IE IEGBNISH SH Shannon Step 1 Aquifer Delineation and Description. Rock units were compiled for the country in approximate stratigraphical order. Rock units were grouped (e.g. pure limestones, impure limestones, Silurian metasediments, Old Red Sandstones, Granites, etc.). Hydrogeological data for each individual rock unit were compiled into holistic table.The occurrence of significant variation of hydrogeological properties between individual rock units in the group was investigated. If significant variation was noted, the variation was explained and the relevant units sub-divided out.The presence or absence of the significant regional variation of hydrogeological properties within each group of rock units was determined. Where possible, an explanation for the variation was given.An aquifer classification was assigned to each group of rock units on country-wide (i.e., not RBD) basis. Where regional variations were noted to exist, a physical basis for bounding the different areas was sought. In some cases, areas were delineated on the basis of different structural provinces.A digital aquifer map was produced for inclusion in RBD GIS.A digital vulnerability map was produced from existing mapping for inclusion in RBD GIS. A report on the aquifers of each rock unit group was written. The initial reports were brief and in draft format due to time constraints. Step 2Preliminary Groundwater Body Delineation and Description. Hydrometric unit area boundaries were used as a starting point. Where appropriate, surface water body boundaries (i.e. sub-catchments) within the hydrometric areas were used. This assumes that the groundwater system is unconfined or only partially confined locally. Aquifers were grouped into 4 categories to assist in delineating the boundaries: Karstic (Rk) aquifers; Gravel (Rg and Lg) aquifers; Productive fractured bedrock (Rf and Lm) aquifers; Poorly productive bedrock (Ll, Pl and Pu) aquifers. A map of each hydrometric area showing these aquifer groups, together with other relevant information such as sub-catchments, location of gauging stations, groundwater monitoring points, etc. Groundwater body boundaries were delineated using the following hierarchy (taken largely from the CIS guidance, with the exception of iii), which is considered to be appropriate to the situation in Ireland): i.) No flow, or relatively low flow, geological boundaries (this requirements is to facilitate water balance calculations and also because these boundaries separate more or less distinct hydrogeological flow systems). Ii.) Boundaries based on groundwater highs (Comment: these will generally be the groundwater highs that coincide with surface water catchment boundaries.)iii.) Boundaries based on differing flow systems (e.g. karst vs. intergranular) (Comment: This appears to contradict i.). However it is a justifiable approach in situations (most of Ireland) where the quantitative status is good. It does not prevent water balance calculations being made at the initial stage, prior to making a further sub-division based on the flow regime. It is felt that, for instance, the flow regime in many karst areas will have specific implications for the management measures needed for those areas.)iv.) Boundaries based on flow lines. (Comment: These boundaries will only be used to separate out groundwater bodies which have a different status.) The Initial Characterisation Tables were then completed. A small number of conceptual models were developed which fit the limited range of situations we envisage in Ireland; each GW Body was then allocated to one of these. For the purpose of description, groundwater bodies were grouped. Step 3: Completion of Initial Characterisation. Assessment of Monitoring Data. Mapping and Assessment of Pressures. ‘Extremely’ vulnerable areas delineated and integrated with existing vulnerability maps. Groundwater bodies examined in terms of ecosystems, pressures, trends and pollution risk.. Water balances on groundwater bodies undertaken to delineate groundwater bodies potentially likely to be ‘at risk’. Chemical risk assessed and groundwater bodies potentially likely to be ‘at risk’ delineated.Step 4: Monitoring points updated to take account of WFD requirements, including the installation of new monitoring points, where necessary, and commence monitoring Step 5: Undertake ‘further characterisation’ studies to improve on characterisation and risk assessment Step 6: Undertake Chemical Status assessment based on data gathered from GWQ monitoring network and expert judgement Step 7: Undertake Quantitiative Status assessment based on water level data and abstraction impact assessments Step 8: Undertake Chemical trend assessments Step 9: Outputs from Status and Trend assessments included in the RBMP's Nitrates 37.5 mg/l mg/l NO3 75 Member State Arsenic 7.5 µg/l μg/l As 75 Member State Cadmium 3.75 µg/l μg/l Cd 75 Member State Lead 18.75 µg/l μg/l Pb 75 Member State Mercury 0.75 µg/l μg/l Hg 75 Member State Ammonium 175 65 µg/l μg/l N 75 Member State Chloride 187.5 24 mg/l mg/l Cl 75 Member State Sulphate 187.5 mg/l mg/l SO4 75 Member State