17/02/2016
1
1
Evidence + Measures Phase 3: Tidal Ribble Water Bodies
Measures Workshop, 14 August 2012
Evidence Pack for Savick Brook and Ribble Link
pjHYDRO
Identifying causes of failure and selecting measures operationally
Prepared by P Hulme and N Rukin
By Victor Aguilera, Anne-Marie Quibell, Paul Hulme, Natalie Phillips & Nick Rukin
For more details contact:
2
Copyright
This document (set of slides) contains data and information licensed to Environment Agency and provided by the Environment
Agency to pjHYDRO Limited and to RUKHYDRO Limited.
© Environment Agency – February, 2016. All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the
Environment Agency.
Document Status
Produced by pjHYDRO Limited for Defra and released to the Environment Agency for use at the Evidence + Measures Phase 3,
Measures Workshop, 14 August 2012.
Working document provided for the use of stakeholders at workshop. (Hence there may be minor errors, e.g. errors in figure
numbering.)
Reviewed by the Environment Agency 2016.
Dissemination Status
Reviewed and approved for external release by Defra and the Environment Agency 2016.
Copyright and status
17/02/2016
2
3
Savick Brook & Ribble Link
Savick Brook & Ribble Link Overview Maps & Charts
Savick Brook & Subcatchments
– Top of Savick (u/s 88003570)
– Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573)
– Sharoe Brook u/s 88003574
– Bottom of Savick Brook (including Ribble Link) (u/s 88003575)
4
Savick Brook & Ribble Link
Overview Maps and Charts
17/02/2016
3
5
Fig 1.1 Savick Brook & Ribble Link:
Water bodies (WBs), catchments, monitoring points (MPs) & topo contours
OS 10 m contours
WFD monitoring points
Other monitoring points
Sandy BrookEaves Brook
Sharoe Brook
Savick Brook
Ribble Link
MP 8803575
6
Fig 1.2 Savick Brook & Ribble Link:
Suspected problems identified by EA Staff
Dashed line marks divide between 2 WBs:
Ribble Link to the west (d/s)
Savick Brook WB to east (u/s)
MP 8803575
17/02/2016
4
7
Fig 1.3 Savick Brook & Ribble Link: Pressures
NIRS (Water_selected)
Discharges
MP 8803575
8
Fig 1.4 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
Subcatchments (to WQ monitoring points)
OS 10 m contours
WFD monitoring points
Other monitoring points
Sandy BrookEaves Brook
Sharoe Brook
Savick Brook
Ribble Link
MP 8803575
17/02/2016
5
9
5%5%7%18%17%
7%
21%
1%
9%14%
31%
53%48%
43%
37%
13%
71%61%
49%
18%20%
37%29%
73%
5%5%
3%1%3%5%5%
10%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
Above88003569
3569-3570Above88022980
3570-3571Above88003573
Above88003574
3571-35753575-3576
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f To
tal L
an
d U
se
in
Wa
ter
Bo
dy (
%)
Land Use - Summary CategoriesSea/Estuary
Saltmarsh
Inland Water
Woodland
Semi Natural
Arable
Grass
Suburban/rural development
Urban
Source of Data: Environment Agency summaries from CEH data
Sandy Brook
Eaves Brook
Sharoe Brook
Upper and lower sub-catchments are less
urban and dominated by managed
grassland
UpstreamDownstream
Fig 1.5 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
Land Use (2000)
10
Source: Historical urban development data provided by Lancashire County Council
Downstream of Sharoe Brook is
pre-1963 but some 1976-1991
Ptc Sandy Brook 1976-1991
Parts of Eaves Brook pre 1900
Parts of Sharoe Brook 1963-1991
Fig 1.6 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
Urban Development in Preston
17/02/2016
6
11
South Fylde Drain Sites (2010 onwards)
8800356988003569 -
88003570
88022980
(Sandy Brook)
88003573
(Eaves Brook)
03574
(Sharoe Brook)
88003570 -
8800357188003571 -
88003575
14.614.4
21.3
1.4
19.9
9.59.48.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
5.36.64.72.25.96.75.47.7
Above88003569
3569-3570Above88022980
3570-3571Above88003573
Above88003574
3571-35753575-3576
Nu
mb
er
of
Se
pti
c T
an
ks
pe
r k
m2
Density of Septic Tanks in Savick Brook Subcatchments
Septic Tank Density
88003575 -
88003576
Septic tanks throughout, although very few on
Savick Brook between Sandy Brook and Eaves
Brook
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Fig 1.7 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
Septic Tanks
12
8800356988003569 -
88003570
88022980
(Sandy Brook)
88003573
(Eaves Brook)
03574
(Sharoe Brook)
88003570 -
8800357188003571 -
88003575
88003575 -
88003576
Many sewage related discharges (red and
amber) (some have been revoked now)
Come back to how consents have
changed over time soon.
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Fig 1.8 Savick Brook & Ribble Link:
Consented Discharges
17/02/2016
7
13
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
5.36.64.72.25.96.75.47.7
Above88003569
3569-3570Above88022980
3570-3571Above88003573
Above88003574
3571-35753575-3576
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
ns
en
ted
Dis
ch
arg
es
pe
r k
m2
Consented Discharges (2005-2009) per km2 - Main Categories
Sewerage Network - Sewers - water company
Sewerage Network - Pumping Station - water company
Sewage Disposal Works - water company
Sewage disposal works - other
Other Tourist/Short Stay Accommodation
Mixed Farming
Domestic Property (Multiple)
Domestic Property (Single)
General Construction Work
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Sandy Brook
Eaves Brook
Sharoe Brook
Fig 1.9 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
Consented Discharges (2005-2009)
14
Source: Maps from Lancs. River Authority Reports
Upstream of M6 “Very bad”,
Lower Eaves Brook, Sharoe
Brook and d/s of Sharoe Brook
“Poor and bad”
88003569
88003570
8800357188022980
88003574 88003573
Blue Very clean and clean
Grey Fairly clean and doubtful
Red Poor and bad
Yellow Very bad
Sharoe Brook -
- Eaves Brook
- Sandy Brook
88003575
88003576
Upstream bad quality predates main
intensification of agriculture in the 80s ?
Sandy Brook and
upstream of Eaves
Brook fairly clean
Fig 1.10 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
General Water Quality in 1962
17/02/2016
8
15
Source: Maps from Lancs. River Authority Reports
Upstream of M6 and Eaves
Brook “Grossly Polluted”, others
are “Doubtful Quality”
Class 1 Unpolluted
Class 2 Doubtful Quality
Class 3 Poor Quality
Class 4 Grossly Polluted
Sharoe Brook -
Eaves Brook
88003575
Fig 1.11 Savick Brook & Ribble Link:
General Water Quality in 1970
16
45
43
54
2
2
3
3
1
5
3
1
3
34
1
5
3
1
2
33
2
2
2
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
at GrimsarghRoad Bridge
ptc SandyBrook
ptc SavickBrook
ptc EavesBrook
ptc SavickBrook
ptc SavickBrook
Ribble LinkCanal at Lea
Rd
ptc Ribble
8800356988003570880229808800357188003573880035748800357588003576
Savick BrookSavick BrookSandy BrookSavick BrookEaves BrookSharoe BrookSavick BrookSavick Brook
WF
D S
co
re (
Hig
h =
5, G
oo
d =
4, M
od
era
te =
3, P
oo
r =
2 &
Ba
d =
1)
Average WFD Water Quality Status (1990-1994)
Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score
90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score
90%ile BOD WFD Score
10%ile DO% WFD score
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Sandy Brook
Eaves Brook
Sharoe Brook
Phosphate is generally poor
BOD & NH4-N poor through Preston
(except Sharoe Brook)Fig 1.12 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
WFD WQ Status (1990-1994)
17/02/2016
9
17
555555
34
21
4
2
4
4
3
2
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
at GrimsarghRoad Bridge
ptc SandyBrook
ptc SavickBrook
ptc EavesBrook
ptc SavickBrook
ptc SavickBrook
Ribble LinkCanal at Lea
Rd
ptc Ribble
8800356988003570880229808800357188003573880035748800357588003576
Savick BrookSavick BrookSandy BrookSavick BrookEaves BrookSharoe BrookSavick BrookSavick Brook
WF
D S
co
re (
Hig
h =
5, G
oo
d =
4, M
od
era
te =
3, P
oo
r =
2 &
Ba
d =
1)
Average WFD Water Quality Status (1995-1999)
Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score
90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score
90%ile BOD WFD Score
10%ile DO% WFD score
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Sandy Brook
Eaves Brook
Sharoe Brook
WQ improved generally since 1990-1994
– see Figure 1.9Fig 1.13 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
