appendix c greater dublin water quality · appendix c greater dublin water quality c1. camac river...

Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study Regional Drainage Policies - Volume 3 - Appendices Environmental Management ________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2005

Appendix C

Greater Dublin Water Quality


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2005

APPENDIX C

GREATER DUBLIN WATER QUALITY C1. Camac River Case Study C2. EPA Biological Water Quality C3. EPA Criteria for Eutrophication in Irish Estuaries, Bays and

Nearshore Coastal Waters C4. Summary Statistics for the Broadmeadow & Liffey Estuary C5. Dublin Bay Water Quality Standards C6. EPA Groundwater Quality Monitoring Data C7. General Characteristics of the various Biological Quality Classes C8. Standards for Protecting Amenity Use


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-1 March 2005

C1. CAMAC RIVER CASE STUDY

C1.1 Introduction A study of the impact of various types of urban development on water quality was undertaken in the largely urbanised Camac River catchment in South County Dublin. The study was undertaken between June 2000 and April 2001 as part of the Three Rivers Project, a Government initiative to develop catchment based monitoring and management systems for the Boyne, Liffey and Suir. The Camac River is 24 km in length, and has a catchment area of 59 km2. The River rises in the Dublin Mountains at Mount Seskin and discharges to the River Liffey from a new culvert at Heuston Railway Station. The fall of the river from its source at Mount Seskin to the Liffey outfall is approximately 330m. The population of the catchment was approximately 117,000 persons according to census of 1996, although recent development has seen this figure increase significantly.

C1.2 Land-use Land-use characteristics in the Camac catchment differ significantly from its source to the confluence with the Liffey (refer Figure C1). The upper 7 km of river length is largely rural. The remaining catchment is either developing, has existing major suburban residential conurbations, highly industrialised areas or new developments. The river also drains two major roads, the Western Parkway Motorway (M50) and the N7, Naas Road (Table C1 below).

Table C1 Catchment Land-use

Figure C1 Camac Land Use Sectors

C1.3 Water Quality Monitoring A water quality-monitoring network was designed to sample 4 land-use types in the catchment: “new development”, “residential”, “industrial” and “urban”. River water quality was monitored using three methods: grab sampling, annual biological sampling and flow proportional automatic sampling was undertaken on three significant tributaries of the Camac (Brownsbarn Stream, Walkinstown Stream and Robinhood Stream) as well as the main channel. The samples were analysed for a range of parameters including suspended solids (SS), total organic nitrogen (TON), total phosphorous (TP) and molybdate reactive phosphorous (MRP), nitrate, nitrite and ammonia.

C1.3.1 Grab Sample Locations There were 10 grab-sampling points on the Camac as shown in Figure C2 and detailed in Table C2 below. Grab samples were analysed on weekly basis for physico-chemical parameters while 8 grab-sampling points were biologically monitored on a yearly basis.

Landuse Type Area (ha)

Rural 3734

Residential 1144

Industrial 883

Developing 137

Naas Rd & M50 (Infrastructure)

76


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-2 March 2005

Figure C2 Camac Water Quality Sites

Site ID River Name Station Location Description

RS9C02100 Camac Br. 1km SW Saggart Control Site, upstream of Saggart Village. Predominant landuse agriculture within significant number of domestic dwellings.

RS9B061000 Brownsbarn Stream

Br. on Naas Dual Carr Largest tributary in the catchment.

RS9C02260 Camac End of Cherrywood Crescent

Corcagh Park. Downstream of most developing industrial urban areas. Upstream of major urban and residential sectors of Cherrywood Cresent and Clondalkin.

RS9C02325 Camac Yellow Meadows Downstream of Clondalkin residential area and upstream of the Western Parkway.

RS9C02340 Camac Toyota Ireland Existing hydrometric station. Used to estimate flows at other water quality sites.

RS9R03700 Robinhood Stream

150M us Camac Confluence

Drains a catchment of 580 hectares of significant industrial developments.

RS9C02400 Camac Kylemore Rd Br Downstream of the Robinhood confluence and outfalls from large industrial developments around Fox & Geese.