Tetrachloroethylene 7.5 µg/l Total Tetrachloroethene & Trichloroethene 75 Member State Conductivity 1875 800 Other μS/cm 75 Member State TotalPesticides 0.375 µg/l 75 Member State Threshold values are groundwater quality standards that have generally been set at a local groundwater body scale, for the purpose of assessing groundwater chemical status. They are triggers, such that their exceedance prompts further investigation to determine whether the conditions for good status have been met, rather than representing the boundary between good and poor status. The groundwater quality standards prescribed in the GWD for nitrate and pesticides are used in the assessment process in the same way. However, if all standards and thresholds are met at all monitoring points then, under Article 4.2(b) of the GWDD, the groundwater body is considered to be at good status and no further investigation is necessary. The process of setting threshold values is complex. Initially, component threshold values (referred to as criteria values in EC CIS guidance) have been derived for the purpose of assessing each of the tests for good chemical status. The threshold/criteria values are derived by taking into account the relevant criteria for protection of each receptor. For example values may be derived from surface water environmental quality standards or from drinking water standards. In each case the natural background concentrations are taken into account such that a threshold value will not be lower than the upper limit of the natural background concentration within the groundwater body. This only applies to naturally occurring substances. In determining threshold values the source characteristics and properties of the pollutant has been taken into account as well as the attenuating properties along the pathways between source and receptor. Threshold values (TVs) have been derived by taking into account of the natural background concentrations of naturally occurring substances in the groundwater body. TVs have been established so that they are no lower than the upper limit (90th percentile) of the natural background. The natural background concentration ranges have been determined through a research project to determine the natural quality of groundwater in Ireland. Threshold values were derived by taking into account the relevant criteria for protection of each receptor and groundwater body objective. For example, for the surface water test values were derived from surface water environmental quality standards, the drinking water protected area test thresholds were derived from drinking water standards. Achieving ‘good chemical status’ for groundwater involves meeting a series of conditions which are defined in Annex V of the WFD and in Articles 3 and 4 of the Groundwater Daughter Directive and applied to the groundwater body. Groundwater status objectives set by the WFD rely in part on the protection of, or objectives for, other associated waters and dependant ecosystems. The objectives for these must be known before groundwater classification can be fully completed. These associated waters and dependant ecosystems may have different sensitivities to water level and/or pollutants. As a result it is possible that different environmental standards may apply within a single groundwater body to reflect these varying sensitivities. There are five chemical status tests. Whilst the WFD emphasises the use of monitoring data during classification, in practice a weight of evidence approach, with monitoring data complemented by conceptual understanding and risk assessment data, is essential to ensure reliable classification of groundwater bodies and subsequent proper targeting of measures in the River Basin Planning process. The worst case classification from the five chemical tests is reported as the overall chemical status of the groundwater body. This is the one-out all-out system, as required by the WFD. If any one of the tests results in poor status, then the overall classification of the body will be poor. The confidence associated with the worst case test result is also reported. Achieving ‘good status’ for groundwater involves meeting a series of conditions which are defined in Annex V of the WFD and applied to the groundwater body. Groundwater status objectives set by the WFD rely in part on the protection of, or objectives for, other associated waters and dependant ecosystems. The objectives for these must be known before groundwater classification can be fully completed. These associated waters and dependant ecosystems may have different sensitivities to water levels, flow and/or pollutants. As a result it is possible that different environmental standards may apply within a single groundwater body to reflect these varying sensitivities. There are four quantitative status tests. Whilst the WFD emphasises the use of monitoring data during classification, in practice a weight of evidence approach, with monitoring data complemented by conceptual understanding and risk assessment data, is essential to ensure reliable classification of groundwater bodies and subsequent proper targeting of