WFD WQ Status (1995-1999)
18
555555
444333
444
334
222
32
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
at GrimsarghRoad Bridge
ptc SandyBrook
ptc SavickBrook
ptc EavesBrook
ptc SavickBrook
ptc SavickBrook
Ribble LinkCanal at Lea
Rd
ptc Ribble
8800356988003570880229808800357188003573880035748800357588003576
Savick BrookSavick BrookSandy BrookSavick BrookEaves BrookSharoe BrookSavick BrookSavick Brook
WF
D S
co
re (
Hig
h =
5, G
oo
d =
4, M
od
era
te =
3, P
oo
r =
2 &
Ba
d =
1)
Average WFD Water Quality Status (2000-2005)
Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score
90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score
90%ile BOD WFD Score
10%ile DO% WFD score
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Sandy Brook
Eaves Brook
Sharoe Brook
Phosphate is generally poor, slightly
better in Eaves Brook
BOD & NH4-N poorest in Eaves / Sharoe
Fig 1.14 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
WFD WQ Status (2000-2005) (More recent data is limited)
WQ improved generally since 1995-1999
– see Figure 1.10
17/02/2016
10
19
82.7
88.885.2
81.483.484.282.7
89.486.0
79.7
84.981.5
67.2
72.469.4
54.8
73.1
66.4
53.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
at GrimsarghRoad Bridge
ptc SandyBrook
ptc SavickBrook
ptc EavesBrook
ptc SavickBrook
ptc SavickBrook
Ribble LinkCanal at Lea
Rd
ptc Ribble
8800356988003570880229808800357188003573880035748800357588003576
Savick BrookSavick BrookSandy BrookSavick BrookEaves BrookSharoe BrookSavick BrookSavick Brook
Ave
rag
e 1
0%
ile
Dis
so
lve
d O
xyg
en
(%
sa
t)
Average 10%ile Dissolved Oxygen (1990-2005)
2000-2005
1995-1999
1990-1994
Open symbols are tributaries
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Sandy Brook
DO has improved since early
1990s, but there is still a
deterioration through Preston
Eaves & Sharoe Brook both have
lower DO than Savick Brook
UpstreamDownstream
Good
Bad
Fig 1.15 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
Downstream DO changes (1990 – 2005)
20
4.04.54.3
6.05.1
5.75.5
4.4
6.6
12.4
4.1
6.96.5
5.9
5.2
13.1
3.7
6.3
9.3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
at GrimsarghRoad Bridge
ptc SandyBrook
ptc SavickBrook
ptc EavesBrook
ptc SavickBrook
ptc SavickBrook
Ribble LinkCanal at Lea
Rd
ptc Ribble
8800356988003570880229808800357188003573880035748800357588003576
Savick BrookSavick BrookSandy BrookSavick BrookEaves BrookSharoe BrookSavick BrookSavick Brook
Ave
rag
e 9
0%
ile
BO
D (
mg
/l)
Average Annual 90%ile BOD Concentration (1990-2005)
2000-2005
1995-1999
1990-1994
Open symbols are tributaries
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Sandy Brook
BOD has improved since early
1990s, but there is still a
deterioration through Preston
Eaves Brook not good for BOD
Sharoe Brook has changed
UpstreamDownstream
Bad
Good
Fig 1.16 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
Downstream BOD changes (1990 – 2005)
17/02/2016
11
21
0.40.3
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.50.3
0.9
1.6
0.60.6
0.70.7
0.5
3.0
0.3
0.7
2.8
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
at GrimsarghRoad Bridge
ptc SandyBrook
ptc SavickBrook
ptc EavesBrook
ptc SavickBrook
ptc SavickBrook
Ribble LinkCanal at Lea
Rd
ptc Ribble
8800356988003570880229808800357188003573880035748800357588003576
Savick BrookSavick BrookSandy BrookSavick BrookEaves BrookSharoe BrookSavick BrookSavick Brook
Avera
ge 9
0%
ile A
mm
onia
cal N
itro
gen C
oncentr
ation (m
g/l)
Average 90%ile Ammoniacal Nitrogen (1990 -2005)
2000-2005
1995-1999
1990-1994
Open symbols are tributaries
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Sandy Brook
NH4 has improved since early
1990s, but there is still a
deterioration through Preston
Eaves Brook not good for NH4-N
Sharoe Brook also adds to loading
UpstreamDownstream
Bad
Good
Fig 1.17 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
Downstream NH4-N changes (1990 – 2005)
22
0.371
0.3010.267
0.205
0.447
0.251
0.416
0.3230.328
0.256
0.413
0.319
0.310
0.2480.223
0.666
0.3420.328
0.668
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
at GrimsarghRoad Bridge
ptc SandyBrook
ptc SavickBrook
ptc EavesBrook
ptc SavickBrook
ptc SavickBrook
Ribble LinkCanal at Lea
Rd
ptc Ribble
8800356988003570880229808800357188003573880035748800357588003576
Savick BrookSavick BrookSandy BrookSavick BrookEaves BrookSharoe BrookSavick BrookSavick Brook
Annual A
vera
ge P
hosphate
Concentr
ation (m
g/l)
Average Rolling Annual Average Phosphate Concentration (1990 -2005)
2000-2005
1995-1999
1990-1994
Open symbols are tributaries
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Sandy Brook
PO4 has improved since early
1990s and now improves
through Preston
Eaves Brook better now for PO4
Sharoe Brook has got worse
UpstreamDownstream
Bad
Good
Fig 1.18 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
Downstream PO4 changes (1990 – 2005)
17/02/2016
12
23
4.04.54.36.05.15.7
82.7
88.885.2
81.483.484.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.90.9
0.5
0.371
0.3010.267
0.205
0.447
0.251
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
at GrimsarghRoad Bridge
ptc SandyBrook
ptc SavickBrook
ptc EavesBrook
ptc SavickBrook
ptc SavickBrook
Ribble LinkCanal at Lea
Rd
ptc Ribble
8800356988003570880229808800357188003573880035748800357588003576
Savick BrookSavick BrookSandy BrookSavick BrookEaves BrookSharoe BrookSavick BrookSavick Brook
Am
mo
nia
ca
l N
itro
ge
n a
nd
Ph
os
ph
ate
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
ns
(m
g/l
)
Dis
so
lve
d O
xyg
en
(%
sa
t) a
nd
BO
D (
mg
/l)
Average WFD Water Quality Concentrations (2000-2005)
90%ile BOD (mg/l)
10%ile DO%
90%ile Tot NH4_N (mg/l N)
Rolling Annual Average PO4 (mg/l)
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Sandy Brook
PO4 decreases
NH4-N & BOD increases
DO decreases (from 88003570)
Eaves & Sharoe Brook high NH4-N
Eaves low PO4, Sharoe high PO4
Savick
Brook
Trends
UpstreamDownstream Upstream
With
increasing
urban area
Fig 1.19 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
Downstream WFD WQ Trends (Average for 2000 – 2005)
24
SIMCAT Report (WRc, 2008 for UKWIR)
WW17C205 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS FOR POINT
AND DIFFUSE SOURCE POLLUTION TO ACHIEVE WFD GOOD STATUS: RIBBLE
SIMCAT PILOT STUDY, WRc, 2008 for UKWIR
Table 41 Concentration Change on Wet Days
Site Site Name BOD NH4-N TON PO4-P DO
88003569 Savick Brook at Grimsargh Rd Br 47.30% 18.30% 24.40% 27.90% -4.40%
88003570 Savick Brook PTC Sandy Brook 57.70% 52.80% 19.50% 38.20% -7.70%
88003571 Savick Brook PTC Eaves Brook 67.10% 76.70% -12.50% 41.90% -5.40%
88003573 Eaves Brook PTC Savick Brook 63.20% 137.10% -13.20% 60.50% -6.50%
Notes:
1 Analysis reported in UKWIR WW17c205 Ribble Pilot Study Final Report
2 Wet Against Dry Analysis (WADI) for Period 1996-2005
3 Site Name from Table 39
4 % change appears to be calculated by (Wet mean - Dry mean)/((Wet mean + Dry mean)/2), but not exactly
Water quality deteriorates in wet periods(and this seems to get worse downstream and in Eaves Brook)
Upstream
Downstream
DO, BOD, NH4 and PO4 all
deteriorated in 1996-2005
Fig 1.20 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
General WQ at High Flows
17/02/2016
13
25
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
5.36.64.72.25.96.75.47.7
Above88003569
3569-3570Above88022980
3570-3571Above88003573
Above88003574
3571-35753575-3576
No
of
Re
po
rte
d I
nc
ide
nts
(2
00
1-2
01
0)
pe
r k
m2
NIRS Pollution Incidents for Water per km2 (2001-2010)
Specific Waste MaterialsSewage MaterialsPollutant Not IdentifiedOther PollutantOrganic Chemicals/ProductsOils and FuelInorganic Chemicals/ProductsInert Materials and WastesGeneral Biodegradable Materials and WastesContaminated WaterAtmospheric Pollutants and EffectsAgricultural Materials and WastesCategory 1 (Major)Category 2 (Significant)Category 3 (Minor)
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Sandy BrookEaves Brook
Sharoe Brook
Between Sandy Brook and Eaves Brook
there has been a lot of pollution,
particularly from sewage.