RS9D03100 Walkinstown Stream

100m u/s Camac Confluence

Last significant tributary of the Camac. Used to monitor runoff from a largely residential catchment.

RS9C02453 Camac Landsdowne Valley Park Suitable end point for the study area. RS9C02500 Camac Camac Close Emmet Rd Monitored to determine similarity to the preferred site at

Landsdowne Valley Park. Determined to be similar therefore dropped from the study.

Table C2 Grab Sample Sites


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-3 March 2005

C1.3.2 Autosampler Locations Auto-samplers were located at six different locations in the catchment (refer Figure C3) to monitor drainage from the stormwater system of a residential sub-catchment, an industrial sub-catchment, motorway drainage, developing site and at the end of the main channel. Sampling was undertaken on a flow proportional basis set up to sample on average eight samples per week. Therefore in periods of low flow sample frequency was less and in periods of high flow it was greater.

Figure C3 Autosampler Sites

Site ID Drainage Land Use Comment

RS9B06002 Tributary of Upr Camac

Developing Industrial Construction/earth works in progress.

RS9CO27 M-50 & Naas Rd

Major Infrastructure (Motorway/dual carriageway)

Both sides of M-50, drained by French drains.

RS9CO26 M-50 Major Infrastructure (Motorway/dual carriageway)

Drains 2.5km of one side of M-50, plus dual carriageway. Detergent in french drains indicated drainage/connections from other sources.

RS9C025 Stormwater Drain

Residential Area Downstream of Clondalkin Village. 62 ha catchment.

RS9R03700 Robinhood Stream

Mixed residential/ commercial/industrial

Drains a catchment of 580 ha of significant industrial developments.

RS9C02410 Camac End point for study area

River culverted 10metres underground.

Table C3 Autosampler Sample Sites


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-4 March 2005

C1.4 Water Quality Results 1.4.1.1 Biological Results Biological monitoring of the Camac was carried out at eight sites on the Camac main channel and tributaries. The sample locations and results are shown on Table C4 below.

Site Code River Name Station Name Pre 1999 Q rating

1999 Q rating

2000 Q rating

RS9C02100 Camac Br. 1km SW Saggart 4-5 4 3-4

RS9B061000 Brownsbarn Stream Br on Naas Road - 3 3

RS9C02260 Camac End of Cherrywood Crescent - 3 3

RS9C02325 Camac Yellow Meadows - 3 3

RS9R03700 Robinhood Stream 150M us Camac Confluence - 2-3 2-3

RS9C02400 Camac Kylemore Rd Br 3 2 -

RS9D03100 Walkinstown Stream 100m us Camac Confluence - 2-3 2-3

RS9C02500 Camac Camac Close Emmet Rd 1-2 2 2

Table C4 Camac - Biological Monitoring Results Notes Q1, Q1-2, Q2: Seriously Polluted Q3, Q2-3: Moderately Polluted

Q3 – Q4: Slightly Polluted Q4, Q4-5, Q5: Unpolluted. Biological monitoring results at all sites below Saggart Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) were indicative of “moderate” to “serious” pollution. The level of pollution increases from upstream to downstream. The site above Saggart Village was the only unpolluted site on the system in 1999 but results from the 2000 survey have shown a decrease in Q ratings indicative of “slight” pollution.

C1.4.2 Physico/chemical Results Grab Sampler Results The Median Molybdate Reactive Phosphate (MRP) results for the main channel and tributaries are shown in Figure C4 below. There was a dramatic increase in the median MRP (mg/l) concentration from the site above Saggart (CO2100) to the site below Saggart (C02260). This increase in median MRP concentration was primarily due to Saggart Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW). The median MRP concentration remained relatively constant downstream of Saggart although it would have been expected that tributaries entering the main channel would have had some dilution effect. Thus it can be seen that nutrients from tributaries and other sources entering the main channel contribute significantly to the elevated nutrient concentrations. All the sites downstream of the WwTW exceed the EPA unpolluted threshold for MRP concentrations of 0.03 mgP/l. The maximum ammonia standard of 0.3 mgN/l was also exceeded at 6 sites, all of which were downstream of the WwTW.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-5 March 2005