measures in the River Basin Planning process. The worst case classification from the four quantitative tests is reported as the overall quantitative status. This is the one-out all-out system, as required by the WFD. If any one of the tests results in poor status, then the overall classification of the body will be poor. The confidence associated with the worst case test result is also reported. To determine whether a GWB has a significant and sustained upward/downward trend, the results from the analysis of trends at individual monitoring sites have been assessed. Where a statistically significant trend is identified this trend must be tested for environmental significance. The environmental significance test assesses whether the trend is likely to lead to a failure of one or more environmental (status) objectives in the groundwater body. If one or more environmentally significant trends are identified, the GWB will reported as having a significant and sustained upward trend. Note: the presence of a statistically significant trend at an individual monitoring point does not on its own lead to a groundwater body having an upward trend. The trend must also be environmentally significant. The approach used follows EU CIS guidance on trend assessment. Guidance Document No. 18: Guidance on Groundwater Status and Trend Assessment. For the First River Basin Plan only upward trends have been reported. Success in achieving trend reversal will not be reported until the second River Basin Management Plans when the programmes of measures have had time to take effect. This is in accordance with CIS guidance. 75% used in all cases No trends associated with plumes identified There was comparison of methods and threshold values between both Member States (Ireland and Northern Ireland). The only threshold value which differed significantly was Molybdate Reactive Phosphorus. The transboundary groundwater bodies were assessed using the threshold values for Molybdate Reactive Phosphorus from both member states. The outcome of the status assessment was the same using either Member State threshold value The pressures and impacts analysis for all groundwater bodies was reviewed in 2008 prior to carrying out groundwater body classification and trend assessment. As a result the risk assessments were updated using new and additional data. This has led to a general reduction in uncertainty and provided a sound base for classification and trend assessment. Studies of pressures and impact analysis as part of further characterisation included the following: Development of Water Quality Standards; Development of Baseline standards; GW contribution to SW flow; Mining; Contaminated land; Quarries; Landfills; Abstractions; Urban areas; Agriculture – pesticides; LSOs; Agriculture – nutrients; On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems; Sheep dip; Saline intrusion; GWDTE characterisation; Vulnerability mapping; Nitrate Predictive Risk Assessment Trialling; GW & SW interaction. In addition each of the pressures and impacts (risk) assessments carried out has been linked directly to the status assessment/classification process. Further consultation with local experts has also been carried out to improve confidence in the risk assessments. none none The conditions for good quantitative groundwater status are defined solely in the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and we have designed a series of tests for each of the elements defining good quantitative status, following CIS guidance (as noted below). There are four quantitative tests. Each test is applied independently and the results combined to give an overall assessment of groundwater body quantitative status. The worst case classification of the quantitative tests is reported as the overall quantitative status for the groundwater body. Groundwater bodies are classified as either at good or poor status. The classification process is described further in EU Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Guidance: Guidance Document No. 18: Guidance on Groundwater Status and Trend Assessment. Ireland has not reported maps of chemical status for individual pollutants. It has undertaken classification in accordance with EU CIS guidance and applied a series of tests to determine chemical status. Each test addresses specific criteria/objectives for defining good status, as defined in the WFD. The tests consider overall impacts on the receptor not the impacts of individual pollutants. As a result, only one map showing groundwater body chemical status has been produced - as required by the WFD. Nitrate is a pollutant that is considered in several of the tests, along with other pollutants. It is therefore not reported separately. Ireland has not reported maps of chemical status for individual pollutants. It has undertaken classification in accordance with EU CIS guidance and applied a series of tests to determine chemical status. Each test addresses specific criteria/objectives for defining good status, as defined in the WFD. The tests consider overall impacts on the receptor not the impacts of individual