Fig 1.21 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
Pollution Events (2001-2010)
26
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.36.64.72.25.96.75.47.7
Above88003569
3569-3570Above88022980
3570-3571Above88003573
Above88003574
3571-35753575-3576
No
of
Re
po
rte
d I
nc
ide
nts
(2
00
1-2
01
0)
pe
r k
m2
Sewage Material NIRS Pollution Incidents for Water per km2 (2001-2010)
Storm Sewage
Other Sewage Material
Grey Water
Final Effluent
Crude Sewage
Category 1 (Major)
Category 2 (Significant)
Category 3 (Minor)
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Sandy Brook
Eaves Brook
Sharoe Brook
Between Sandy Brook and Eaves Brook
there has been a lot of pollution related to
crude sewage.Fig 1.22 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
Sewage Material Pollution Events (2001-2010)
Wrong connections problems between
Sandy Brook and Eaves Brook, in Eaves
Brook and especially in Sharoe Brook
17/02/2016
14
27
88003570 -88003571
Sharoe Brook(Lot of Grey Water)
3571-3575(+0.55 wrong connections as
"contaminated water")
WreaBrook
Pool Stream
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Se
wa
ge M
ate
ria
ls N
IRS
Po
llu
tio
n I
nc
ide
nts
(2
00
1-2
01
0)
(No
/km
2)
Sewage Related Consented Discharges (No per km2) 2005-9
Sewage Materials: Discharge Consents and NIRS
Savick Brook Subcatchments
South Fylde Drains
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Broad correlation between sewage
NIRS and consented sewage
related discharges = Failure rate?
Failure rate = 1 in 10 yrs
per consent
Failure rate = 1 in 20 yrs
per consent
(CSOs, PS EOs & STWs)
Fig 1.23 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
Sewage Pollution from Consented Discharges
28
16.6
68.9
1.6
44.3
4.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
GB112071065470
Ph
os
ph
ate
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n (
µg
/l)
SAGIS Modelled and Measured Phosphate in Savick Brook
OnSiteSTWs
Background
Atmosphere
Urban
Highways
Arable
Livestock
Mines
Industry
Intermittents
Sewage Works
Measured
Livestock, Intermittents and “Urban” dominate
Measured
Source of Data: Environment Agency / Work done WRc, 2012
Source apportionment
to be developed
further in separate
presentation
Fig 1.24 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
General WQ at High Flows
17/02/2016
15
29
88003569
Surveys in 2001 ( ), (2004) and 2011
Fig 1.25 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
Fish Survey Locations
30
M6 Bridge
Migery Lane
Sharoe Green(d/s Sandy Brk)
Haslam Park(d/s Eaves, u/s Sharoe)
Barry Avenue(d/s Sharoe Brook)
Lea Road
Ashton & Lea Golf Course
PrestonGolf Course
(u/s Sandy Brook)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
348000 349000 350000 351000 352000 353000 354000 355000 356000 357000 358000
NF
CS
Gra
de
(A
=6
, F
=1
)
Easting
Downstream Changes in Fish on Savick Brook - Rheophillic Fish
May-01
May-04
Sep-11
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Significant decline in
Rheophillic Fish since 2001
(Ribble Link constructed 2002)
Fig 1.26 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
Rheophillic Fish (Flowing water loving fish)
17/02/2016
16
31
M6 Bridge
Migery Lane
Sharoe Green(d/s Sandy Brk)
Haslam Park(d/s Eaves, u/s Sharoe)
Barry Avenue(d/s Sharoe Brook)
Lea Road
Ashton & Lea Golf Course
Grimsargh Rd Bridge
ptc with Sandy Brook
ptc with Eaves Brook
Ribble Link Canal at Lea Road
Eaves Brook
Sharoe Brook
0
3
6
9
12
15
348000 350000 352000 354000 356000 358000 360000
NF
CS
Gra
de
(A
=6
, F
=1
) &
WF
D W
ate
r Q
ua
lity
Sta
tus
Easting
Downstream Changes on Savick Brook - Rheophillic Fish & WQ in 2001
May-01∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15)∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15)
WFD Water Quality Status∑WFD scores DO, BOD and NH4-N each out of 5 where 5=High, 4=Good, 3=Moderate, 2=Poor, 1=Bad. So totalled 15=High, 12=Good, 9=Moderate, 6=Poor and 3=Bad.
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Drop in Fish in 2001
plausibly related to WQ
Fig 1.27 Savick Brook & Ribble Link :
Rheophillic Fish & WQ (Downstream Changes)
32
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)
17/02/2016
17
33
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)
34Fig 2.1 Top of Savick u/s 88003570: WFD classes
Savick Brook
u/s 88003570
Hydromorphological Status : Heavily Modified
Ecological Quality: Moderate Potential
Biological quality
Fish
MP 13817: Bad
MP 4364: Bad
Inverts
MP 68117: Mod
ASPT: Mod
NTAXA: Good
Physico-chemical quality
Ammonia
MP 88003569: Good
MP 88003570: Good
DO
MP 88003569: High
MP 88003570: High
pH
MP 88003569: High
MP 88003570: lower=High, upper=Mod
Phosphate
MP 88003569: Poor
MP 88003570: Poor
Sources: EA website,
WB_SPT_Classification_all_IAP.xls (A Hartland)
•WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
17/02/2016
18
35
Fig 2.2 Top of Savick (u/s 88003570):
Water bodies (WBs), catchments, monitoring points (MPs) & topo contours
OS 10 m contours
WFD monitoring points
Other monitoring points
36
Fig 2.3 Top of Savick (u/s 88003570):
Suspected problems identified by EA Staff
17/02/2016
19
37Fig 2.4 Top of Savick (u/s 88003570): Pressures
NIRS (Water_selected)
Discharges
38
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Orange blobs are
the combined
WFD status
Fig 2.5 Top of Savick (u/s 88003569):
General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH4 & PO4)
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010
Inve
rte
bra
tes
(A
SP
T S
co
re -
La
b d
ata
) &
GQ
A W
Q
WF
D S
co
re (
Hig
h =
5,
Go
od
= 4
, M
od
era
te =
3,
Po
or
= 2
& L
ow
= 1
)
Savick Brook at Grimsargh Rd Br - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates
90%ile BOD WFD Score
90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score
10%ile DO% WFD score
Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score
∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15)
∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20)
ASPT
GQA WQ (No PO4) (A=6, F=1)
WQ was very bad in
1962 and poor in 1970PO4 is poor
17/02/2016
20
39
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Fig 2.6 Top of Savick (u/s 88003569):
Consented Discharges (1950-2015)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1950 to1959
1960 to1969
1970 to1979
1980 to1984
1985 to1989
1990 to1994
1995 to1999
2000 to2004
2005 to2009
2010 to2015
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
ns
en
ted
Dis
ch
arg
es
pe
r k
m2
Savick Brook Grimsargh Rd Br (88003569) Consented Discharges (Selected)
Sewerage Network - Sewers - water companySewerage Network - Pumping Station - water companySewage Disposal Works - water companySewage disposal works - otherOther Tourist/Short Stay AccommodationMixed FarmingDomestic Property (Multiple)Domestic Property (Single)Public Houses and Bars
40
Table 2.1a Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): Strength of Evidence
WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
1) Agriculture 1) Land use: 71%
managed grassland
(high), 9% Arable (Fig
1.5)
2) NIRS: 0.00/km2 (low)
(Fig 1.21)
0
-
1) WQ at 88003569 is
often good to high status
for DO, BOD and NH4
but poor for PO4, it
shows no long term
trend between 1990 and
2006 (Fig 2.5), in a
period when there was
increased consenting of
septic tanks and
Brambles PSO (Fig 2.6)
– suggests agriculture
(or septic tanks) could
be source of PO4.
2) DO, BOD, NH4 and
PO4 all deteriorated
during wetter weather
over period 1996-2005.
(Fig 1.20). Suggests
agr. runoff or storm
sewage.
0
0
1) No upstream WQ
monitoring.
2) Dairy Farm suspected
cause noted by EA –
see Fig 2.3.
NE
+
SAGIS suggests
livestock accounts for
(68.9/155.8=) 44% of
measured PO4 (Also see
Intro Table 1.3)
concentration for whole
of Savick Brook (Fig
1.24) and this
subcatchment has a
high proportion of
managed grassland.
+
2) Sewage Sludge
Spreading
1) None 0 NE 0
What does each piece of evidence tell us about each suspected cause of WFD failure in this WB?
Scores: evidence support s [+], evidence opposes [-], evidence is uncertain [0], no evidence [NE], evidence not applicable [NA]
Example: PO4 = good which opposes Ag being cause of P failure, so this line of evidence given [-] score;
NH3 = mod which supports Ag being cause of P failure, so this line of evidence given [+] score
17/02/2016
21
41
Table 2.1b Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): Strength of Evidence
WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
2) Sewage 1) Land use: 14%
urb/suburban (low -
mod) (Fig 1.5)
2) NIRS: 0.75 /km2
(mod) (Fig 1.22)
0
+
1) See (1) under
Agriculture above.
2) See (2) under
Agriculture above.
3) WQ was “Very Bad”
in 1962 implying a
sewage source if agr
expansion was in
1970s/1980s. (Fig 1.10)
0
0
+
1) No upstream WQ
monitoring.0
2a) STWs
(non-W Co)
1) 1 public house
2) No Final effluent
NIRS or NIRS linked to
consented discharges of
this type.
0
-
1) No upstream WQ
monitoring.0
2b) Septic tanks 1) 14.6/km2 (Mod)
2) 2 septic tank NIRS 0
+
1) See (1) under
Agriculture re ongoing
background PO4
pollution.
0 1) No upstream WQ
monitoring.
