Moderate 4, Good5, = = (High = 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 Sandy Brook

9 17/02/2016

Fig 1.15 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : Downstream DO changes (1990 – 2005) 19

Average 10%ile Dissolved Oxygen (1990-2005) 120 Good Eaves & Sharoe Brook both have lower DO than Savick Brook 100

89.4 84.9 86.0 81.5 88.8 82.7 80 84.2 79.7 85.2 83.4 81.4 82.7

73.1 72.4 69.4 60 66.4 67.2

53.4 54.8 40 2000-2005 DO has improved since early 1995-1999

Average Oxygen (%sat) Dissolved 10%ile Average 20 1990s, but there is still a 1990-1994 Bad deterioration through Preston Open symbols are tributaries 0 ptc Ribble Ribble Link ptc Savick ptc Savick ptc Eaves ptc Savick ptc Sandy at Grimsargh Canal at Lea Brook Brook Brook Brook Brook Road Bridge Rd Sandy Brook 88003576 88003575 88003574 88003573 88003571 88022980 88003570 88003569 Downstream Upstream Savick Brook Savick Brook Sharoe Brook Eaves Brook Savick Brook Sandy Brook Savick Brook Savick Brook

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

Fig 1.16 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : Downstream BOD changes (1990 – 2005) 20

Average Annual 90%ile BOD Concentration (1990-2005) 14 Bad 13.1 2000-2005 12.4 1995-1999 12 Eaves Brook not good for BOD Sharoe Brook has changed 1990-1994

10 Open symbols are tributaries 9.3

6.9 6.6 6.5 6 6.3 5.1 5.9 6.0 5.5 5.7 5.2 4.4 4.1

Average (mg/l) BOD 90%ile Average 4 3.7 4.3 4.5 4.0 BOD has improved since early 2 1990s, but there is still a Good deterioration through Preston 0 ptc Ribble Ribble Link ptc Savick ptc Savick ptc Eaves ptc Savick ptc Sandy at Grimsargh Canal at Lea Brook Brook Brook Brook Brook Road Bridge Rd Sandy Brook 88003576 88003575 88003574 88003573 88003571 88022980 88003570 88003569 Downstream Upstream Savick Brook Savick Brook Sharoe Brook Eaves Brook Savick Brook Sandy Brook Savick Brook Savick Brook

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

10 17/02/2016

NH4 has improved since early Fig 1.17 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : 1990s, but there is still a deterioration through Preston Downstream NH -N changes (1990 – 2005) 4 21

Average 90%ile Ammoniacal Nitrogen (1990 -2005) 3.5 Eaves Brook not good for NH -N Bad 4 Sharoe Brook also adds to loading 2000-2005 3.0 3.0 1995-1999 2.8 1990-1994

2.5 Open symbols are tributaries

2.0

1.6 1.5

1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 Good 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3

Average 90%ile Ammoniacal (mg/l) Ammoniacal Concentration Nitrogen 90%ile Average 0.0 ptc Ribble Ribble Link ptc Savick ptc Savick ptc Eaves ptc Savick ptc Sandy at Grimsargh Canal at Lea Brook Brook Brook SandyBrook Brook Brook Road Bridge Rd 88003576 88003575 88003574 88003573 88003571 88022980 88003570 88003569 Downstream Upstream Savick Brook Savick Brook Sharoe Brook Eaves Brook Savick Brook Sandy Brook Savick Brook Savick Brook

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

PO4 has improved since early Fig 1.18 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : 1990s and now improves Downstream PO changes (1990 – 2005) through Preston 4 22

Average Rolling Annual Average Phosphate Concentration (1990 -2005) 1.0 Bad Eaves Brook better now for PO 4 2000-2005 0.9 Sharoe Brook has got worse 1995-1999

0.8 1990-1994

0.7 0.668 0.666 Open symbols are tributaries

0.6

0.5 0.447

0.4 0.413 0.416 0.371 0.328 0.323 0.3 0.319 0.301 0.328 0.342 0.251 0.256 0.267 0.310 0.2 0.205 0.248 0.223

Annual Average (mg/l) Concentration Phosphate Average Annual 0.1 Good 0.0 ptc Ribble Ribble Link ptc Savick ptc Savick ptc Eaves ptc Savick ptc Sandy at Grimsargh Canal at Lea Brook Brook Brook Brook Brook Road Bridge Rd Sandy Brook 88003576 88003575 88003574 88003573 88003571 88022980 88003570 88003569 Downstream Upstream Savick Brook Savick Brook Sharoe Brook Eaves Brook Savick Brook Sandy Brook Savick Brook Savick Brook

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

11 17/02/2016

Fig 1.19 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : Downstream WFD WQ Trends (Average for 2000 – 2005) 23 With Average WFD Water Quality Concentrations (2000-2005) increasing 120 1.2 90%ile BOD (mg/l) PO4 decreases urban area 10%ile DO% NH4-N & BOD increases 90%ile Tot NH4_N (mg/l N) 100 DO decreases (from 88003570) 1.0 Rolling Annual Average PO4 (mg/l) 0.9 0.9 88.8 80 84.2 85.2 0.8 83.4 81.4 82.7

Eaves & Sharoe Brook high NH4-N Eaves low PO , Sharoe high PO 60 4 4 0.6 Savick Brook 0.5 Trends 40 0.4 0.447 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.371 0.301

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) BOD Oxygen and(%sat) Dissolved 20 0.251 0.267 0.2 0.205 5.7 5.1 6.0 4.3 4.5 4.0 Sandy Brook 0 0.0 ptc Ribble Ribble Link ptc Savick ptc Savick ptc Eaves ptc Savick ptc Sandy at Grimsargh Ammoniacal Nitrogenand PhosphateConcentrations (mg/l) Canal at Lea Brook Brook Brook Brook Brook Road Bridge Rd 88003576 88003575 88003574 88003573 88003571 88022980 88003570 88003569 Downstream Upstream Savick Brook Savick Brook Sharoe Brook Eaves Brook Savick Brook Sandy Brook Savick Brook Savick Brook

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

Fig 1.20 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : General WQ at High Flows 24 SIMCAT Report (WRc, 2008 for UKWIR)

Table 41 Concentration Change on Wet Days

Site Site Name BOD NH4-N TON PO4-P DO Upstream 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% Downstream 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 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 Water quality deteriorates in wet periods (and this seems to get worse downstream and in Eaves Brook)

DO, BOD, NH4 and PO4 all deteriorated in 1996-2005

12 17/02/2016

Fig 1.21 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : Pollution Events (2001-2010) 25

NIRS Pollution Incidents for Water per km2 (2001-2010) 10.0 Specific Waste Materials Sewage Materials Between Sandy Brook and Eaves Brook Pollutant Not Identified Other Pollutant there has been a lot of pollution, 9.0 Organic Chemicals/Products

2 Oils and Fuel particularly from sewage. Inorganic Chemicals/Products 8.0 Inert Materials and Wastes General Biodegradable Materials and Wastes Contaminated Water 7.0 Atmospheric Pollutants and Effects

Agricultural Materials and Wastes 2010) per km per 2010) - Category 1 (Major) 6.0 Category 2 (Significant) Category 3 (Minor) 5.0 Sandy Brook Eaves Brook 4.0 Sharoe Brook