MRP Down Main Channel

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

RS9C02

100

RS9B06

1000

RS9C02

260

RS9C02

325

RS9C02

340

RS9R03

700

RS9C02

400

RS9D03

100

RS9C02

453

RS9C02

500

Stations

MR

P (m

gP/l)

Median MRP (Main)Median MRP (Trib)

Sagg

ert W

WTP

EPA Limit for MRP 0.03 mgP/l

Figure C4 MRP Concentrations, Camac Catchment

Auto Sampler Results

The following findings were achieved from the results of autosampling: Residential Monitoring • Nutrient concentrations were strongly event based as would be expected in a storm system.

• Nutrient levels were high, i.e. stormwater was not ‘clean’. (Median MRP 0.23 – 0.34 mg/LP).

• There was a constant dry weather flow and nutrient concentration indicating possible infiltration of groundwater to the stormwater system with consequent resuspension and dissolution of sediment previously deposited in the pipes.

• MRP results from autosampling were higher than for weekly grab samples indicating weekly grab samples missed events particularly during high flow periods.

Industrial Monitoring • High average winter flows corresponded with high average suspended solid concentrations.

• Significant rainfall events were required before noticeable increase in TP concentrations.

• MRP concentrations during low flows were almost double those obtained during high flow periods, which may be indicative of point source discharges to the river (misconnected foul sewers, illegal discharges).

Major Infrastructure • Very strong correlations between TP and suspended solids indicating phosphorous adhered to

particulate matter constituted the major sources of phosphorous in these drainage pipes.

• Much of the phosphorous associated with the C027 site emanates from sediments, whereas the C026 site may have been influenced by a point source, suspected to be a truck wash.

New Development • Considerable increase in SS, TP and MRP concentrations with significant flow events consistent with

nutrients originating from diffuse sources (wash-off).

• TON was not influenced by major rainfall events indicating that the development works were having little or no effect on the concentrations of TON.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-6 March 2005

C1.5 Nutrient Loads Nutrient loads were estimated for five main sub-catchments of the Camac (refer Figure C5 below). These loads were estimated using instantaneous flows and nutrient concentrations from weekly grab sampling. Loads were also estimated for the sectoral landuses from autosampler data at targeted sites and these were used to calculate nutrient export coefficients from the various landuses i.e. rural, residential, industrial, developing, and infrastructure. This information was used to help prioritise investigations into problem sub-catchments and landuses that had the greatest impact on those sub-catchments.

Figure C5 Sub-catchments of the Camac

The Clondalkin and M50 autosampler sites were the only sites that had only one sector affecting their sub-catchments and therefore the coefficients for the residential and infrastructural sectors were established from the Clondalkin and M50 autosampler data. Coefficients for the rural sector have been averaged from flow and nutrient data from the Saggart sub-catchment. The coefficients for the industrial sector were obtained from the Robinhood catchment (after the residential and rural contributions were deducted from the total load for this sub-catchment). A similar exercise was carried out to obtain loads from the developing site. The sectoral coefficients obtained are shown in Table C5 below.

Sector TP Coefficient kg/ha/yr

MRP Coefficient kg/ha/yr

TON Coefficient kg/ha/yr

Residential 0.72 0.28 3.43 Rural 0.13 0.05 4.50 Industrial 2.90 1.20 36.50 Infrastructure 9.30 0.90 7.70 Developing 0.78 0.11 5.00

Table C5 Coefficients for the Various Sectors in the Camac Catchment.