2) Septic tanks near
Longridge noted to be a
probable cause by EA
(see Fig 2.3)
0
+
PO4 S/Appt, SAGIS &
local estimate 2% - 3%
over whole of Savick
Brook (Intro Table 1.3).
But a higher density in
this area. (Fig 2.4)
+
42
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: 0.19 /km2 (low)
1 grey water event
related to a barn
conversion. (Fig 1.22)
+
2c) Intermittents
(CSOs & PSOs)
1) NIRS: 0.37 /km2
(mod) for Storm Sewage
related to 2 NIRS events
on Longridge CSO in
2009 and 2010. (Fig
1.22)
2) No work planned for
Longridge CSO or
Brambles PSO under
AMP5 (Preston 32 and
7) schemes.
-
0
1) WQ at 88003569
shows a number or
poorer WQ events with
poorer NH4, BOD and
DO (Fig 2.5) possibly
related to storm events
but could be agricultural
runoff or storm sewage.
2) See (2) under
Agriculture poorer WQ
during wetter periods
possibly related to storm
sewage (or agriculture).
0
0
Table 2.1c Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): Strength of Evidence
WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
17/02/2016
22
43
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
3) Landfill 1) 0.0% area of
catchment
2) No landfill related
NIRS
+
-
1) Fulwood District
Council Tip (1960-1975)
located ~500m NE of
WQ monitoring point.
Type of waste unknown
0
4) Geomorph 1) Straightened / re-
sectioned near
Longridge, but otherwise
semi-natural. (Intro Fig
1.16)
2) DO often high status
suggesting
geomorphology does
not limit aeration.
0
-
Not applicable
5) Industry 1) 1 Cat 2 NIRS event
related to acrylic paint
and 2 Cat 3 NIRS
events related to epoxy-
resins and timber.
(Events will not
necessarily change NH4,
BOD and PO4).
0
Table 2.1d Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): Strength of Evidence
WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
44
Suspected
causes
Conclusions
Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team)
Agriculture The evidence for farming being a cause is
not strong, but it dominates the land use and
SAGIS notes it will be contributing PO4.
Dairy (and pig?) farming is likely to be a
significant part of the problem.
Develop measures to deal with livestock
problems (e.g. nutrient management
plans, slurry stores and silage clamps).
Sewage Sludge
Spreading
None Not part of the problem Review if sewage sludge spreading is
proposed in future.
Sewage (in
general)
Except for NIRS events, and increased
consenting of sewage related discharges,
evidence is inconclusive.
Part of the problem (at least in the past) See details below
STWs
(non-W Co)
Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem. None
Septic Tanks Evidence is limited and weak but points
towards septic tanks being part of the
problem.
Septic tanks are likely to be part of the
problem.
Monitor WQ u/s of UU CSO and PSO to
check for influence of septic tanks in
Longridge and if shows less than good
status WQ consider a septic tank
campaign, which if successful in
improving WQ can be used to
communicate benefits elsewhere.
Table 2.2a Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): ConclusionsWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
Which suspected causes need to have something done about them?
You should expect that more than one suspected cause will need attention.
17/02/2016
23
45
Suspected
causes
Conclusions
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
(CSOs & PSs)
Evidence is limited, but NIRS and increased
consenting point towards CSOs and PSOs
being a problem (at least in the past) and
plausibly explain the deterioration in water
quality in wet periods.
Part of the problem (at least in the past) Check CSO and PSO failure rate with
UU. There are no planned schemes
under UU AMP5 plans.
Landfill Evidence is circumstantial only Cannot rule out, but insufficient
evidence to drive significant measure.
Review landfill impact again after farming
and septic tank / storm sewage (?)
problems addressed.
Geomorphology Limited evidence, but consistent in
suggesting not a significant problem.
Not a significant part of the problem. None
Industry Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem,
localised effect only.
Review NIRS in 2 years time and liaise
with industry re future pollution
prevention measures.
Table 2.2b Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003569): ConclusionsWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
46
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010
Inve
rte
bra
tes
(A
SP
T S
co
re -
La
b d
ata
) &
GQ
A W
Q
WF
D S
co
re (
Hig
h =
5,
Go
od
= 4
, M
od
era
te =
3,
Po
or
= 2
& B
ad
= 1
)
Savick Brook ptc Sandy Brook - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates
90%ile BOD WFD Score
90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score
10%ile DO% WFD score
Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score
∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15)
∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20)
BMWP
GQA WQ (No PO4) (A=6, F=1)
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Orange blobs are
the combined
WFD status
Fig 2.7 Top of Savick (u/s 88003570):
General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH4 & PO4)
WQ was very bad in
1962 and poor in 1970
PO4 is poor
DO & BOD improves
from 1985-1995
17/02/2016
24
47
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Fig 2.8 Top of Savick (u/s 88003570):
Consented Discharges (1950-2015)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1950 to1959
1960 to1969
1970 to1979
1980 to1984
1985 to1989
1990 to1994
1995 to1999
2000 to2004
2005 to2009
2010 to2015
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
ns
en
ted
Dis
ch
arg
es
pe
r k
m2
Savick Brook (Grimsargh to ptc Sandy Brook) Consented Discharges (Selected)
Sewerage Network - Sewers - water companySewerage Network - Pumping Station - water companySewage Disposal Works - water companySewage disposal works - otherOther Tourist/Short Stay AccommodationMixed FarmingDomestic Property (Multiple)Domestic Property (Single)General Construction Work
Mainly domestic property,
mixed farming, STWs and
Cow Hill CSO
48
Table 2.3a Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): Strength of Evidence
WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
1) Agriculture 1) Land use: 61%
managed grassland
(high), 14% Arable. (Fig
1.5)
2) NIRS: 0.30/km2 (high)
– 1 Cat 2 event related
to leakage of silage
liquor from silo in 2010
and 1 Cat 3 event
related to dairy slurry
spreading in 2001 (Fig
1.21)
3) 2 Mixed Farming
consented discharges
(Greenhouse Farm and
The Mount)
0
+
0
1) WQ at 88003570
improved significantly
1985-1995 (Fig 2.7), in
a period when there was
increased consenting of
non-UU sewage
disposal works (Fig 2.8).
PO4 remains poor status
throughout suggesting
other source including
agriculture.
2) DO, BOD, NH4 and
PO4 all deteriorated
worse than upstream at
88003569 during wetter
weather over period
1996-2005.
(Fig 1.20). Suggests
agr. Runoff or storm
sewage.
0
0
1) DO, BOD, NH4 and
PO4 all improve from
88003569 to 88003570
(Figs 1.15-1.19) – as a
result of proportionally
less agriculture
compared to u/s.
Suggest agriculture
could still be contributor.
2) 2 areas of dairy farm
suspected causes noted
by EA – see Fig 2.3.
0
+
SAGIS suggests
livestock accounts for
(68.9/155.8=) 44% of
measured PO4
concentration for whole
of Savick Brook (Fig
1.24) and this
subcatchment has a
high proportion of
managed grassland.
+
2) Sewage Sludge
Spreading
1) None 0 NE 0
17/02/2016
25
49
Table 2.3b Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): Strength of Evidence
WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
2) Sewage 1) Land use: 19%
urb/suburban (low -
mod)
2) NIRS: 0.91 /km2
(mod-high) (Fig 1.22)
0
+
1) See (1) under
Agriculture above
(suggests at least past
problems with sewage).
2) See (2) under
Agriculture above.
+
0
1) See (1) under
Agriculture above – WQ
improves with greater
urban / less agriculture
-
2a) STWs
(non-W Co)
1) 0.61/km2 (4 disposals
in 2005-15, 3 disposals
1990 -2004) (Fig 1.22)
2) No Final effluent
NIRS or NIRS linked to
consented discharges of
this type.
0
-
1) See (1) under
Agriculture above
(suggests at least past
problems with sewage
reduced through
increased consents).
+ 1) See (1) under
Agriculture above – if
STWs are contributing
their contribution is less
than from u/s sources
(ag + septic tanks?)
0
2b) Septic tanks 1) 14.4/km2 (Mod)
2) 1 septic tank NIRS
0
+
1) No upstream WQ
monitoring.
2) Septic tanks not
noted to be a probable
cause by EA (see Fig
2.3)
0
-
PO4 S/Appt, SAGIS &
local estimate 2% - 3%
over whole of Savick
Brook (Intro Table 1.3).
But a higher density in
this area. (Fig 2.4)
+
50
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: 0.30 /km2 (low)
2 wrong connections
noted (see Fig 2.4).
+ 1) New housing noted to
be a probable cause by
EA (see Fig 2.4)
+
2c) Intermittents
(CSOs & PSOs)
1) NIRS: 0.00 /km2 for
Storm Sewage related
but two related to crude
sewer outfalls.
2) 1 CSO at Cow Hill.
3) UU plan 3,510m3 of
extra “Storm storage,
Static Screen & Event
Logging” (UU ref
PRE0015)
+
0
+
1) See (2) under
Agriculture poorer WQ
during wetter periods
possibly related to storm
sewage (or agriculture).
2) Cow Hill CSO
consented in 1995,
improved in 2009 and
will be improved again in
2012 (suggests it
needed improving?)