3.0

2.0 No of Reported Incidents (2001 Incidents Reported of No

1.0

0.0 7.7 5.4 6.7 5.9 2.2 4.7 6.6 5.3 3575-3576 3571-3575 Above Above 3570-3571 Above 3569-3570 Above 88003574 88003573 88022980 88003569

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

Between Sandy Brook and Eaves Brook Fig 1.22 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : there has been a lot of pollution related to crude sewage. Sewage Material Pollution Events (2001-2010) 26

Sewage Material NIRS Pollution Incidents for Water per km2 (2001-2010) 5.0 Wrong connections problems between Storm Sewage Sandy Brook and Eaves Brook, in Eaves 4.5 Other Sewage Material

Grey Water Brook and especially in Sharoe Brook 2 4.0 Final Effluent Crude Sewage 3.5 Category 1 (Major)

2010) perkm 2010) Category 2 (Significant) - 3.0 Category 3 (Minor)

2.5 Sharoe Brook

2.0 Eaves Brook Sandy Brook 1.5

1.0 No of Reported Reported of (2001IncidentsNo

0.5

0.0 7.7 5.4 6.7 5.9 2.2 4.7 6.6 5.3 3575-3576 3571-3575 Above Above 3570-3571 Above 3569-3570 Above 88003574 88003573 88022980 88003569

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

13 17/02/2016

Fig 1.23 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : Sewage Pollution from Consented Discharges 27

Sewage Materials: Discharge Consents and NIRS 4.5 88003570 - ) Savick Brook Subcatchments 2 88003571 South Fylde Drains 4.0 Failure rate = 1 in 10 yrs

3.5 per consent

2010) (No/km 2010) -

3.0

2.5

2.0 Failure rate = 1 in 20 yrs Sharoe Brook (Lot of Grey Water) per consent 1.5

Pool Stream

1.0 Wrea Brook Broad correlation between sewage 0.5 NIRS and consented sewage 3571-3575 (+0.55 wrong connections as

Sewage Materials NIRS Pollution(2001Incidents Materials NIRS Sewage related discharges = Failure rate? "contaminated water") 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Sewage Related Consented Discharges (No per km2) 2005-9 (CSOs, PS EOs & STWs) Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project

Fig 1.24 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : General WQ at High Flows 28

SAGIS Modelled and Measured Phosphate in Savick Brook

180 OnSiteSTWs Livestock, Intermittents and “Urban” dominate Background 160 Atmosphere Measured Urban 140 Highways 4.3 Arable 120 Livestock Mines 44.3 Industry 100 Intermittents 1.6 Sewage Works 80 Measured

Phosphate Concentration(µg/l) Phosphate 68.9 40 Source apportionment 20 to be developed 16.6 further in separate 0 presentation GB112071065470

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

14 17/02/2016

Fig 1.25 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :

Fish Survey Locations 29

Surveys in 2001 ( ), (2004) and 2011

88003569

Fig 1.26 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : Rheophillic Fish (Flowing water loving fish) 30

Downstream Changes in Fish on Savick Brook - Rheophillic Fish 6 May-01 May-04 Barry Avenue (d/s Sharoe Brook) Migery Lane Sep-11 5

4 Lea Road Haslam Park Sharoe Green (d/s Eaves, u/s Sharoe) (d/s Sandy Brk) Preston Golf Course 3 (u/s Sandy Brook)

NFCS Grade (A=6, F=1) (A=6, GradeNFCS 2

Ashton & Lea Golf Course M6 Bridge 1 Significant decline in Rheophillic Fish since 2001 (Ribble Link constructed 2002) 0 348000 349000 350000 351000 352000 353000 354000 355000 356000 357000 358000 Easting

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

15 17/02/2016

Fig 1.27 Savick Brook & Ribble Link : Rheophillic Fish & WQ (Downstream Changes) 31

Downstream Changes on Savick Brook - Rheophillic Fish & WQ in 2001 15 May-01 ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15) ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15) Sharoe Brook ptc with Sandy Brook 12 Ribble Link Canal at Lea Road Grimsargh Rd Bridge Eaves Brook

9 ptc with Eaves Brook

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, 6 Barry Avenue 9=Moderate, 6=Poor and 3=Bad. (d/s Sharoe Brook) Migery Lane

Lea Road Haslam Park Sharoe Green 3 (d/s Eaves, u/s Sharoe) (d/s Sandy Brk) Drop in Fish in 2001

NFCS Grade (A=6, F=1) & WFD Water Quality Status Quality WFD & Water F=1) (A=6, GradeNFCS plausibly related to WQ M6 Bridge Ashton & Lea Golf Course

0 348000 350000 352000 354000 356000 358000 360000 Easting

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

Savick Brook & Subcatchments

. 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)

16 17/02/2016

Savick Brook & Subcatchments

. Top of Savick (u/s 88003570) (split also to u/s 88003569) . Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573) . Sharoe Brook u/s 88003574 . Bottom of Savick (d/s 88003570) (including Ribble Link)

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

Savick Brook •WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate u/s 88003570

Hydromorphological Status : Ecological Quality: Moderate Heavily Modified Potential

Biological quality Physico-chemical quality

Fish Inverts Ammonia DO pH Phosphate

MP 88003569: MP 88003569: MP 88003569: MP 88003569: MP 13817: Bad MP 68117: Mod Good High High Poor

MP 88003570: MP 88003570: MP 88003570: MP 88003570: MP 4364: Bad ASPT: Mod lower=High, Good High upper=Mod Poor

NTAXA: Good Sources: EA website, WB_SPT_Classification_all_IAP.xls (A Hartland)

17 17/02/2016

Fig 2.2 Top of Savick (u/s 88003570): Water bodies (WBs), catchments, monitoring points (MPs) & topo contours 35

OS 10 m contours

Other monitoring points

WFD monitoring points

Fig 2.3 Top of Savick (u/s 88003570): Suspected problems identified by EA Staff 36

18 17/02/2016

Discharges

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

NIRS (Water_selected)

Fig 2.5 Top of Savick (u/s 88003569): General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH & PO ) 4 4 38 Savick Brook at Grimsargh Rd Br - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates 25 6 90%ile BOD WFD Score Orange blobs are 90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score 10%ile DO% WFD score the combined 5.5 Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score WFD status ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15) 20 ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20) 5 ASPT GQA WQ (No PO4) (A=6, F=1) 4.5

15 4

Lab data) & GQA WQ data)GQA & Lab - 3.5

10 3

2.5 (High = (High= 5, Good4, Moderate= 3, Poor = = & 2 Low1) =

5 2

WQ was very bad in (ASPT ScoreInvertebrates

WFD ScoreWFD 1962 and poor in 1970 1.5 PO4 is poor

0 1 01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010

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

19 17/02/2016

Fig 2.6 Top of Savick (u/s 88003569): Consented Discharges (1950-2015) 39

Savick Brook Grimsargh Rd Br (88003569) Consented Discharges (Selected) 2.5 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) 2 2.0 Domestic Property (Single) Public Houses and Bars

1.5

1.0

Number of Consented Discharges perkm DischargesConsented of Number 0.5

0.0 1950 to 1960 to 1970 to 1980 to 1985 to 1990 to 1995 to 2000 to 2005 to 2010 to 1959 1969 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2015 Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project

Table 2.1a Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate

What does each piece of evidence tell us about each suspected cause of WFD failure in this WB? 40 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

Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 1) Agriculture 1) Land use: 71% 0 1) WQ at 88003569 is 1) No upstream WQ NE SAGIS suggests + managed grassland often good to high status monitoring. livestock accounts for (high), 9% Arable (Fig for DO, BOD and NH4 (68.9/155.8=) 44% of 1.5) but poor for PO4, it 0 2) Dairy Farm suspected + measured PO4 (Also see - shows no long term cause noted by EA – Intro Table 1.3) 2) NIRS: 0.00/km2 (low) trend between 1990 and see Fig 2.3. concentration for whole (Fig 1.21) 2006 (Fig 2.5), in a of Savick Brook (Fig period when there was 1.24) and this increased consenting of subcatchment has a septic tanks and high proportion of Brambles PSO (Fig 2.6) managed grassland. – suggests agriculture (or septic tanks) could be source of PO4.