The derived co-efficients were used to determine the MRP contributions from the urban land use types within the 5 sub-catchment areas. The results are shown in Table C6 below.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-7 March 2005

MRP (ind) Loads (kg/yr) Saggart Corcagh Killeen Robinhood Landsdowne Total

NET Load @ WQ Station 51 2661 238 308 1976 5234

Rural 47 88 19 13 3 169

Residential 0 24 96 22.9 163 306

Industrial 0 60 54 271 443 828

Developing 0 15 0 0 0 15

Infrastructure 0 23 25 1.2 1.2 50

Total 47 210 194 308 609 1368

Undefined 5 2451 44 0 13672 3867

Percentage Undefined of Load at WQ Station

10% 92% 18% 0% 69% 74%

Table C6 Sectoral MRP Loads for Sub-catchments

Notes 1 Load from Saggart WwTW

2 Suspected point source currently been investigated by the Local Authority. In the Corcagh sub-catchment 92% (2451kg) of the MRP load originated from the Saggart WwTW. Ongoing investigations by Dublin City Council indicate that a significant proportion of the source or sources of the “undefined” MRP load in the Camac catchment is likely to be emanating from a sewage pumping station. The rural sector is the largest sector in the catchment at 63% of the total land in the Camac catchment and includes both agriculture and parkland. This sector accounts for 3% of the total MRP load and 19% of the TON load.

Figure C6 Percentage of Sectoral MRP loads in the Camac catchment

The residential sector of the catchment occupies 20% of the land in the catchment and is the second largest landuse after agriculture. The MRP load from this sector is 6% of the total and the TON load 5% of the total. Industry utilises 13% of the land in the catchment and accounts for 15% of the total MRP load and 32% of the total TON load in the catchment. Landsdowne Valley and Robinhood sub-catchments have the largest industrial sectors, with 22% of the MRP load and 57% on the TON load for Landsdowne Valley sub-catchment originating from industry and 88% of the MRP load and 83% of the TON load for the Robinhood sub-catchment originating from industry.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-8 March 2005

C1.6 Summary The findings of the Camac Case Study are summarised as follows: 1. Run-off from urban landuse can have a significant negative impact on the nutrient status of receiving

waters. The study indicates that nutrients loads from urban run-off can be similar to or greater than nutrients exported from agricultural areas.

2. The WwTW at Saggart contributed approximately 50% of the MRP annual load to the Camac River. This plant is currently being decommissioned and should result in a major improvement in water quality in the Camac.

3. Industry and infrastructure are the largest sectoral contributors of TP, MRP and TON to the Camac (excluding the WwTW).

4. Auto-sampler monitoring indicates that much of the nutrient loss to the river from Residential, Infrastructure, Developing and Industrial landuse sectors was event based, i.e. triggered by rainfall events.

5. The introduction of SuDS in new developments should mitigate much of the potential negative impact on water quality and flood control from these developments. The retrofitting of SuDS in existing developed areas, where conditions are suitable, would also bring about similar benefits.

6. Control of pollution from other sources currently being investigated by Local Authorities should result in a significant improvement in water quality. Examples include domestic and industrial misconnections and unsatisfactory overflows from the foul sewerage system.

7. The Camac catchment can be considered as moderately to seriously polluted throughout its length with mitigating inputs and self purification in the main channel being cancelled out by nutrient loads from tributaries and discharges.

C1.7 Recommendations The recommendations of the study were as follows:

C1.7.1 Short Term – (0-to 2 years) • Investigation and removal of all foul misconnections to the surface water sewer network.

• Encourage storm water management in all current and future developments (e.g. implement SuDS).

• Monitoring of licensed premises (Section 4, and 16 Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977) to ensure the licensing requirements are being adhered to.

C1.7.2 Medium Term (2-5 years) • Investigation and removal of all storm water misconnections to foul networks.

• Identify all combined sewer overflows and minimise impact through the development of drainage area plans and by upgrading sewerage infrastructure (holding tanks etc.)

C1.7.3 Long Term (5-10 years) • Investigation and remove all storm water misconnections to foul networks.