0
+
Table 2.3c Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): Strength of Evidence
WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
17/02/2016
26
51
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
3) Landfill 1) 0.0% area of
catchment) (Fig 1.4)
2) No landfill related
NIRS
0
-
1) Kitchen Green Tip –
Fulwood Row - received
some domestic waste
1981-1984.
0
4) Geomorph 1) Semi-natural
2) DO often high status
suggesting
geomorphology does
not limit aeration.
-
-
Not applicable N/A
5) Industry 1) No Industry related
NIRS
0
6) M6 1) Crosses WB
2) Unlikely source of
BOD, NH4 and PO4
3) No mention of M6 in
NIRS data.
0
-
-
Table 2.3d Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): Strength of Evidence
WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
52
Suspected
causes
Conclusions
Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team)
Agriculture The evidence for farming being a cause is
not strong, but it is still the largest land use
and SAGIS notes it will be contributing PO4.
Dairy (and pig?) farming is likely to be a
significant part of the problem.
Develop measures to deal with livestock
problems (e.g. nutrient management
plans, slurry stores and silage clamps).
Sewage Sludge
Spreading
None Not part of the problem Review if sewage sludge spreading is
proposed in future.
Sewage (in
general)
Except for NIRS events, and increased
consenting of sewage related discharges,
evidence is inconclusive.
Part of the problem (at least in the past) See details below
STWs
(non-W Co)
Evidence is limited and weak, but points
towards disposals at least being a past
problem.
Cannot rule out, and could be part of
the problem.
Review size and operation / maintenance
of these schemes.
Septic Tanks Evidence is limited and weak. Septic tanks are probably part of the
background PO4 problem.
Depending on outcome of 88003569
suggested measure, extend campaign to
this sub-catchment.
Table 2.4a Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): ConclusionsWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
17/02/2016
27
53
Suspected
causes
Conclusions
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
(CSOs & PSs)
Evidence is broadly consistent in suggesting
Cow Hill CSO has at least been part of the
problem in the past.
Part of the problem (at least in the past) Review WQ data after UU have
implemented plans for increased storm
storage at Cow Hill CSO.
Landfill Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem,
localised effect only.
Review landfill impact again in future
once other causes have been addressed.
Geomorphology Limited evidence, but consistent in
suggesting not a significant problem.
Not a significant part of the problem. None
Industry Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem,
localised effect only.
Review NIRS in 2 years time and liaise
with industry re future pollution
prevention measures.
M6 Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem. None
Table 2.4b Top of Savick Brook (u/s 88003570): ConclusionsWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
54
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)
17/02/2016
28
55Fig 3.1 Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): WFD classes
Eaves Brook
u/s 88003573
Hydromorphological Status : Heavily Modified
Ecological Quality: Moderate Potential
Biological quality
Fish: NA Inverts
MP 65405: Bad
ASPT: Bad
NTAXA: Poor
Physico-chemical quality
Ammonia
MP 88003573: Poor
DO
MP 88003573: High
pH
MP 88003573: High
Phosphate
MP 88003573: Mod
Sources: EA website,
WB_SPT_Classification_all_IAP.xls (A Hartland)
•WFD failures: inverts, ammonia phosphate
56
Fig 3.2 Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573):
Water bodies (WBs), catchments, monitoring points (MPs) & topo contours
OS 10 m contours
WFD monitoring points
Other monitoring points
MP 8803572
17/02/2016
29
57
Fig 3.3 Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573):
Suspected problems identified by EA Staff
MP 8803572
The locations of suspected problems were placed on this map at initial meetings. They do
not indicate locations of confirmed or ongoing problems. The information covers a period
from the early 1990s to 2011.
58Fig 3.4 Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Pressures
NIRS (Water_selected)
Discharges
MP 8803572
17/02/2016
30
59
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010
Inve
rte
bra
tes
(A
SP
T S
co
re -
La
b d
ata
)
WF
D S
co
re (
Hig
h =
5,
Go
od
= 4
, M
od
era
te =
3,
Po
or
= 2
& L
ow
= 1
)
Eaves Brook at Longridge Rd - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates
90%ile BOD WFD Score90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score10%ile DO% WFD scoreRolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15)∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20)BMWP
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Orange blobs are
the combined
WFD status
Fig 3.5 Eaves Brook (u/s 88003572):
General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH4 & PO4)
PO4 was good to high
status until 1992
WQ variable and
dips in 1990
60
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010
Inve
rte
bra
tes
(A
SP
T S
co
re -
La
b d
ata
) &
GQ
A W
Q
WF
D S
co
re (
Hig
h =
5,
Go
od
= 4
, M
od
era
te =
3,
Po
or
= 2
& L
ow
= 1
)
Eaves Brook ptc Savick Brook - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates
90%ile BOD WFD Score
90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score
10%ile DO% WFD score
Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score
∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15)
∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20)
BMWP
GQA WQ (No PO4) (A=6, F=1)
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Orange blobs are
the combined
WFD status
Fig 3.6 Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573):
General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH4 & PO4)
WQ improves by 2000 ?
PO4 deteriorates
with BOD & NH4
WQ quite variable
17/02/2016
31
61
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1950 to1959
1960 to1969
1970 to1979
1980 to1984
1985 to1989
1990 to1994
1995 to1999
2000 to2004
2005 to2009
2010 to2015
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
ns
en
ted
Dis
ch
arg
es
pe
r k
m2
Eaves Brook Consented Discharges (Selected)
Sewerage Network - Sewers - water companySewerage Network - Pumping Station - water companySewage Disposal Works - water companySewage disposal works - otherOther Tourist/Short Stay AccommodationMixed FarmingDomestic Property (Multiple)Domestic Property (Single)General Construction Work
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Fig 3.7 Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573):
Consented Discharges (1950-2015)
Poorly controlled until
1990, then mainly CSOs
62
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
1) Agriculture 1) Land use: 20%
managed grassland
(high), 3% Arable.
2) Managed grassland
above appears to be
common land /
grassland rather than
farmed land.
2) NIRS: 0.00/km2 (high)
3) 0 Mixed Farming
consented discharges
0
-
-
-
1) WQ at 88003572 at
Longridge Rd had
generally good to high
status PO4 although
variable DO, NH4 and
BOD (Fig 3.5). u/s of
here also contains Red
Scar Ind estate (with
non UU sewer or
septic?) and some
landfill.
0
1) DO, BOD, NH4 and
PO4 all deteriorate
downstream from
88003572 (Fig 3.5) to
88003573 (Fig 3.6)
where there is no
agricultural land.
2) Farming not flagged
as issue by EA staff –
see Fig 3.3.
-
-
2) Sewage Sludge
Spreading
1) None 0 NE 0
Table 3.1a Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: inverts, ammonia, phosphate
17/02/2016
32
63
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
2) Sewage 1) Land use: 65%
urb/suburban (high)
2) NIRS: 1.18 /km2 (mod
-high)
0
+
1) WQ at 88003573 at
Longridge Rd improves
from ~1995 to 1999 with
improved DO, BOD and
NH4 although worse PO4
(Fig 3.6) at time of
improved consenting of
discharges (Fig 3.7) and
thereafter has some
marked deteriorations in
WQ.
2) DO, BOD, NH4 and
PO4 all deteriorated
during wetter weather
over period 1996-2005.
(Fig 1.20) and in
absence of significant
agriculture suggests
sewage.
+
+
1) See (1) under
Agriculture above – WQ
deteriorates significantly
through urban /
suburban catchment.
+
2a) STWs
(non-W Co)
1) None since 2000
2) No Final effluent
NIRS or NIRS linked to
consented discharges of
this type.
-
-
Table 3.1b Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: inverts, ammonia, phosphate
64
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
2b) Septic tanks (&
non UU sewerage)
1) 19.9/km2 (High)
properties more than 100
m from UU sewer but
many may be on private
sewer at Red Scar
Industrial Estate.
2) No septic tank NIRS
3) 2 crude sewage NIRS
on Red Scar Ind Estate
0
-
+
1) WQ at 88003572 at
Longridge Rd had
generally good to high
status PO4 although
variable DO, NH4 and
BOD (Fig 3.5). u/s of
here also contains Red
Scar Ind estate (with non
UU sewer or septic?) and
some landfill.
0 1) No upstream WQ
monitoring.
2) Sewage at Red Scar
Ind Estate (non UU sewer
or septic tanks?) not
noted to be a probable
cause by EA (see Fig
3.3)
0
+
2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: 0.00 /km2 (see
Fig X.3).-
2c) Intermittents
(CSOs & PSOs)
1) NIRS: 0.68/km2 (high)
Crude and Storm
Sewage –detail shows 4
sewage events (2003-10)
related to CSOs.
2) CSOs No = 5 2000-4,
3 2005-9, 2 in 2010-15.
3) UU plan 800m3 of
extra “Storm storage at
Watling St CSO +Screen
& Event Logging there
and at Victoria Rd CSOs
+
+
+
1) See (1) under Sewage
above – WQ improves
when CSOs improved.
2) See (2) under Sewage
above – WQ deteriorates
in wet weather and
agriculture is unlikely to
be significant factor.
+
+
1) See (1) under
Agriculture
2) Several CSOs flagged
as issue by EA staff –
see Fig 3.3.