2) DO, BOD, NH4 and 0 PO4 all deteriorated during wetter weather over period 1996-2005. (Fig 1.20). Suggests agr. runoff or storm sewage. 2) Sewage Sludge 1) None 0 NE 0 Spreading

20 17/02/2016

Table 2.1b Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 41 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 2) Sewage 1) Land use: 14% 0 1) See (1) under 0 1) No upstream WQ 0 urb/suburban (low - Agriculture above. monitoring. mod) (Fig 1.5) 2) See (2) under 0 2) NIRS: 0.75 /km2 + Agriculture above. (mod) (Fig 1.22) 3) WQ was “Very Bad” + in 1962 implying a sewage source if agr expansion was in 1970s/1980s. (Fig 1.10) 2a) STWs 1) 1 public house 0 1) No upstream WQ 0 (non-W Co) 2) No Final effluent monitoring. NIRS or NIRS linked to consented discharges of - this type. 2b) Septic tanks 1) 14.6/km2 (Mod) 0 1) See (1) under 0 1) No upstream WQ 0 PO4 S/Appt, SAGIS & + 2) 2 septic tank NIRS + Agriculture re ongoing monitoring. local estimate 2% - 3% background PO4 over whole of Savick pollution. 2) Septic tanks near + Brook (Intro Table 1.3). Longridge noted to be a But a higher density in probable cause by EA this area. (Fig 2.4) (see Fig 2.3)

Table 2.1c Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 42 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: 0.19 /km2 (low) + 1 grey water event related to a barn conversion. (Fig 1.22) 2c) Intermittents 1) NIRS: 0.37 /km2 - 1) WQ at 88003569 0 (CSOs & PSOs) (mod) for Storm Sewage shows a number or related to 2 NIRS events poorer WQ events with on Longridge CSO in poorer NH4, BOD and 2009 and 2010. (Fig DO (Fig 2.5) possibly 1.22) related to storm events 0 but could be agricultural 2) No work planned for runoff or storm sewage. Longridge CSO or Brambles PSO under 2) See (2) under AMP5 (Preston 32 and Agriculture poorer WQ 0 7) schemes. during wetter periods possibly related to storm sewage (or agriculture).

21 17/02/2016

Table 2.1d Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 43 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 3) Landfill 1) 0.0% area of + 1) Fulwood District 0 catchment Council Tip (1960-1975) 2) No landfill related - located ~500m NE of NIRS WQ monitoring point. Type of waste unknown 4) Geomorph 1) Straightened / re- 0 Not applicable sectioned near Longridge, but otherwise semi-natural. (Intro Fig 1.16) - 2) DO often high status suggesting geomorphology does not limit aeration. 5) Industry 1) 1 Cat 2 NIRS event 0 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).

Table 2.2a Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): Conclusions WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 44 Which suspected causes need to have something done about them? You should expect that more than one suspected cause will need attention.

Suspected Conclusions causes Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team) Agriculture The evidence for farming being a cause is Dairy (and pig?) farming is likely to be a Develop measures to deal with livestock not strong, but it dominates the land use and significant part of the problem. problems (e.g. nutrient management

SAGIS notes it will be contributing PO4. plans, slurry stores and silage clamps). Sewage Sludge None Not part of the problem Review if sewage sludge spreading is Spreading proposed in future. Sewage (in Except for NIRS events, and increased Part of the problem (at least in the past) See details below general) consenting of sewage related discharges, evidence is inconclusive. STWs Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem. None (non-W Co) Septic Tanks Evidence is limited and weak but points Septic tanks are likely to be part of the Monitor WQ u/s of UU CSO and PSO to towards septic tanks being part of the problem. check for influence of septic tanks in problem. 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.

22 17/02/2016

Table 2.2b Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): Conclusions WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 45

Suspected Conclusions causes Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team) 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 Evidence is limited, but NIRS and increased Part of the problem (at least in the past) Check CSO and PSO failure rate with (CSOs & PSs) consenting point towards CSOs and PSOs UU. There are no planned schemes being a problem (at least in the past) and under UU AMP5 plans. plausibly explain the deterioration in water quality in wet periods. Landfill Evidence is circumstantial only Cannot rule out, but insufficient Review landfill impact again after farming evidence to drive significant measure. and septic tank / storm sewage (?) problems addressed. Geomorphology Limited evidence, but consistent in Not a significant part of the problem. None suggesting not a significant problem. Industry Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem, Review NIRS in 2 years time and liaise localised effect only. with industry re future pollution prevention measures.

Fig 2.7 Top of Savick (u/s 88003570): General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH & PO ) 4 4 46 Savick Brook ptc Sandy Brook - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates 25 6 90%ile BOD WFD Score Orange blobs are 90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score 10%ile DO% WFD score the combined 5.5 Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score WFD status ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15) 20 ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20) 5 BMWP GQA WQ (No PO4) (A=6, F=1) 4.5 DO & BOD improves

15 from 1985-1995 4

Lab data) & GQA WQ data)GQA & Lab - 3.5

10 3

WQ was very bad in 2.5 (High = (High= 5, Good4, Moderate= 3, Poor = = & 2 = Bad 1) 1962 and poor in 1970

5 2 Invertebrates (ASPT (ASPT ScoreInvertebrates

WFD ScoreWFD 1.5 PO4 is poor

0 1 01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010

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

23 17/02/2016

Fig 2.8 Top of Savick (u/s 88003570): Consented Discharges (1950-2015) 47

Savick Brook (Grimsargh to ptc Sandy Brook) Consented Discharges (Selected) 2.5 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) 2 2.0 Domestic Property (Single) General Construction Work

1.5

Mainly domestic property, mixed farming, STWs and Cow Hill CSO 1.0

Number of Consented Discharges perkm DischargesConsented of Number 0.5

Table 2.3a Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 48 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score