• Consider retrofitting of SuDS in developed urban areas especially where redevelopment is occurring.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-9 March 2005

C2. EPA BIOLOGICAL WATER QUALITY

Table C7 EPA Biological Water Quality Data

EPA Code River Pre ‘95 Q Rating

’95-’97 Q Rating


’98-00 Quality Class

’98-00 Water Quality

Status

’98-00 Pollution

Status

08B011900 Ballyboghil - 2 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 08B012200 3 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

08B020150 Broadmeadow 2 2 2 D Unsatisfactory Serious 08B020300 - 1-2 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 08B020400 2 3 2-3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 08B020500 1-2 1-2 1 D Unsatisfactory Serious 08B020600 3 3 2-3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 08B020700 3 3-4 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight 08B020800 3 3 2-3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

08B031400 Ballough Stream - 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

08B031600 3 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

08D010080 Delvin 3-4 3-4 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 08D010250 - 3 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 08D010400 3-4 3 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted

08F010200 Fairyhouse Stream - 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

08F010500 3 3 2-3* C Unsatisfactory Moderate

08H010060 Hurley - 3 3* C Unsatisfactory Moderate 08H010200 3 3-4 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight 08H010280 3 3-4 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 08H010400 3 3-4 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight

08M020100 Mosney 3 3 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight

08N010040 Nanny - 2-3 2-3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 08N010110 3 3 2-3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 08N010280 3 3 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight 08N010500 3-4 3 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight 08N010650 3-4 4 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 08N010700 3 3-4 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight

08W010070 Ward 2-3 2-3 2-3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 08W010300 3 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 08W010610 3* 3 3* C Unsatisfactory Moderate

09A010100 Annalecka Brook 4-5 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight

09B020100 Brittas 4 4 3-4* B Unsatisfactory Slight 09B020300 3 4 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09B020500 3 3-4 3-4* B Unsatisfactory Slight

09B030100 Ballydonnell Brk 5 4-5 4-5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted

09B040100 Ballylow Brook 5 4-5 4-5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted

09C020100 Camac 4 4 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09C020200 2 2 2 D Unsatisfactory Serious 09C020310 3 2-3 2-3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09C020400 2 1 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

09C020500 Camac 2* 1-2 1-2 D Unsatisfactory Serious

09C030300 Clonshanbo 2 2-3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-10 March 2005






Status

’98-00 Pollution

Status

09C030600 2-3 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

09C040100 Cock Brook 5 5 4-5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted

09D010010 Dodder 5 4 5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09D010100 4 4-5 4-5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09D010300 3 4-5 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09D010420 - 4 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09D010620 3 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09D010800 3 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

09D020200 Douglas 4-5 4-5 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted

09G020100 Glashaboy Brook - 4 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight

09K010020 Kings 4-5 4-5 4-5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09K010100 4-5 4-5 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted

09K020800 Kilcullen Stream - 3 3* C Unsatisfactory Moderate

09K021100 - 3-4 3-4* B Unsatisfactory Slight

09L010100 Liffey 4 4-5 4-5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09L010200 4-5 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09L010250 5 5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09L010400 4 2-3* 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight 09L010500 4 4 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09L010600 4-5 4 4-5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09L010700 4-5 4 4-5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09L010850 - 4 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09L011000 4 4 4-5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09L011050 4 4 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09L011200 3-4 3-4 2 D Unsatisfactory Serious 09L011400 3-4 3-4 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09L011500 3-4 3 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight 09L011600 3-4 3-4 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight 09L011610 - 4 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight 09L011700 3 3-4 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight 09L011900 3-4 - 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09L012100 2-3 2-3 2-3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

09L020035 Lyreen - 2-3 2-3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09L020100 2 2 2-3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

09L030100 Lemonstown Stream 4-5 4-5 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted

09L030600 4 3-4 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight

09M010060 Morell - - 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09M010100 4 - 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09M010150 3 - 3* C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09M010300 3-4 - 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted

09M030500 Mayne 3 2-3 2* D Unsatisfactory Serious

09O011100 Owenadoher 4-5 4-5 4-5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09O011300 4 4-5 3-4* B Unsatisfactory Slight 09O011700 3* 3 1* D Unsatisfactory Serious

09P010300 Painestown 3 - 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight 09P010400 3 - 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-11 March 2005






Status

’98-00 Pollution

Status

09P010500 3-4 - 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted

09P020400 Pinkeen - 3 2-3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09P020700 - 1 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

09R010100 Rye Water 3 3-4 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight 09R010200 3* 3-4 3* C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09R010300 3-4 3-4 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09R010400 3 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09R010500 3-4 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09R010600 3-4 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