+
+
Table 3.1c Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: inverts, ammonia, phosphate
17/02/2016
33
65
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
3) Landfill 1) 0.0% area of
catchment)
2) Some of the landfills
are for building and
“inert waste” but others
contain household
waste.
2) No reference to
landfill in NIRS data
0
+
-
4) Geomorph 1) Straightened / re-
sectioned / re-aligned
for most of its length and
culverted d/s of
Garstang Road (near
Savick Brook)
2) DO has reached high
status (1995-2006)
suggesting
geomorphology does
not limit aeration.
-
-
1) Culvert has
insufficient fall and leads
to septic conditions
according to EA staff –
see Fig 3.3.
+ Not applicable N/A
Table 3.1d Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of Evidence
WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
66
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
5) Industry 1) Red Scar Industrial
Estate
2) 40 NIRS events
related to neither
sewage or oils, but
unclear of impact on
DO, BOD, NH4 and PO4.
0
0
1) WQ at 88003572 at
Longridge Rd
deteriorated in late
1980s (Fig 3.5). u/s of
here contains Red Scar
Ind estate (with non UU
sewer or septic?).
0
6) M6 1) Crosses WB
2) Unlikely source of
BOD, NH4 and PO4
3) No mention of M6 in
NIRS data.
0
-
-
Table 3.1e Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of Evidence
WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
17/02/2016
34
67
Suspected
causes
Conclusions
Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team)
Agriculture Evidence is limited and weak, but consistent
in suggesting agriculture is not a problem.
Not part of the problem No action, until other measures have
been successfully implemented.
Sewage Sludge
Spreading
None Not part of the problem No action, sewage spreading unlikely in
the future.
Sewage (in
general)
Evidence is consistent and strong in pointing
towards sewage being a problem.
Main part of the problem (at least in the
past)
See details below
STWs
(non-W Co)
None Not part of the problem None
Septic Tanks Evidence is inconsistent and weak, but points
towards septic tanks or non-UU sewers at
Red Scar Ind Estate being a possible cause
Cannot rule out, and could be part of
the problem.
Once UU CSO schemes have been put
in place investigate sewerage / septic
tank arrangements at Red Scar Industrial
Estate.
CSWs Evidence is very limited, but suggests not a
significant problem.
Not a significant part of the problem. Review NIRS in 2 years time to check for
any increase in wrong connection related
events. If so, take Yellow Fish campaign
to problem areas?
Intermittents
(CSOs & PSs)
Evidence is consistent and strong suggesting
CSOs have been a significant problem at
least in the past.
Main part of the problem (at least in the
past)
Review WQ data after UU have
implemented AMP5 plans.
Table 3.2a Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: inverts, ammonia, phosphate
68
Suspected
causes
Conclusions
Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team)
Landfill Evidence is limited and weak, but there are a
lot of landfills in this subcatchment.
Cannot rule out, and could be part of
the problem.
Review landfill impact again in future
once other causes have been addressed.
Geomorphology Evidence is limited and weak, but suggests
culverting may cause localised problem.
Not a significant part of the problem,
localised effect only.
Review options for preventing stagnant
conditions developing in culverted
section.
Industry A lot of pollution events, but not obviously
linked to DO, BOD, NH4 and PO4 problems.
Otherwise evidence is limited and weak.
Cannot rule out, and could be part of
the problem.
Review NIRS in 2 years time and liaise
with industry re future pollution
prevention measures.
M6 Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem. None
Table 3.2b Eaves Brook (u/s 88003573): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: inverts, ammonia, phosphate
17/02/2016
35
69
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)
70Fig 4.1 Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): WFD classes
Sharoe Brook
u/s 88003574
Hydromorphological Status : Heavily Modified
Ecological Quality: Moderate Potential
Biological quality
Fish
Inverts
Physico-chemical quality
Ammonia
MP 88003574: Good
DO
MP 88003574: High
pH
MP 88003574: High
Phosphate
MP 88003574: Mod
Sources: EA website,
WB_SPT_Classification_all_IAP.xls (A Hartland)
•WFD failures: phosphate
17/02/2016
36
71
Fig 4.2 Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574):
Water bodies (WBs), catchments, monitoring points (MPs) & topo contours
OS 10 m contours
WFD monitoring points
Other monitoring points
72
Fig 4.3 Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574):
Suspected problems identified by EA Staff
17/02/2016
37
73Fig 4.4 Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Pressures
NIRS (Water_selected)
Discharges
74
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010
Inve
rte
bra
tes
(A
SP
T S
co
re -
La
b d
ata
) &
GQ
A W
Q
WF
D S
co
re (
Hig
h =
5,
Go
od
= 4
, M
od
era
te =
3,
Po
or
= 2
& L
ow
= 1
)
Sharoe Brook ptc Savick Brook - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates
90%ile BOD WFD Score90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score10%ile DO% WFD scoreRolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15)∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20)ASPTGQA WQ (No PO4) (A=6, F=1)
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Orange blobs are
the combined
WFD status
(88003570)
PO4 is poor
WQ improves from
1985-1995
WQ variable and
some deterioration
since 2000
Fig 4.5 Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574):
General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH4 & PO4)
17/02/2016
38
75
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1950 to1959
1960 to1969
1970 to1979
1980 to1984
1985 to1989
1990 to1994
1995 to1999
2000 to2004
2005 to2009
2010 to2015
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
ns
en
ted
Dis
ch
arg
es
pe
r k
m2
Sharoe Brook Consented Discharges (Selected)
Sewerage Network - Sewers - water companySewerage Network - Pumping Station - water companySewage Disposal Works - water companySewage disposal works - otherOther Tourist/Short Stay AccommodationMixed FarmingDomestic Property (Multiple)Domestic Property (Single)General Construction Work
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
88003570 -88003571
Sharoe Brook(Lot of Grey Water)
3571-3575(+0.55 wrong connections as
"contaminated water")
WreaBrook
Pool Stream
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Se
wa
ge M
ate
ria
ls N
IRS
Po
llu
tio
n I
nc
ide
nts
(2
00
1-2
01
0)
(No
/km
2)
Sewage Related Consented Discharges (No per km2) 2005-9
Sewage Materials: Discharge Consents and NIRS
Savick Brook Subcatchments
South Fylde Drains
Fig 4.6 Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574):
Consented Discharges (1950-2015)
CSOs stop ?, PS EOs
High proportion of sewage
related NIRS for relatively
few consents
76
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
1) Agriculture 1) Land use: 37%
managed grassland
(low-mod), 5% Arable.
2) NIRS: 0.00/km2
3) No Mixed Farming
consented discharges
0
-
0
1) PO4 at 88003574 has
remained poor since
1975 (Fig 4.5) despite
improvements in DO,
BOD and NH4 1980-
1990 implying a
background source
unaffected by consents
(Fig 4.6). Could be
agriculture or septic
tanks?
0
1) Only one water
quality monitoring point.
2) Dairy farms at top of
catchment noted by EA
as a suspected cause
(see Fig 4.3).
NE
+
SAGIS suggests
livestock accounts for
(68.9/155.8=) 44% of
measured PO4
concentration for whole
of Savick Brook (Fig
1.24) so some PO4 likely
from agricultural u/s part
of Sharoe Brook.
+
2) Sewage Sludge
Spreading
1) None 0 NE 0
Table 4.1a Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: phosphate
17/02/2016
39
77
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
2) Sewage 1) Land use: 50%
urb/suburban (mod-
high)
2) NIRS: 1.78 /km2
(mod-high)
3) Sharoe Brook has a
high proportion of
sewage related NIRS
compared to sewage
related consented
discharges (Fig 4.6)
0
+
+
1) WQ at 88003574
improved 1985-1990
(Fig 4.5) at a time when
a consented discharge
for housing development
work was put in place
(Fig 4.6). Tanterton
housing area developed
before 1991 (Fig 1.6)
2) There has been a
slight decline in WQ at
88003574 (Fig 4.5)
since 1995-2005
potentially with the
consented PSO (Fig
4.6) for Uplands Hall
Housing Development,
Tanterton.
+
0
1) Only one water
quality monitoring point.
2) Wrong connections
noted by EA as a
suspected cause (see
Fig 4.3).
-
+
2a) STWs
(non-W Co)
1) 0.00/km2 (although 1
at Jumps Farm 1994-
1996)
2) 1 No Final effluent
NIRS possibly related to
Jumps Farm (consent
revoked in 1996, now
exempt?).
0
+
1) See (1) under
Agriculture above
(possible background
source ?).
0 1) No STWs problems
noted by EA staff (Fig
4.3)
-
Table 4.1b Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: phosphate
78
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
2b) Septic tanks 1) 9.5/km2 (Mod) (Fig
1.7)
2) 1 septic tank NIRS +
also see (2) under 2a
above.
0
+
1) See (1) under
Agriculture above
(possible background
source ?).
0 1) No upstream WQ
monitoring.
2) Septic tanks not
noted to be a probable
cause by EA (see Fig
4.3)
0
-
2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: 1.04/km2 (low)
(Grey Water) 11 No
references to wrong
connections in NIRS
detail at five locations
(see Fig 4.4).
+ 1) See (1) and (2) under
Sewage suggesting
deterioration in WQ
related to housing
development.