pollutants. As a result, only one map showing groundwater body chemical status has been produced - as required by the WFD. Nitrate is a pollutant that is considered in several of the tests, along with other pollutants. It is therefore not reported separately. The achievement of good chemical status in groundwater involves meeting a series of conditions which are defined in the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and Groundwater (Daughter) Directive (2006/118/EC). We have designed a series of tests for each of the quality elements defining good chemical groundwater status, following CIS guidance, as noted below. There are five chemical tests. Each test is applied independently and the results combined to give an overall assessment of groundwater body chemical status. The worst case classification from the relevant chemical status tests is reported as the overall chemical status for the groundwater body. Groundwater bodies are classified as either at good or poor status. The classification process is described further in EU Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Guidance: Guidance Document No. 18: Guidance on Groundwater Status and Trend Assessment. To determine whether a GWB has a significant and sustained upward/downward trend, the results from the analysis of trends at individual monitoring sites have been assessed. Where a statistically significant trend is identified this trend must be tested for environmental significance. This assesses whether the trend is likely to lead to a failure of one or more environmental (status) objectives in the groundwater body. If one or more environmentally significant trends are identified, the GWB will reported as having a significant and sustained upward trend. Note: the presence of a statistically significant trend at an individual monitoring point does not on its own lead to a groundwater body having an upward trend. The trend must also be environmentally significant. The approach used follows EU CIS guidance. There was comparison of Status methods between both Member States (Ireland and Northern Ireland). The outcome of the status assessments are likely to be similar, as each Member State hasadopted the methods set out in EU CIS guidance Four methods were used to assess four components of the groundwater abstraction and flow pressure in order for the groundwater bodies (GWBs) to be quantitatively characterised. The pressures for groundwater abstraction related to: 1) GWB resource balance (Water balance) 2) Deterioration of dependent surface water body (SWB) status 3) Significant damage to wetlands 4) Saline and other intrusions . The methodologies are summarised: 1) Water Balance Test. Using groundwater levels to characterise quantitative status of a groundwater body is problematic because they can fluctuate continuously. The characterisation has two parts: a) Compare the total abstracted groundwater to the long term average recharge of the GWB, leaving an allowance for dependent surface water and wetland receptors (20% of recharge),b) Take account of declining (unsustainable) water levels. Part a) of the test differs from SWB status test (2) because it is calculated at the larger groundwater body scale and ignores surface water abstractions and discharges. Issues raised: • Simplified estimates of recharge and abstraction rates. There is uncertainty around the relationship between flow and ecology in the development of the surface water flow screening values used in this assessment. 2) Deterioration of dependent SWB status. In Ireland point source pollution may result either from deliberate discharges to ground (e.g. treated sewage effluent), or accidental discharges (e.g. leakage of fuel from a storage tank). Deliberate discharges are generally adequately controlled through existing regulations. Deliberate discharges are therefore unlikely to cause groundwater pollution. Accidental discharges, by their nature, are harder to control. We do however try to minimise the occurrence and impact of accidental discharges through pollution prevent campaigns and regulatory enforcement activity. A summary of the methodology is set out here: For the identification of significant point sources of pollution, details such as location and type of source, contaminants and degree of impact on receptors were required. The types of sources identified were generally closed landfill sites, historical contaminated land, closed mines or those sites with a history of poor management. The significance of the impact from these sources was assessed against. a) Impact on dependent surface water body or terrestrial ecosystem; b) Groundwater quality data and exceedance of the drinking water standard (prior to treatment) c) Extent and degree of groundwater pollution. The average concentration for particular pollutant was aggregated for the GWB, taking account of the concentration in the "unpolluted" part of te GWB. This results of this aggregation were compared against appropraite threshold values. For identification of potential point sources of pollution, databases were analysed and the point sources including authorised discharges to ground, operational landfill sites, mines or IPPC sites. Where more than one activity occured in a GWB, the cumulative impact was considered. The approach was limited by available data and also excluded some potential pollution sources e.g. contaminated land sites, and closed landfill sites. A confidence level was attached to the assessment depending on how good the evidence base was. Issues- The assessment only took into account current impacts on groundwater and did not consider mitigation measures to be implemented prior to 2015.