09R020100 Rathmore Stream 3-4 - 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted

09R020200 3-4 - 4-5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 09R020300 3-4 - 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted

09S010300 Santry 2* 2 1-2 D Unsatisfactory Serious 09S011100 2-3 2-3* 2* D Unsatisfactory Serious

09T010300 Tolka 3 2 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09T010500 - 2 2 D Unsatisfactory Serious 09T010600 2-3 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09T010800 2-3 2-3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09T011000 2-3 3 2-3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 09T011100 1* 3 2-3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

10D010010 Dargle 5 4-5 4-5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 10D010100 5, 4-5 4 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 10D010250 4-5, 4 3-4 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

10G010100 Glencree 5 - 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 10G010200 5 5 5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted

10G020100 Glencullen 5 5 5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 10G020300 5, 4-5 4-5 4-5 A Satisfactory Unpolluted 10G020500 4-5 3-4 4 A Satisfactory Unpolluted

10K020100 Kill O' the Grange 2,1,1-2 1-2 2-3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

10K020280 2,1,1-3 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 10K020500 2, 2-3 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 10K030300 3 3* 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

10K030600 Kilmacanogue 3 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate

10S010200 Shanganagh 3 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 10S010400 2-3, 3 3 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 10S010440 - - 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight 10S010460 - 4 3 C Unsatisfactory Moderate 10S010600 3 4 3-4 B Unsatisfactory Slight

(Source EPA Water Quality in Ireland, 2002) Key Description Unpolluted Slightly Polluted Moderately Polluted

Seriously Polluted


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-12 March 2005

C3. EPA CRITERIA FOR EUTROPHICATION IN IRISH ESTUARIES, BAYS & NEARSHORE COASTAL WATERS

Category A: Nutrient Enrichment

Parameter/ Waterbody Type Numeric Criterion Statistic Period to Which Criterion

Applies 1

Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) mg/l N 2

Tidal Fresh Waters >2.6 Median Winter or Summer

Intermediate Waters 3 >1.4 Median Winter or Summer

Full-Salinity Waters >0.25 Median Winter or Summer

Molybdate Reactive Phosphate (MRP) µg/l P

Tidal Fresh Waters >60 Median Winter or Summer

Intermediate Waters 3 >60 Median Winter or Summer

Full-Salinity Waters >40 Median Winter or Summer

Category B: Accelerated Growth


Applies1

Molybdate Reactive Phosphate (MRP) µg/l P

Tidal Fresh Waters >15 or >30 Median 90 Percentile Summer

Intermediate Waters 3 >15 or >30 Median 90 Percentile Summer

Full-Salinity Waters >10 or > 20

Median 90 Percentile Summer

Category C: Undesirable Disturbances 4


Applies1 Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) % Saturation

Tidal Fresh Waters <70 or >130 5 Percentile 95 Percentile Summer

Intermediate Waters 3 <70 or >130 5 Percentile 95 Percentile Summer

Full-Salinity Waters <80 or > 120

5 Percentile 95 Percentile Summer

Table C8 Criteria for Eutrophication in Irish Estuaries, Bays and Nearshore Coastal Waters Notes 1. Winter: October – March Inclusive; Summer: April – September Inclusive

2. Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) Sum of oxidised nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) and ammonium; considered to represent the readily available nitrogen for uptake by plants.

3. At medium salinity 17 psu (practical salinity units); because the variation in water quality characteristics of estuaries is primarily controlled by variation in the degree of mixing of fresh and marine waters, as reflected by salinity, it is necessary to scale the criteria accordingly. For full details refer to EPA Water Quality in Ireland (1998-2000) P.61

4. Undesirable disturbances to the oxygen regime caused by accelerated plant production may take the form of deoxygenation or of excess oxygenation (supersaturation).


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-13 March 2005

C4. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE BROADMEADOW AND LIFFEY ESTUARY

Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study Regional Drainage Policies - Volume 3 - Appendices Environmental Management _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-14 March 2005

Table C9 Summary Statistics for the Broadmeadow Estuary and Adjacent Coastal Waters (Source, EPA 2002).