+ 1) Wrong connections
noted to be a probable
cause by EA (see Fig
4.4)
+
2c) Intermittents
(CSOs & PSOs)
1) NIRS: 0.15 /km2 for
Storm Sewage related
to 1 No CSO failure in
ten years.
2) 1 CSO at Lightfoot
Lane and 1 PSO for
Uplands Hall Housing
Development
(Tanterton).
+
0
1) See (1) under
Sewage.
2) WQ at 88003574 (Fig
4.5) is less variable than
on many parts of Savick
Brook, implying less
CSO, storm problems
+
-
1) No CSO / PSO
problems noted by EA
staff (Fig 4.3)
-
Table 4.1c Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: phosphate
17/02/2016
40
79
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
3) Landfill 1) 0.0% area of
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
0
-
-
0
4) Geomorph 1) Mainly re-aligned or
straightened and with a
short culverted section
in Sharoe Green
2) DO often high status
suggesting
geomorphology does
not limit aeration.
0
-
Not applicable N/A
5) Industry 1) No Industry related
NIRS
-
Table 4.1d Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: phosphate
80
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
6) M6 1) Crosses WB
2) Unlikely source of
BOD, NH4 and PO4
3) No mention of M6 in
NIRS data.
0
-
-
Table 4.1d Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: phosphate
17/02/2016
41
81
Suspected
causes
Conclusions
Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team)
Agriculture The evidence for farming being a cause is
not strong, but EA staff opinions and SAGIS
PO4 predictions from managed grassland
suggest agriculture is a contributing factor.
Dairy farming is likely to be part of the
problem.
Develop measures to deal with livestock
problems (e.g. nutrient management
plans, slurry stores and silage clamps).
Sewage Sludge
Spreading
None Not part of the problem Review if sewage sludge spreading is
proposed in future.
Sewage (in
general)
Evidence is broadly consistent in suggesting
sewage (including wrong connections) is a
problem.
Part of the problem (and may have got
worse since the early 1990s)
See details below
STWs
(non-W Co)
None, although one (exempt?) discharge at
Jumps Farm could be a minor contributor
Possible minor part of the problem Review size and operation / maintenance
of the Jumps Farm discharge.
Septic Tanks Evidence is inconsistent and weak. Cannot rule out, and could be part of
the problem.
Address other likely causes first and then
if still a problem extend septic tank
campaign from upper parts of Savick
Brook.
Table 4.2a Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): ConclusionsWFD failures: phosphate
82
Suspected
causes
Conclusions
Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team)
CSWs Evidence is consistent and strong for wrong
connections being a significant problem.
A significant part of the problem Focussed effort for Yellow Fish
campaign.
Intermittents
(CSOs & PSs)
Evidence is limited and weak, but could imply
a small impact on WQ since 1995 following
increased housing.
Probably a minor part of the problem. Liaise with UU over failure rates for CSO
at Lightfoot Lane and PSO for Uplands
Hall Housing Development (Tanterton).
Landfill Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem. None
Geomorphology Limited evidence, but suggests not a
significant problem (local influence only?).
Not a significant part of the problem. None
Industry None Not a significant part of the problem. None
M6 Evidence is limited and weak. Not a significant part of the problem. None
Table 4.2a Sharoe Brook (u/s 88003574): ConclusionsWFD failures: phosphate
17/02/2016
42
83
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)
84Fig 5.1 Whole of Savick Brook: river WB WFD classification
Savick Brook(GB112071065470)
Hydromorphological Status : Heavily Modified
Ecological Quality: Moderate Potential
Biological quality: Poor
Fish: Poor
MP 13817: Bad
MP 4364: Bad
MP 4366: Mod*
Inverts: Poor
MP 68117: Mod
ASPT: Mod
NTAXA: Good
MP 65405: Bad
ASPT: Bad
NTAXA: Poor
MP 68135: Mod
ASPT:Mod
NTAXA: Mod
Physico-chemical quality: Moderate
Ammonia: Good
MP 88003569: Good
MP 88003570: Good
MP 88003573: Poor
MP 88003574: Good
DO: High
MP 88003569: High
MP 88003570: High
MP 88003573: High
MP 88003574: High
pH: High
MP 88003569: High
MP 88003570: lower=High, upper=Mod
MP 88003573: High
MP 88003574: High
Phosphate: Moderate
MP 88003569: Poor
MP 88003570: Poor
MP 88003573: Mod
MP 88003574: ModSources: EA website,
WB_SPT_Classification_all_IAP.xls (A Hartland)
•WFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate* Fish at MP 4366 improved to Good in 2010
17/02/2016
43
85Fig X.2 Ribble Link: river WB WFD classification
Ribble Link(GB71210217)
Hydromorphological Status: Artificial Ecological Quality: Moderate Potential
Biological quality: NA Physico-chemical quality: Moderate
Ammonia: High
MP ?? 88003575
DO: NA pH: High
MP ?? 88003575
Phosphate: Moderate
MP ?? 88003575
Specific Pollutants Quality: High
Ammonia: High
Copper: High
Zinc: High
Source: EA website
•WFD failures: phosphate
86
Fig 5.2 Bottom of Savick & Ribble Link:
Water bodies (WBs), catchments, monitoring points (MPs) & topo contours
OS 10 m contours
WFD monitoring points Other monitoring points
Ribble Link is d/s (west)
side of dashed line
17/02/2016
44
87
Fig 5.3 Bottom of Savick & Ribble Link:
Suspected problems identified by EA Staff
88Fig 5.4 Bottom of Savick & Ribble Link: Pressures (legend next slide)
17/02/2016
45
89Legend for Fig 5.4
NIRS (Water_selected)Discharges
90
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010
Inve
rte
bra
tes
(A
SP
T S
co
re -
La
b d
ata
) &
GQ
A S
co
re
WF
D S
co
re (
Hig
h =
5,
Go
od
= 4
, M
od
era
te =
3,
Po
or
= 2
& B
ad
= 1
)
Savick Brook ptc Eaves Brook - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates
90%ile BOD WFD Score
90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score
10%ile DO% WFD score
Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score
∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15)
∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20)BMWP
GQA WQ (No PO4) (A=6, F=1)
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Orange blobs are
the combined
WFD status
(88003570)
PO4 is better
than upstream
WQ improves from
1990-1995
WQ quite variable
Fig 5.5 Savick Brook prior to confluence (ptc) with Eaves Brook (u/s
88003571):
General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH4 & PO4)
17/02/2016
46
91
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
1950 to1959
1960 to1969
1970 to1979
1980 to1984
1985 to1989
1990 to1994
1995 to1999
2000 to2004
2005 to2009
2010 to2015
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
ns
en
ted
Dis
ch
arg
es
pe
r k
m2
Savick Brook between Sandy and Eaves Bks Consented Discharges (Selected)
Sewerage Network - Sewers - water companySewerage Network - Pumping Station - water companySewage Disposal Works - water companySewage disposal works - otherOther Tourist/Short Stay AccommodationMixed FarmingDomestic Property (Multiple)Domestic Property (Single)General Construction Work
Note: Scale is larger on this chart
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Poorly controlled until
1990, then mainly CSOs
Fig 5.6 Savick Brook (between 88003570 to 88003571):
Consented Discharges (1950-2015)
92
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010
Inve
rte
bra
tes
(A
SP
T S
co
re -
La
b d
ata
) &
GQ
A W
Q
WF
D S
co
re (
Hig
h =
5,
Go
od
= 4
, M
od
era
te =
3,
Po
or
= 2
& L
ow
= 1
)
Ribble Link Canal at Lea Road - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates
90%ile BOD WFD Score
90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score
10%ile DO% WFD score
Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score
∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15)
∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20)
ASPT
GQA WQ (No PO4) (A=6, F=1)
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Orange blobs are
the combined
WFD status
(88003570)
PO4 is poor
WQ improves
gradually 1990-2000
WQ variable
Fig 5.7 Savick Brook / Ribble Link at Lea Road (88003575):
General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH4 & PO4)
17/02/2016
47
93
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1950 to1959
1960 to1969
1970 to1979
1980 to1984
1985 to1989
1990 to1994
1995 to1999
2000 to2004
2005 to2009
2010 to2015
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
ns
en
ted
Dis
ch
arg
es
pe
r k
m2
Savick Brook (88003571 - 88003575) Consented Discharges (Selected)
Sewerage Network - Sewers - water companySewerage Network - Pumping Station - water companySewage Disposal Works - water companySewage disposal works - otherOther Tourist/Short Stay AccommodationMixed FarmingDomestic Property (Multiple)Domestic Property (Single)General Construction Work
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Few consents before late
1990s then CSOs (and
“UU Cattle Market STW?)