1) Agriculture 1) Land use: 61% 0 1) WQ at 88003570 1) DO, BOD, NH4 and 0 SAGIS suggests + managed grassland improved significantly PO4 all improve from livestock accounts for (high), 14% Arable. (Fig 1985-1995 (Fig 2.7), in 88003569 to 88003570 (68.9/155.8=) 44% of 1.5) a period when there was 0 (Figs 1.15-1.19) – as a measured PO4 + increased consenting of result of proportionally concentration for whole 2) NIRS: 0.30/km2 (high) non-UU sewage less agriculture of Savick Brook (Fig – 1 Cat 2 event related disposal works (Fig 2.8). compared to u/s. 1.24) and this to leakage of silage PO4 remains poor status Suggest agriculture subcatchment has a liquor from silo in 2010 throughout suggesting could still be contributor. high proportion of and 1 Cat 3 event other source including managed grassland. related to dairy slurry agriculture. 2) 2 areas of dairy farm spreading in 2001 (Fig suspected causes noted + 1.21) 0 2) DO, BOD, NH4 and 0 by EA – see Fig 2.3. PO4 all deteriorated 3) 2 Mixed Farming worse than upstream at consented discharges 88003569 during wetter (Greenhouse Farm and weather over period The Mount) 1996-2005. (Fig 1.20). Suggests agr. Runoff or storm sewage. 2) Sewage Sludge 1) None 0 NE 0 Spreading

24 17/02/2016

Table 2.3b Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 49 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 2) Sewage 1) Land use: 19% 0 1) See (1) under + 1) See (1) under - urb/suburban (low - Agriculture above Agriculture above – WQ mod) (suggests at least past improves with greater problems with sewage). urban / less agriculture 2) NIRS: 0.91 /km2 + (mod-high) (Fig 1.22) 2) See (2) under 0 Agriculture above. 2a) STWs 1) 0.61/km2 (4 disposals 0 1) See (1) under + 1) See (1) under 0 (non-W Co) in 2005-15, 3 disposals Agriculture above Agriculture above – if 1990 -2004) (Fig 1.22) (suggests at least past STWs are contributing problems with sewage their contribution is less 2) No Final effluent - reduced through than from u/s sources NIRS or NIRS linked to increased consents). (ag + septic tanks?) consented discharges of this type. 2b) Septic tanks 1) 14.4/km2 (Mod) 0 1) No upstream WQ 0 PO4 S/Appt, SAGIS & + monitoring. local estimate 2% - 3% 2) 1 septic tank NIRS + over whole of Savick 2) Septic tanks not - Brook (Intro Table 1.3). noted to be a probable But a higher density in cause by EA (see Fig this area. (Fig 2.4) 2.3)

Table 2.3c Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 50 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: 0.30 /km2 (low) + 1) New housing noted to + 2 wrong connections be a probable cause by noted (see Fig 2.4). EA (see Fig 2.4) 2c) Intermittents 1) NIRS: 0.00 /km2 for + 1) See (2) under 0 (CSOs & PSOs) Storm Sewage related Agriculture poorer WQ but two related to crude during wetter periods sewer outfalls. possibly related to storm sewage (or agriculture). 2) 1 CSO at Cow Hill. 0 2) Cow Hill CSO 3) UU plan 3,510m3 of consented in 1995, + extra “Storm storage, improved in 2009 and Static Screen & Event + will be improved again in Logging” (UU ref 2012 (suggests it PRE0015) needed improving?)

25 17/02/2016

Table 2.3d Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 51 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 3) Landfill 1) 0.0% area of 0 1) Kitchen Green Tip – 0 catchment) (Fig 1.4) Fulwood Row - received some domestic waste 2) No landfill related - 1981-1984. NIRS 4) Geomorph 1) Semi-natural - Not applicable N/A

2) DO often high status suggesting - geomorphology does not limit aeration. 5) Industry 1) No Industry related 0 NIRS 6) M6 1) Crosses WB 0

2) Unlikely source of - BOD, NH4 and PO4

3) No mention of M6 in - NIRS data.

Table 2.4a Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): Conclusions WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 52

Suspected Conclusions causes Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team) Agriculture The evidence for farming being a cause is Dairy (and pig?) farming is likely to be a Develop measures to deal with livestock not strong, but it is still the largest land use significant part of the problem. problems (e.g. nutrient management

and SAGIS notes it will be contributing PO4. plans, slurry stores and silage clamps). Sewage Sludge None Not part of the problem Review if sewage sludge spreading is Spreading proposed in future. Sewage (in Except for NIRS events, and increased Part of the problem (at least in the past) See details below general) consenting of sewage related discharges, evidence is inconclusive. STWs Evidence is limited and weak, but points Cannot rule out, and could be part of Review size and operation / maintenance (non-W Co) towards disposals at least being a past the problem. of these schemes. problem. Septic Tanks Evidence is limited and weak. Septic tanks are probably part of the Depending on outcome of 88003569

background PO4 problem. suggested measure, extend campaign to this sub-catchment.

26 17/02/2016

Table 2.4b Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): Conclusions WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 53

Suspected Conclusions causes Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team) CSWs Evidence is limited, but consistent. A minor part of the problem Review NIRS in 2 years time to check for any increase in wrong connection related events. Take Yellow Fish campaign to problem areas? Intermittents Evidence is broadly consistent in suggesting Part of the problem (at least in the past) Review WQ data after UU have (CSOs & PSs) Cow Hill CSO has at least been part of the implemented plans for increased storm problem in the past. storage at Cow Hill CSO. Landfill Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem, Review landfill impact again in future localised effect only. once other causes have been addressed. Geomorphology Limited evidence, but consistent in Not a significant part of the problem. None suggesting not a significant problem. Industry Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem, Review NIRS in 2 years time and liaise localised effect only. with industry re future pollution prevention measures. M6 Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem. None

Savick Brook & Subcatchments

. 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)

27 17/02/2016

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

Eaves Brook •WFD failures: inverts, ammonia phosphate u/s 88003573

Hydromorphological Status : Ecological Quality: Moderate Heavily Modified Potential

Biological quality Physico-chemical quality

Fish: NA Inverts Ammonia DO pH Phosphate

MP 88003573: MP 88003573: MP 88003573: MP 88003573: MP 65405: Bad Poor High High Mod

ASPT: Bad

NTAXA: Poor Sources: EA website, WB_SPT_Classification_all_IAP.xls (A Hartland)

Fig 3.2 Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Water bodies (WBs), catchments, monitoring points (MPs) & topo contours 56

OS 10 m contours

Other monitoring points

WFD monitoring points MP 8803572

28 17/02/2016

Fig 3.3 Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Suspected problems identified by EA Staff 57

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.

MP 8803572

Discharges

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

NIRS (Water_selected) MP 8803572

29 17/02/2016

Fig 3.5 Eaves Brook (u/s 88003572): General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH & PO ) 4 4 59 Eaves Brook at Longridge Rd - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates 25 6 90%ile BOD WFD Score Orange blobs are 90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score 10%ile DO% WFD score the combined 5.5 Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score WFD status ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15) 20 ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20) 5 BMWP

WQ variable and 4.5

dips in 1990 Lab data) Lab 15 4 -

3.5

10 3

2.5

(High = (High= 5, Good4, Moderate= 3, Poor = = & 2 Low1) = Invertebrates (ASPT (ASPT ScoreInvertebrates 5 2 PO4 was good to high WFD ScoreWFD status until 1992 1.5

0 1 01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010

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

Fig 3.6 Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH & PO ) 4 4 60 Eaves Brook ptc Savick Brook - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates 25 6 90%ile BOD WFD Score Orange blobs are 90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score 10%ile DO% WFD score the combined 5.5 Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score WFD status ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15) 20 ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20) 5 BMWP WQ quite variable GQA WQ (No PO4) (A=6, F=1) 4.5 WQ improves by 2000 ?