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-15 March 2005

Table C10 Summary Statistics for the Liffey Estuary and Adjacent Coastal Waters


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-16 March 2005

C5. DUBLIN BAY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Parameter Dublin Bay Water Quality Standards Clean Sea Water

Aesthetics

All waters to be free from substances attributable to waste-water or other discharges that: a. Settle to form objectionable deposits b. Float as debris, scum, oil, foam or form nuisance c. Produce objectionable colour, odour or turbidity.

Clean

Temp (deg C) Variable Variable

pH (pH units) 6-9 7-9

(mg/l O2)

D.O.

(% Saturation)

Estuary ≥ 7 (50% of samples) ≥ 5 (95% of samples) ≥ 4 (all samples) Bay 70-120 during bathing season No two consecutive samples to fall outside this range

80-120

Phosphate (mg/l P) None <0.05

Oxid. Nit. (mg N /l) None <0.2

BOD (mg/l) <4 (95% of samples) 1-2

Tot. Coli. (No/100ml) <5000 (80% of samples) <10,000

Faec. Coli. (No/100ml) <1000 (80% of samples) <2,000

Transparency Not less than 1 metre in 95% of inspections. No two consecutive samples to fail. > 1m

Table C11 Dublin Bay Water Quality Standards

Source: Dublin Bay Water Quality Management Plan. ERU, 1991. Notes 1 Taken from Dublin Bay Water Quality Management Plan. Technical Reports. 1991.

2 A white (Secchi) disc is lowered into the water and the depth at which it becomes transparent is noted.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-17 March 2005

C6. EPA GROUNDWATER QUALITY MONITORING DATA


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-18 March 2005

Location EPA Monitoring Period

Ammonia mg/l N

Nitrate mg/l NO3

Chloride mg/l CL

MRP mg/l P

Iron mg/l Fe

Manganese mg/l Mn

Rush 1998-2000 0.05 – 0.1 < 5.0 50-100 0.03 – 0.05 0.2 - 1 0.05 - 1.0

1995-1997 0.05 – 0.1 < 5.0 50-100 0 – 0.04 1 - 6 0.05 - 1.0

Newbridge 1 1998-2000 <0.05 10 – 25 0 – 20 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02

1995-1997 <0.05 10 – 25 0-20 0 – 0.04 - -

Newbridge 2 1998-2000 <0.05 10 - 25 30 – 50 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02

1995-1997 <0.05 10 –25 30 – 50 Result not discernable 0.1 - 0.2 0 - 0.02

Newbridge 3 1998-2000 <0.05 10 - 25 0 – 20 0.02 – 0.03 <0.1 <0.02

1995-1997 <0.05 10- 25 0 – 20 0.1 - 0.6 0 - 0.1 0 - 0.02

Blessington 1998-2000 <0.05 25 - 50 30 – 50 < 0.02 < 0.1 < 0.02

1995-1997 <0.05 10-25 100 – 150 0 - 0.04 0 - 0.1 0 - 0.02

Drinking Water Guidelines

(S.I. 439, 2000)

0.23 (0.5 mg/l NH4)

50 250 5 mg/l P205 (0.035mg/l P)# 0.03 mg/L P *

0.2 0.05

Table C12 EPA Groundwater Quality Monitoring Data (Source: EPA 2002) Notes Results emboldened where they exceed the MAC for Drinking Water Regulations (SI 439, 2000).

# SI 81, 1998 (Not specified in SI 439, 2000) * National Regulations


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-19 March 2005

C7. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BIOLOGICAL QUALITY CLASSES

Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study Regional Drainage Policies - Volume 3 - Appendices Environmental Management _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-20 March 2005

Table C13 General Characteristics of the Various Biological Quality Classes (Source: Table I.1 from EPA 1997)


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-21 March 2005

C8. STANDARDS FOR PROTECTING AMENITY USE


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C-22 March 2005

Table C14 Standards for Protecting Amenity Use (Source: UPM Manual, FWR, 1998)

appendix c greater dublin water quality · appendix c greater dublin water quality c1. camac river...

Documents