- Time-lags of pollution to reach the receptor were not taken into account.- The focus has been on the size and location of sources that would potentially cause failure of a WFD environmental objective. Methodologies 1&2 Nutrient Nitrogen & Phosphorous. For nitrogen the method took into account: a) Mapped groundwater vulnerability to determine risk of N & P in GW b) Pressure(s) taken account of to identify impact using landuse and livestock data c) N & P concentrations in groundwater – based on monitoring network average concentrations and trends.d) Cross check with surface water failures in areas where surface water is the receptor 3,4&5) Hazardous substances, Pesticides & Chlorinated Solvents. The first step was to use data from the EPA's groundwater monitoring network to calculate the mean concentration for each substance per GWB. Information from IPPC, mines and contaminainated land sites was also utilised. Generally sample concentrations were low outside of point sources 6) Impacts on GWDTEs. Lack of GWDTE water quality standards and site specific knowledge of water quality impacts at individual wetlands resulted in expert judgement being used to determine overall risk per GWB. A risk category and confidence level (low) were then applied. 7) Mines and Mine water discharge. The data sources and expert judgement used for this method were provided by the Geological Survey of Ireland, including mine locations and water quality information. Criteria used in the risk assessment included: a) Surface water quality risk b) Connectivity (mine to receiving GWB). A risk category and confidence level were then applied. 8) Drinking Water Protected Areas. Data from the Environmental Protection Agency’s monitoring programme and from Local Authorities (LA) were compiled. A screening process checked for anomalies to make sure samples were representative. Trend analysis identified trends that were statistically significant. Results were extrapolated to predict mean concentration in 2021 and status and risk were determined per GWB. Correlation with LA data provided an indication of confidence. Any other additional trends identified from LA data were taken into account and also given ‘At Risk’ status. 9) Abstraction (Saline intrusion) Saline intrusion can inflow from saline coastal or connate water to the GWB if there is overabstraction. The intrusion risk assessment has been based on: a) the groundwater abstraction as a percentage of long-term average aquifer recharge, and b) information on observed intrusions of saline water. A risk category and confidence level were then applied. 10) Urban Areas. A further characterisation study was undertaken to investigate the impacts of urban areas. This included GW monitoring and a source-pathway-receptor risk assessment. Risk categories were applied but a low confidence was attached to the assessment, unless monitoring data provided support. 11) Trends Assessment - Data used:a) Groundwater Quality monitoring network data (10 years) b) DW data which records evidence of upwards trends was used as supporting information (raw data was not available). Trend analysis was done for monitoring points with 10+ analyses over a period of >6 years. The data were reviewed and where trends were statistically significant results were extrapolated to predict concentrations in 2015 & 2021. Upward trends were checked for environmental significance. GWBs were then categorised. If a significant part of the failure of SWB ecology is attributable to groundwater abstractions, then the GWB upon which the abstractions and surface water flows depend was flagged as being at risk of failing to achieve its groundwater quantitative status objectives.At risk SWBs were identified where upstream groundwater abstraction impacts make up >50% of average low (natural) flows. Issues raised were Information on the ecological flow requirements of rivers not being available Test 3) Significant damage to wetlands. This test considers the risks associated with groundwater abstraction impacting directly on a dependant wetland. At risk GWDTE's were identified where groundwater abstraction impacts were significantly impacting on the flow/levels at the GWDTE. Sites considered to be groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTE) were assessed using a source-pathway-receptor model and using expert opinion. Issues raised:• The assessment does not incorporate small scale and local drainage impacts, as these are not GWB scale factors, although the impacts on the wetland may be similar to GWB scale abstractions• Lack of baseline