15 4

Lab data) &GQA WQ data)&GQA Lab - 3.5

10 3

2.5 (High = (High= 5, Good4, Moderate= 3, Poor = = & 2 Low1) =

5 2 Invertebrates (ASPT (ASPT ScoreInvertebrates

WFD ScoreWFD PO4 deteriorates1.5 with BOD & NH4

0 1 01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010

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

30 17/02/2016

Fig 3.7 Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Consented Discharges (1950-2015) 61

Eaves Brook Consented Discharges (Selected) 2.5 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) 2 2.0 Domestic Property (Single) General Construction Work

1.5

1.0 Poorly controlled until 1990, then mainly CSOs

Number of Consented Discharges perkm DischargesConsented of Number 0.5

Table 3.1a Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: inverts, ammonia, phosphate 62 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score

1) Agriculture 1) Land use: 20% 0 1) WQ at 88003572 at 1) DO, BOD, NH4 and - managed grassland Longridge Rd had PO4 all deteriorate (high), 3% Arable. generally good to high downstream from status PO4 although 0 88003572 (Fig 3.5) to 2) Managed grassland - variable DO, NH4 and 88003573 (Fig 3.6) above appears to be BOD (Fig 3.5). u/s of where there is no common land / here also contains Red agricultural land. grassland rather than Scar Ind estate (with farmed land. non UU sewer or 2) Farming not flagged - septic?) and some as issue by EA staff – 2) NIRS: 0.00/km2 (high) - landfill. see Fig 3.3.

3) 0 Mixed Farming - consented discharges 2) Sewage Sludge 1) None 0 NE 0 Spreading

31 17/02/2016

Table 3.1b Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: inverts, ammonia, phosphate 63 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 2) Sewage 1) Land use: 65% 0 1) WQ at 88003573 at + 1) See (1) under + urb/suburban (high) Longridge Rd improves Agriculture above – WQ from ~1995 to 1999 with deteriorates significantly 2) NIRS: 1.18 /km2 (mod improved DO, BOD and through urban / -high) + NH4 although worse PO4 suburban catchment. (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 + PO4 all deteriorated during wetter weather over period 1996-2005. (Fig 1.20) and in absence of significant agriculture suggests sewage. 2a) STWs 1) None since 2000 - (non-W Co) 2) No Final effluent NIRS or NIRS linked to consented discharges of - this type.

Table 3.1c Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: inverts, ammonia, phosphate 64 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 2b) Septic tanks (& 1) 19.9/km2 (High) 0 1) WQ at 88003572 at 0 1) No upstream WQ 0 non UU sewerage) properties more than 100 Longridge Rd had monitoring. m from UU sewer but generally good to high many may be on private status PO4 although 2) Sewage at Red Scar + sewer at Red Scar variable DO, NH4 and Ind Estate (non UU sewer Industrial Estate. BOD (Fig 3.5). u/s of or septic tanks?) not here also contains Red noted to be a probable 2) No septic tank NIRS - Scar Ind estate (with non cause by EA (see Fig UU sewer or septic?) and 3.3) 3) 2 crude sewage NIRS + some landfill. on Red Scar Ind Estate 2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: 0.00 /km2 (see - Fig X.3). 2c) Intermittents 1) NIRS: 0.68/km2 (high) + 1) See (1) under Sewage + 1) See (1) under + (CSOs & PSOs) Crude and Storm above – WQ improves Agriculture Sewage –detail shows 4 when CSOs improved. sewage events (2003-10) 2) Several CSOs flagged + related to CSOs. 2) See (2) under Sewage as issue by EA staff – above – WQ deteriorates see Fig 3.3. 2) CSOs No = 5 2000-4, in wet weather and 3 2005-9, 2 in 2010-15. + agriculture is unlikely to + be significant factor. 3) UU plan 800m3 of extra “Storm storage at + Watling St CSO +Screen & Event Logging there and at Victoria Rd CSOs

32 17/02/2016

Table 3.1d Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 65 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 3) Landfill 1) 0.0% area of 0 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 4) Geomorph 1) Straightened / re- - 1) Culvert has + Not applicable N/A sectioned / re-aligned insufficient fall and leads for most of its length and to septic conditions culverted d/s of according to EA staff – Garstang Road (near see Fig 3.3. Savick Brook)

2) DO has reached high - status (1995-2006) suggesting geomorphology does not limit aeration.

Table 3.1e Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 66 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 5) Industry 1) Red Scar Industrial 0 1) WQ at 88003572 at 0 Estate Longridge Rd deteriorated in late 2) 40 NIRS events 0 1980s (Fig 3.5). u/s of related to neither here contains Red Scar sewage or oils, but Ind estate (with non UU unclear of impact on sewer or septic?). DO, BOD, NH4 and PO4. 6) M6 1) Crosses WB 0

2) Unlikely source of - BOD, NH4 and PO4

3) No mention of M6 in - NIRS data.

33 17/02/2016

Table 3.2a Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: inverts, ammonia, phosphate 67

Suspected Conclusions causes Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team) Agriculture Evidence is limited and weak, but consistent Not part of the problem No action, until other measures have in suggesting agriculture is not a problem. been successfully implemented. Sewage Sludge None Not part of the problem No action, sewage spreading unlikely in Spreading the future. Sewage (in Evidence is consistent and strong in pointing Main part of the problem (at least in the See details below general) towards sewage being a problem. past) STWs None Not part of the problem None (non-W Co) Septic Tanks Evidence is inconsistent and weak, but points Cannot rule out, and could be part of Once UU CSO schemes have been put towards septic tanks or non-UU sewers at the problem. in place investigate sewerage / septic Red Scar Ind Estate being a possible cause tank arrangements at Red Scar Industrial Estate. CSWs Evidence is very limited, but suggests not a Not a significant part of the problem. Review NIRS in 2 years time to check for significant problem. any increase in wrong connection related events. If so, take Yellow Fish campaign to problem areas? Intermittents Evidence is consistent and strong suggesting Main part of the problem (at least in the Review WQ data after UU have (CSOs & PSs) CSOs have been a significant problem at past) implemented AMP5 plans. least in the past.