Fig 5.8 Savick Brook (between 88003571 to 88003575):
Consented Discharges (1950-2015)
94
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1985 01/01/1990 01/01/1995 01/01/2000 01/01/2005 01/01/2010
Inve
rte
bra
tes
(A
SP
T S
co
re -
La
b d
ata
) &
GQ
A W
Q
WF
D S
co
re (
Hig
h =
5,
Go
od
= 4
, M
od
era
te =
3,
Po
or
= 2
& B
ad
= 1
)
Savick Brook ptc Tidal Ribble - DO%, BOD, NH4-N, PO4 and Invertebrates
90%ile BOD WFD Score
90%ile Tot NH4_N WFD Score
10%ile DO% WFD score
Rolling Annual Average PO4 WFD Score
∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4 & BOD (out of 15)
∑ WFD Scores for DO%, NH4, BOD & PO4 (out of 20)
GQA WQ (No PO4) (A=6, F=1)
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Orange blobs are
the combined
WFD status
(88003576)
PO4 is poor
WQ poor
Fig 5.9 Savick Brook ptc River Ribble (88003576):
General Water Quality (DO, BOD, NH4 & PO4)
17/02/2016
48
95
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1950 to1959
1960 to1969
1970 to1979
1980 to1984
1985 to1989
1990 to1994
1995 to1999
2000 to2004
2005 to2009
2010 to2015
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
ns
en
ted
Dis
ch
arg
es
pe
r k
m2
Savick Brook (88003575 - 88003576) Consented Discharges (Selected)
Sewerage Network - Sewers - water companySewerage Network - Pumping Station - water companySewage Disposal Works - water companySewage disposal works - otherOther Tourist/Short Stay AccommodationMixed FarmingDomestic Property (Multiple)Domestic Property (Single)General Construction Work
Source of Data: Environment Agency raw data processed for this project
Few consents before late
1990s then Domestic, a
Non UU STW & Tourism
Fig 5.10 Savick Brook (between 88003575 to 88003576):
Consented Discharges (1950-2015)
96
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
1) Agriculture 1) Land use: 18%
managed grassland =
parkland (low), 1%
Arable.
2) NIRS: 0.00/km2
3) (Sandy Brook Land
Use = 49% managed
grassland 3% Arable)
but 2012 WQ for Sandy
Book appears to be of
Good Status.
0
-
-
1) No farm or parkland
issues noted by EA as a
suspected cause (see
Fig 5.3).
-
2) Sewage Sludge
Spreading
1) None 0 NE 0
Table 5.1a Bottom of Savick (88003570-3571): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
17/02/2016
49
97
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
2) Sewage 1) Land use: 71%
urb/suburban (high)
2) NIRS: 4.08 /km2
(high)
0
+
1) WQ (particularly BOD
and NH4) at 88003571
(Fig 5.5) more variable
than upstream at
88003570 (Fig 2.7)
2) DO, BOD, NH4 and
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).
+
+
1) See Line of Evidence
B1.
2) Wrong connections
noted by EA as a
suspected cause (see
Fig 5.3).
0
+
2a) STWs
(non-W Co)
1) None - 0 -
2b) Septic tanks 1) 1.4/km2 (low) (Fig
1.7)
2) No septic tank NIRS
-
-
1) Septic tanks not
noted to be a probable
cause by EA (see Fig
4.3)
-
-
Table 5.1b Bottom of Savick (88003570-3571): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
98
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: No wrong
connection NIRS ( 1
grey water related to
CSO).
- 1) Wrong connections
noted to be a possible
cause by EA (see Fig
4.4)
+
2c) Intermittents
(CSOs & PSOs)
1) NIRS: 4.08 /km2 for
Crude Sewage largely
related to CSOs.
2) 3.62 /km2 CSOs
(high).
+
+
1) See (1) under
Sewage.
2) See (2) under
Sewage
+
+
1) No CSO / PSO
problems noted by EA
staff (Fig 4.3)
-
3) Landfill None -
4) Geomorph 1) Mainly re-aligned / re-
sectioned
2) DO often high status
suggesting
geomorphology does
not limit aeration.
0
-
Not applicable N/A
Table 5.1c Bottom of Savick (88003570-3571): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
17/02/2016
50
99
Suspected
causes
Conclusions
Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team)
Agriculture None (except in Sandy Brook and WQ from
Sandy Brook appears ok in 2012 – not
presented)
Not part of the problem for this
subcatchment
None
Sewage Sludge
Spreading
None Not part of the problem None
Sewage (in
general)
Evidence is broadly consistent in suggesting
sewage (primarily CSOs) is a problem.
Main problem See details below
STWs
(non-W Co)
None Not part of the problem None
Septic Tanks Evidence is consistent and suggests septic
tanks are not main problem in this area.
Cannot rule out, but not likely to be a
significant problem.
None
CSWs Evidence is limited and weak. Cannot rule out, but not likely to be a
significant problem.
None
Intermittents
(CSOs & PSs)
Evidence is consistent and strong that CSOs
have been or are the problem.
Main problem (unless addressed by UU
schemes in recent years)
Liaise with UU over whether
improvements to CSOs in this area will
have addressed these WQ problems
Landfill None Not part of the problem None
Geomorphology Limited evidence, but suggests not a
significant problem.
Not a significant part of the problem. None
Industry None Not a significant part of the problem. None
Table 5.2a Bottom of Savick (88003570-3571): ConclusionsWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
100
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
1) Agriculture 1) Land use: 29%
managed grassland (inc
parkland (low-mod), 5%
Arable.
2) NIRS: 0.00/km2
0
-
1) No farm or parkland
issues noted by EA as a
suspected cause (see
Fig 5.3).
-
2) Sewage Sludge
Spreading
1) None 0 NE 0
Table 5.3a Bottom of Savick (88003571-3575): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
17/02/2016
51
101
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
2) Sewage 1) Land use: 58%
urb/suburban (mod-
high)
2) NIRS: 0.37 /km2 (low-
mod)
0
+
1) WQ at 88003575 (Fig
5.7) likely to be
dominated by that at
88003571 (Fig 5.5) and
from Eaves Brook (Fig
3.5) and Sharoe Brook
(Fig 4.5) – cannot
unpick additional effects
from this subcatchment.
0 1) See Line of Evidence
B1.
2) No sewage issues
noted by EA as a
suspected cause (see
Fig 5.3).
0
-
2a) STWs
(non-W Co)
1) None - 0 -
2b) Septic tanks 1) 9.4/km2 (mod) (Fig
1.7)
2) No septic tank NIRS
-
-
1) Septic tanks not
noted as a suspected
cause by EA (see Fig
5.3)
-
2c) CSWs 1) NIRS: 4 wrong
connection NIRS near
WQ monitoring point
(Fig 5.4)
+ 1) Wrong connections
noted to be a possible
cause by EA (see Fig
4.4)
+
Table 5.1b Bottom of Savick (88003571-3575): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
102
Suspected causes Line of evidence A
(variation across WBs)
Line of evidence B
(variation in time)
Line of evidence C
(d/s changes)
Line of evidence D
(s/apportionment)
Results Score Results Score Results Score Results Score
2c) Intermittents
(CSOs & PSOs)
1) NIRS: 0.00/km2 Storm
Sewage (1 for Crude
Sewage but detail says
misconnection).
2) 0.55 /km2 CSOs (low-
mod).
-
0
1) No CSO / PSO
problems noted by EA
staff (Fig 5.3)
-
3) Landfill Cottam Hall Brick Works
but mainly demolition
waste (and unlikely to
be significant source of
BOD, NH4 and PO4
- 1) No landfill problems
noted by EA staff (Fig
5.3)
4) Geomorph 1) Section from
88003571 to ~600 m d/s
of confluence with
Sharoe Brook is semi-
natural. Lower section to
88003575 is canalised
(Ribble Link)
0
-
1) DO often high status
(including after Ribble
Link complete in 2002)
suggesting
geomorphology does
not limit aeration.
2) Rheophillic Fish
numbers have dropped
significantly since Ribble
Link completed 2002.
-
+
1) Barriers and locks
affecting fish migration
noted by EA staff (Fig
5.3)
Not applicable N/A
Table 5.1c Bottom of Savick (88003571-3575): Strength of EvidenceWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate
17/02/2016
52
103
Suspected
causes
Conclusions
Consistency of Evidence Conclusion (E&M Team Opinion) Recommendation (E&M Team)
Agriculture Evidence is limited and weak, but consistent
in suggesting agriculture is not the main
problem.
Cannot rule out, but not likely to be a
significant problem.
None
Sewage Sludge
Spreading
None Not part of the problem None
Sewage (in
general)
Evidence is limited, weak and inconsistent,
except fro wrong connections.
Cannot rule out, but not likely to be a
significant problem, except wrong
connections.
See details below
STWs
(non-W Co)
None Not part of the problem None
Septic Tanks Evidence is limited, weak, but consistent in
suggesting septic tanks are not a significant
problem in this area.
Cannot rule out, but not likely to be a
significant problem.
None
CSWs Evidence is limited, but consistent in
suggesting wrong connections are a problem
Part of the problem (although WQ
generally dominated by upstream)
Focussed effort for Yellow Fish
campaign.
Intermittents
(CSOs & PSs)
Evidence is limited, but consistent in
suggesting CSOs are not a problem.
Cannot rule out, but not likely to be a
significant problem.
Liaise with UU over satisfactory CSO
failure rates in this subcatchment.
Landfill None Not part of the problem None
Geomorphology Limited evidence, but suggests a problem for
fish rather than water quality.
Not significant for general WQ, but a
problem for fish (and invertebrates?)
Work with the Canal and River Trust
regarding impacts of Ribble Link
Industry None Not a significant part of the problem. None
Table 5.2a Bottom of Savick (88003571-3575): ConclusionsWFD failures: fish, inverts, phosphate