data for some sites,- Lack of knowledge on the cause of GWDTE damage and the sensitivity to groundwater level/flow fluctuations. Test4) Saline or other intrusions. Over abstraction can cause changes in groundwater flow direction. Intrusion can inflow from coastal or connate water in the GWB. The intrusion risk assessment has been based on the groundwater abstraction as a percentage of long-term average aquifer recharge and required evidence of intrusions (water chemistry) no text Intrusion can inflow from coastal or connate water in the GWB. The intrusion risk assessment has been based on: Potential that groundwater quality is deteriorating or there have already been impacts on the quality of abstracted water as a result of the intrusion of poor quality water into the body. Intrusion can occur when the saline-freshwater interface in coastal regions is drawn inland and upwards by abstraction. Groundwater abstraction can also lead to upward movement (up coning) of poor quality water, the leakage of saline surface waters to an underlying groundwater body or drawing in of poorer quality groundwater from an adjacent aquifer. - Identify monitoring sites that potentially may be impacted by saline intrusion, e.g elevated concentrations and upward trends in the groundwater body or impact on a drinking water abstraction. no text Chemical composition of groundwater leading to significant diminution of the ecological and qualitative status of associated surface water bodies; Chemical composition of groundwater leading to a deterioration in water quality that would lead to an increased level of treatment at points of abstraction; Chemical composition of groundwater leading to widespread exceedance of relevant groundwater threshold values or quality standards.

Although significant progress has been made, there remain a number of data gaps and uncertainties in the pressures and impacts (risk) assessment process that will continue to be filled as we obtain more, and better, data. For many pollutants, whilst there is reasonable knowledge of pressures there is often only limited monitoring data to identify impacts. The linkages between pollutant sources and pressures, receptors and the effect on these receptors (changes in ecological status) is also not always well known. This reflects the complex nature of groundwater systems, the movement of groundwater and the behaviour of pollutants. In addition much of the data required to make the assessment is new and there is currently insufficient data in some areas to carry out a thorough and detailed risk assessment. On-going data gathering will continue to support the process and reduce uncertainty in the future. This will include better understanding of the groundwater systems as well as the impacts that pressures have on groundwater and associated surface waters and wetlands. The chemical test for GWDTEs could not be undertaken as chemical standards have not been developed; The quantitative test for surface waters could not be undertaken as quantitative standards have not been developed; For trend assessment there was insufficient length of time series at some monitoring locations, where monitoring only started in 2007. Trend assessments could not be undertaken at contaminated land sites due to lack of data/length of time series; The landfill assessment could not be completed as information was not available. The pressures and impacts analysis for all groundwater bodies was reviewed (as part of further characterisation) in 2008 prior to carrying out groundwater body classification and trend assessment. As a result the risk assessments were updated using new and additional data. This has led to a general reduction in uncertainty and provided a sound base for classification and trend assessment. One area where significant progress was made was in assessing the risks to drinking water (DW) abstractions. No assessment was made in 2005 for DW and so this has marked a significant improvement in the groundwater risk assessment process. In addition each of the pressures and impacts (risk) assessments carried out has been linked directly to the status assessment/classification process. Improved groundwater quality monitoring has been implemented. Investigations for both quantitative and chemical status are planned to better characterise the pollutant pathways and pressure linkages where risks have been identified. Research has been proposed to better understand the sources and behaviour of pollutants in the sub-surface and their impact on receptors, including the formulation of conceptual models for “at risk” groundwater bodies. Development of chemical standards for GWDTEs will be required; Development of quantitative standards for surface waters will be required; Monitoring will continue to build up dataset for trend assessment; Availability of information on landfills will be reviewed.

Contaminated land and Mines - extension for recovery; Diffuse pollution -extension for recovery for specified pollutants. LSOs and exemptions from RBMP. There has been regular meetings and discussion of application of all methods with Northern Ireland.