Table 3.2b Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: inverts, ammonia, phosphate 68

Suspected Conclusions causes Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team) Landfill Evidence is limited and weak, but there are a Cannot rule out, and could be part of Review landfill impact again in future lot of landfills in this subcatchment. the problem. once other causes have been addressed. Geomorphology Evidence is limited and weak, but suggests Not a significant part of the problem, Review options for preventing stagnant culverting may cause localised problem. localised effect only. conditions developing in culverted section. Industry A lot of pollution events, but not obviously Cannot rule out, and could be part of Review NIRS in 2 years time and liaise

linked to DO, BOD, NH4 and PO4 problems. the problem. with industry re future pollution Otherwise evidence is limited and weak. prevention measures. M6 Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem. None

34 17/02/2016

Savick Brook & Subcatchments

. Top of Savick (u/s 88003570) . Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573) . Sharoe Brook u/s 88003574 . Bottom of Savick (d/s 88003575) (including Ribble Link)

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

•WFD failures: phosphate

Sharoe Brook u/s 88003574

Hydromorphological Status : Heavily Ecological Quality: Moderate Potential Modified

Biological quality Physico-chemical quality

Fish Ammonia DO pH Phosphate

Inverts MP 88003574: Good MP 88003574: High MP 88003574: High MP 88003574: Mod

Sources: EA website, WB_SPT_Classification_all_IAP.xls (A Hartland)

35 17/02/2016

Fig 4.2 Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Water bodies (WBs), catchments, monitoring points (MPs) & topo contours 71

OS 10 m contours

Other monitoring points

WFD monitoring points

Fig 4.3 Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Suspected problems identified by EA Staff 72

36 17/02/2016

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

Discharges

NIRS (Water_selected)

Fig 4.5 Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH & PO ) 4 4 74 Sharoe Brook ptc Savick Brook - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates (88003570) 25 6 90%ile BOD WFD Score Orange blobs are 90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score 10%ile DO% WFD score the combined 5.5 Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15) WFD status ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20) WQ variable and 20 ASPT 5 GQA WQ (No PO4) (A=6, F=1) some deterioration since 2000 WQ improves from 4.5 1985-1995

15 4

Lab data) & GQA WQ data)GQA & Lab - 3.5

10 3

2.5 (High = (High= 5, Good4, Moderate= 3, Poor = = & 2 Low1) =

5 2 Invertebrates (ASPT (ASPT ScoreInvertebrates

WFD ScoreWFD 1.5 PO4 is poor

0 1 01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010

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

37 17/02/2016

Fig 4.6 Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Consented Discharges (1950-2015) 75

Sharoe Brook Consented Discharges (Selected) 2.5 Sewerage Network - Sewers - water company Sewerage Network - Pumping Station - water company Sewage Disposal Works - water company Sewage disposal works - other Sewage Materials: Discharge Consents and NIRS Other Tourist/Short Stay Accommodation 4.5 88003570 - ) Savick Brook Subcatchments Mixed Farming 2 88003571 Domestic Property (Multiple) South Fylde Drains 2 2.0 4.0 Domestic Property (Single) General Construction Work

3.5

2010) (No/km 2010) -

3.0

1.5 2.5

2.0 Sharoe Brook (Lot of Grey Water) 1.5 Pool Stream High proportion of sewage 1.0 Wrea 1.0 Brook related NIRS for relatively 0.5 3571-3575 (+0.55 wrong connections as few consents Sewage Materials NIRS Pollution(2001Incidents Materials NIRS Sewage "contaminated water") CSOs stop ?, PS EOs 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Sewage Related Consented Discharges (No per km2) 2005-9

Number of Consented Discharges perkm DischargesConsented of Number 0.5

Table 4.1a Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: phosphate 76 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score

1) Agriculture 1) Land use: 37% 0 1) PO4 at 88003574 has 1) Only one water NE SAGIS suggests + managed grassland remained poor since quality monitoring point. livestock accounts for (low-mod), 5% Arable. 1975 (Fig 4.5) despite (68.9/155.8=) 44% of improvements in DO, 0 2) Dairy farms at top of + measured PO4 2 2) NIRS: 0.00/km - BOD and NH4 1980- catchment noted by EA concentration for whole 1990 implying a as a suspected cause of Savick Brook (Fig 3) No Mixed Farming background source (see Fig 4.3). 1.24) so some PO4 likely consented discharges 0 unaffected by consents from agricultural u/s part (Fig 4.6). Could be of Sharoe Brook. agriculture or septic tanks?

2) Sewage Sludge 1) None 0 NE 0 Spreading

38 17/02/2016

Table 4.1b Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: phosphate 77 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 2) Sewage 1) Land use: 50% 0 1) WQ at 88003574 + 1) Only one water - urb/suburban (mod- improved 1985-1990 quality monitoring point. high) (Fig 4.5) at a time when a consented discharge 2) Wrong connections + 2) NIRS: 1.78 /km2 + for housing development noted by EA as a (mod-high) work was put in place suspected cause (see (Fig 4.6). Tanterton Fig 4.3). 3) Sharoe Brook has a + housing area developed high proportion of before 1991 (Fig 1.6) sewage related NIRS compared to sewage 2) There has been a 0 related consented slight decline in WQ at discharges (Fig 4.6) 88003574 (Fig 4.5) since 1995-2005 potentially with the consented PSO (Fig 4.6) for Uplands Hall Housing Development, Tanterton. 2a) STWs 1) 0.00/km2 (although 1 0 1) See (1) under 0 1) No STWs problems - (non-W Co) at Jumps Farm 1994- Agriculture above noted by EA staff (Fig 1996) (possible background 4.3) source ?). 2) 1 No Final effluent + NIRS possibly related to Jumps Farm (consent revoked in 1996, now exempt?).

Table 4.1c Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: phosphate 78 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 2b) Septic tanks 1) 9.5/km2 (Mod) (Fig 0 1) See (1) under 0 1) No upstream WQ 0 1.7) Agriculture above monitoring. (possible background 2) 1 septic tank NIRS + + source ?). 2) Septic tanks not - also see (2) under 2a noted to be a probable above. cause by EA (see Fig 4.3) 2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: 1.04/km2 (low) + 1) See (1) and (2) under + 1) Wrong connections + (Grey Water) 11 No Sewage suggesting noted to be a probable references to wrong deterioration in WQ cause by EA (see Fig connections in NIRS related to housing 4.4) detail at five locations development. (see Fig 4.4). 2c) Intermittents 1) NIRS: 0.15 /km2 for + 1) See (1) under + 1) No CSO / PSO - (CSOs & PSOs) Storm Sewage related Sewage. problems noted by EA to 1 No CSO failure in staff (Fig 4.3) ten years. 2) WQ at 88003574 (Fig - 4.5) is less variable than 2) 1 CSO at Lightfoot 0 on many parts of Savick Lane and 1 PSO for Brook, implying less Uplands Hall Housing CSO, storm problems Development (Tanterton).

39 17/02/2016

Table 4.1d Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: phosphate 79 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 3) Landfill 1) 0.0% area of 0 0 catchment) (Fig 1.4)

2) The two main landfills - are reported as not having household waste, but inert or construction waste.

2) No landfill related - NIRS 4) Geomorph 1) Mainly re-aligned or 0 Not applicable N/A straightened and with a short culverted section in Sharoe Green

2) DO often high status - suggesting geomorphology does not limit aeration. 5) Industry 1) No Industry related - NIRS

Table 4.1d Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: phosphate 80 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 6) M6 1) Crosses WB 0

2) Unlikely source of - BOD, NH4 and PO4

3) No mention of M6 in - NIRS data.

40 17/02/2016

Table 4.2a Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Conclusions WFD failures: phosphate 81

Suspected Conclusions causes Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team) Agriculture The evidence for farming being a cause is Dairy farming is likely to be part of the Develop measures to deal with livestock not strong, but EA staff opinions and SAGIS problem. problems (e.g. nutrient management

PO4 predictions from managed grassland plans, slurry stores and silage clamps). suggest agriculture is a contributing factor. Sewage Sludge None Not part of the problem Review if sewage sludge spreading is Spreading proposed in future. Sewage (in Evidence is broadly consistent in suggesting Part of the problem (and may have got See details below general) sewage (including wrong connections) is a worse since the early 1990s) problem. STWs None, although one (exempt?) discharge at Possible minor part of the problem Review size and operation / maintenance (non-W Co) Jumps Farm could be a minor contributor of the Jumps Farm discharge. Septic Tanks Evidence is inconsistent and weak. Cannot rule out, and could be part of Address other likely causes first and then the problem. if still a problem extend septic tank campaign from upper parts of Savick Brook.

Table 4.2a Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Conclusions WFD failures: phosphate 82

Suspected Conclusions causes Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team) CSWs Evidence is consistent and strong for wrong A significant part of the problem Focussed effort for Yellow Fish connections being a significant problem. campaign. Intermittents Evidence is limited and weak, but could imply Probably a minor part of the problem. Liaise with UU over failure rates for CSO (CSOs & PSs) a small impact on WQ since 1995 following at Lightfoot Lane and PSO for Uplands increased housing. 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 Not a significant part of the problem. None significant problem (local influence only?). Industry None Not a significant part of the problem. None

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

41 17/02/2016

Savick Brook & Subcatchments

. Top of Savick (u/s 88003570) . Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573) . Sharoe Brook u/s 88003574 . Bottom of Savick (d/s 88003575) (including Ribble Link)

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

•WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate Savick Brook * Fish at MP 4366 improved to Good in 2010 (GB112071065470)

Hydromorphological Status : Ecological Quality: Heavily Modified Moderate Potential

Biological Physico-chemical quality: quality: Poor Moderate

Ammonia: Phosphate: Fish: Poor Inverts: Poor DO: High pH: High Good Moderate

MP 68117: MP 68135: MP 88003569: MP 88003569: MP 88003569: MP 88003569: MP 13817: Bad MP 65405: Bad Mod Mod Good High High Poor

MP 88003570: MP 88003570: MP 88003570: MP 88003570: MP 4364: Bad ASPT: Mod ASPT: Bad ASPT:Mod lower=High, Good High upper=Mod Poor

MP 88003573: MP 88003573: MP 88003573: MP 88003573: MP 4366: Mod* NTAXA: Good NTAXA: Poor NTAXA: Mod Poor High High Mod

MP 88003574: MP 88003574: MP 88003574: MP 88003574: Sources: EA website, Good High High Mod WB_SPT_Classification_all_IAP.xls (A Hartland)

42 17/02/2016

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

Ribble Link •WFD failures: phosphate (GB71210217)

Hydromorphological Status: Artificial Ecological Quality: Moderate Potential

Specific Pollutants Biological quality: NA Physico-chemical quality: Moderate Quality: High

Ammonia: High DO: NA pH: High Phosphate: Moderate Ammonia: High

MP ?? 88003575 MP ?? 88003575 MP ?? 88003575 Copper: High

Zinc: High Source: EA website

Fig 5.2 Bottom of Savick & Ribble Link: Water bodies (WBs), catchments, monitoring points (MPs) & topo contours

WFD monitoring points Other monitoring points 86

OS 10 m contours

Ribble Link is d/s (west) side of dashed line

43 17/02/2016

Fig 5.3 Bottom of Savick & Ribble Link: Suspected problems identified by EA Staff

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

44 17/02/2016

Legend for Fig 5.4 89

Discharges NIRS (Water_selected)

Fig 5.5 Savick Brook prior to confluence (ptc) with Eaves Brook (u/s 88003571): General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH & PO ) 4 4 90 Savick Brook ptc Eaves Brook - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates (88003570) 25 6 90%ile BOD WFD Score Orange blobs are 90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score 10%ile DO% WFD score the combined 5.5 Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score WFD status ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15) 20 ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20) 5 BMWP GQA WQ (No PO4) (A=6, F=1) 4.5 WQ improves from

15 1990-1995 4

Lab data) & GQA Score data)GQA & Lab - 3.5

10 WQ quite variable 3

2.5 (High = (High= 5, Good4, Moderate= 3, Poor = = & 2 = Bad 1)

5 2 Invertebrates (ASPT (ASPT ScoreInvertebrates

WFD ScoreWFD 1.5 PO4 is better than upstream 0 1 01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010

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

45 17/02/2016

Fig 5.6 Savick Brook (between 88003570 to 88003571): Consented Discharges (1950-2015) 91

Savick Brook between Sandy and Eaves Bks Consented Discharges (Selected) 5.0 Sewerage Network - Sewers - water company Sewerage Network - Pumping Station - water company Sewage Disposal Works - water company 4.5 Sewage disposal works - other Other Tourist/Short Stay Accommodation Mixed Farming Domestic Property (Multiple) 2 4.0 Domestic Property (Single) General Construction Work 3.5

3.0 Note: Scale is larger 2.5 on this chart

2.0 Poorly controlled until 1.5 1990, then mainly CSOs

Number of Consented Discharges perkm DischargesConsented of Number 1.0

0.5

Fig 5.7 Savick Brook / Ribble Link at Lea Road (88003575): General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH & PO ) 4 4 92 Ribble Link Canal at Lea Road - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates (88003570) 25 6 90%ile BOD WFD Score Orange blobs are 90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score 10%ile DO% WFD score the combined 5.5 Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score WFD status ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15) 20 ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20) 5 ASPT WQ variable GQA WQ (No PO4) (A=6, F=1) WQ improves 4.5 gradually 1990-2000

15 4

Lab data) & GQA WQ data)GQA & Lab - 3.5

10 3

2.5 (High = (High= 5, Good4, Moderate= 3, Poor = = & 2 Low1) =

5 2 Invertebrates (ASPT (ASPT ScoreInvertebrates

WFD ScoreWFD 1.5 PO4 is poor

0 1 01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010

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

46 17/02/2016

Fig 5.8 Savick Brook (between 88003571 to 88003575): Consented Discharges (1950-2015) 93

Savick Brook (88003571 - 88003575) Consented Discharges (Selected) 2.5 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) 2 2.0 Domestic Property (Single) General Construction Work

1.5

1.0 Few consents before late 1990s then CSOs (and “UU Cattle Market STW?) Number of Consented Discharges perkm DischargesConsented of Number 0.5

Fig 5.9 Savick Brook ptc River Ribble (88003576): General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH & PO ) 4 4 94 Savick Brook ptc Tidal Ribble - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates (88003576) 25 6 90%ile BOD WFD Score Orange blobs are 90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score the combined 10%ile DO% WFD score 5.5 Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score WFD status 20 ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15) 5 ∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20) GQA WQ (No PO4) (A=6, F=1) 4.5

15 WQ poor 4

Lab data) & GQA WQ data)GQA & Lab - 3.5

10 3

2.5 (High = (High= 5, Good4, Moderate= 3, Poor = = & 2 = Bad 1)

5 2 Invertebrates (ASPT (ASPT ScoreInvertebrates

WFD ScoreWFD 1.5 PO4 is poor

0 1 01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010

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

47 17/02/2016

Fig 5.10 Savick Brook (between 88003575 to 88003576): Consented Discharges (1950-2015) 95

Savick Brook (88003575 - 88003576) Consented Discharges (Selected) 2.5 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) 2 2.0 Domestic Property (Single) General Construction Work

1.5

1.0 Few consents before late 1990s then Domestic, a Non UU STW & Tourism Number of Consented Discharges perkm DischargesConsented of Number 0.5

Table 5.1a Bottom of Savick (88003570-3571): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 96 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 1) Agriculture 1) Land use: 18% 0 1) No farm or parkland - managed grassland = issues noted by EA as a parkland (low), 1% suspected cause (see Arable. Fig 5.3). - 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.

2) Sewage Sludge 1) None 0 NE 0 Spreading

48 17/02/2016

Table 5.1b Bottom of Savick (88003570-3571): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 97 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 2) Sewage 1) Land use: 71% 0 1) WQ (particularly BOD + 1) See Line of Evidence 0 urb/suburban (high) and NH4) at 88003571 B1. (Fig 5.5) more variable 2 2) NIRS: 4.08 /km than upstream at 2) Wrong connections + (high) + 88003570 (Fig 2.7) noted by EA as a suspected cause (see 2) DO, BOD, NH4 and Fig 5.3). PO4 all deteriorated + worse than upstream at 88003570 during wetter weather over period 1996-2005. In absence of agriculture suggests storm sewage (Fig 1.20). 2a) STWs 1) None - 0 - (non-W Co) 2b) Septic tanks 1) 1.4/km2 (low) (Fig - 1) Septic tanks not - 1.7) noted to be a probable cause by EA (see Fig 2) No septic tank NIRS - 4.3) -

Table 5.1c Bottom of Savick (88003570-3571): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 98 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: No wrong - 1) Wrong connections + connection NIRS ( 1 noted to be a possible grey water related to cause by EA (see Fig CSO). 4.4) 2c) Intermittents 1) NIRS: 4.08 /km2 for + 1) See (1) under + 1) No CSO / PSO - (CSOs & PSOs) Crude Sewage largely Sewage. problems noted by EA related to CSOs. staff (Fig 4.3) 2) See (2) under + 2) 3.62 /km2 CSOs Sewage (high). +

3) Landfill None -

4) Geomorph 1) Mainly re-aligned / re- 0 Not applicable N/A sectioned

2) DO often high status suggesting geomorphology does - not limit aeration.

49 17/02/2016

Table 5.2a Bottom of Savick (88003570-3571): Conclusions WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 99

Suspected Conclusions causes Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team) Agriculture None (except in Sandy Brook and WQ from Not part of the problem for this None Sandy Brook appears ok in 2012 – not subcatchment presented) Sewage Sludge None Not part of the problem None Spreading Sewage (in Evidence is broadly consistent in suggesting Main problem See details below general) sewage (primarily CSOs) is a problem. STWs None Not part of the problem None (non-W Co) Septic Tanks Evidence is consistent and suggests septic Cannot rule out, but not likely to be a None tanks are not main problem in this area. significant problem. CSWs Evidence is limited and weak. Cannot rule out, but not likely to be a None significant problem. Intermittents Evidence is consistent and strong that CSOs Main problem (unless addressed by UU Liaise with UU over whether (CSOs & PSs) have been or are the problem. schemes in recent years) 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 Not a significant part of the problem. None significant problem. Industry None Not a significant part of the problem. None

Table 5.3a Bottom of Savick (88003571-3575): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 100 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 1) Agriculture 1) Land use: 29% 0 1) No farm or parkland - managed grassland (inc issues noted by EA as a parkland (low-mod), 5% suspected cause (see Arable. Fig 5.3). - 2) NIRS: 0.00/km2

2) Sewage Sludge 1) None 0 NE 0 Spreading

50 17/02/2016

Table 5.1b Bottom of Savick (88003571-3575): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 101 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 2) Sewage 1) Land use: 58% 0 1) WQ at 88003575 (Fig 0 1) See Line of Evidence 0 urb/suburban (mod- 5.7) likely to be B1. high) dominated by that at 88003571 (Fig 5.5) and 2) No sewage issues - 2) NIRS: 0.37 /km2 (low- + from Eaves Brook (Fig noted by EA as a mod) 3.5) and Sharoe Brook suspected cause (see (Fig 4.5) – cannot Fig 5.3). unpick additional effects from this subcatchment. 2a) STWs 1) None - 0 - (non-W Co) 2b) Septic tanks 1) 9.4/km2 (mod) (Fig - 1) Septic tanks not - 1.7) noted as a suspected cause by EA (see Fig 2) No septic tank NIRS - 5.3) 2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: 4 wrong + 1) Wrong connections + connection NIRS near noted to be a possible WQ monitoring point cause by EA (see Fig (Fig 5.4) 4.4)

Table 5.1c Bottom of Savick (88003571-3575): Strength of Evidence WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 102 Suspected causes Line of evidence A Line of evidence B Line of evidence C Line of evidence D (variation across WBs) (variation in time) (d/s changes) (s/apportionment)

Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score 2c) Intermittents 1) NIRS: 0.00/km2 Storm - 1) No CSO / PSO - (CSOs & PSOs) Sewage (1 for Crude problems noted by EA Sewage but detail says staff (Fig 5.3) misconnection).

2) 0.55 /km2 CSOs (low- 0 mod). 3) Landfill Cottam Hall Brick Works - 1) No landfill problems but mainly demolition noted by EA staff (Fig waste (and unlikely to 5.3) be significant source of BOD, NH4 and PO4

4) Geomorph 1) Section from 0 1) DO often high status - 1) Barriers and locks Not applicable N/A 88003571 to ~600 m d/s (including after Ribble affecting fish migration of confluence with Link complete in 2002) noted by EA staff (Fig Sharoe Brook is semi- suggesting 5.3) natural. Lower section to geomorphology does 88003575 is canalised not limit aeration. (Ribble Link) 2) Rheophillic Fish + - numbers have dropped significantly since Ribble Link completed 2002.

51 17/02/2016

Table 5.2a Bottom of Savick (88003571-3575): Conclusions WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate 103

Suspected Conclusions causes Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team) Agriculture Evidence is limited and weak, but consistent Cannot rule out, but not likely to be a None in suggesting agriculture is not the main significant problem. problem. Sewage Sludge None Not part of the problem None Spreading Sewage (in Evidence is limited, weak and inconsistent, Cannot rule out, but not likely to be a See details below general) except fro wrong connections. significant problem, except wrong connections. STWs None Not part of the problem None (non-W Co) Septic Tanks Evidence is limited, weak, but consistent in Cannot rule out, but not likely to be a None suggesting septic tanks are not a significant significant problem. problem in this area. CSWs Evidence is limited, but consistent in Part of the problem (although WQ Focussed effort for Yellow Fish suggesting wrong connections are a problem generally dominated by upstream) campaign. Intermittents Evidence is limited, but consistent in Cannot rule out, but not likely to be a Liaise with UU over satisfactory CSO (CSOs & PSs) suggesting CSOs are not a problem. significant problem. failure rates in this subcatchment. Landfill None Not part of the problem None

Geomorphology Limited evidence, but suggests a problem for Not significant for general WQ, but a Work with the Canal and River Trust fish rather than water quality. problem for fish (and invertebrates?) regarding impacts of Ribble Link Industry None Not a significant part of the problem. None