DATASHEET: Nitrate vulnerable zone (NVZ) designation 2017 -...

NVZ Name: Anglian Chalk NVZ ID: G71 page 1

DATASHEET:

Nitrate vulnerable zone (NVZ) designation 2017 - Groundwater

Publication Date: June 2016


Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3

Description of the boundary .............................................................................................. 5

Map of the designated area ................................................................................................ 6

Nitrate loading data............................................................................................................. 7

Nitrate monitoring data ..................................................................................................... 10

Overall risk score .............................................................................................................. 22

Additional lines of evidence ............................................................................................. 24

References ........................................................................................................................ 25

Appendix 1 Scores and weights for additional lines of evidence ............................. 26

Appendix 2 Trend analysis graphs ............................................................................. 30

Table of Figures and Tables

Figure 1 Map showing the boundary of the designated area for NVZ ID G71 .................... 6 Figure 2 Map showing the nitrate loading score from agricultural sources per 1 kilometre square in a grid over the designated area ............................................................................. 8 Figure 3 Map showing the nitrate loading score from urban sources per 1 kilometre square in a grid over the designated area ......................................................................................... 9 Figure 4 Map showing the score for predicted current concentration of nitrate in groundwater per 1 kilometre square in a grid over the designated area .............................. 20 Figure 5 Map showing the score for predicted future concentration of nitrate in groundwater per 1 kilometre square in a grid over the designated area .............................. 21 Figure 6 Map showing the overall risk score per 1 kilometre square in a grid over the designated area .................................................................................................................. 23

Table 1 Summary statistics for NVZ ID G71 ..................................................................... 5 Table 2 Agricultural pressure scoring ............................................................................... 7 Table 3 Urban pressure scoring ....................................................................................... 8 Table 4 Summary information for groundwater monitoring data ..................................... 11 Table 5 Current groundwater concentration scoring ....................................................... 20 Table 6 Predicted future groundwater concentration scoring .......................................... 21 Table 7 Summary of categories for final risk score ......................................................... 22 Table 8 Point source pollution scoring ............................................................................ 26 Table 9 Summary of categories for de-nitrification or mixing (Area) ............................... 26 Table 10 Groundwater monitoring scoring ........................................................................ 27 Table 11 Use of surface water monitoring data ................................................................ 28


Introduction This document provides a summary of the evidence used in proposing an area of land as one which should be, or should continue to be, designated as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) for the purposes of the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015.

A full description of the methods used in developing the NVZ proposals is set out in the detailed methodology for groundwater NVZs, available via http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/141443.aspx . These methods were developed under the guidance of a review group convened by the Defra for the last NVZ review (2011-2013), which included representatives from the farming and water industries as well as independent academic experts. Minor refinements to the methods have been made for the current review.

The approach developed for the assessment of groundwater uses a combination of monitored groundwater concentrations, agricultural nitrate loads based on Defra census returns and non-agricultural (urban) loads based on land use and population data for the whole of England. Non-agricultural sources are included in the methodology in order to make sure that agricultural sources make up a significant contribution before establishing a NVZ.

Additional lines of evidence comprising local knowledge of the land and/or hydrogeology are also incorporated into the risk assessment. Examples of additional information include the location of point sources that may unduly influence a particular monitoring point (e.g. industrial or septic discharges), monitoring data from different groundwater bodies and monitoring data from related surface waters which may tell us something about the hydrogeological setting.

A weight of evidence approach is used to combine the national and local lines evidence. In practice this means that each dataset or piece of evidence is given a weight and a score between 0 and 2. The higher the value, the stronger the evidence is indicating that groundwater is affected by agricultural pollution or could be affected by agricultural pollution. All the strands of evidence are combined to give an overall risk score between 0 and 18. An overall score above 8 indicates both the nitrogen loading data and the monitored concentrations agree that nitrate concentrations exceed or were likely to exceed 11.3mg/l, and that agriculture was a significant source of the pollution identified. This is sufficient evidence to propose an area for designation.

Where sufficient evidence exists for designation we consider the most appropriate boundary features to use to demarcate a zone. The following list sets out the types of boundaries that have been used.

http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/141443.aspx


Geological boundaries such as changes in rock type, faults and geological contacts.

Groundwater abstraction boundaries such as Source Protection Zones (SPZ).

Surface water catchment boundaries.

Groundwater level contours.

High permeability drift outcrops.

Low permeability drift outcrops.

Rivers, acting as groundwater catchment divides.

Coastlines.

Solution features.

The final NVZ proposals are developed through close working between Area and National Environment Agency teams, with quality assurance through discussions at local workshops.

Please note that any maps shown here have not used detailed field boundaries and therefore represent the indicative 'soft' boundary only. The definitive NVZ area can be seen on the “What’s in Your Backyard” (WIYBY) website ((http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/141443.aspx).



Description of the boundary

Table 1 Summary statistics for NVZ ID G71

NVZ ID G71

NVZ name Anglian Chalk

Previously designated Yes. Previously designated area

Designation year 2008 or earlier

Total area designated in 2017 3877.7 km2

Change in area designated in 2017

-2.44 km2 (small change due to remapping of field boundaries)

For NVZ ID G71 the boundary is based on the following;

The western boundary of the NVZ is defined by western extent and base of the chalk outcrop which also defines the western extent of modelled high risk. The northern boundary is defined by the coastline to capture the northern extent of the chalk

outcrop. The eastern boundary is defined by surface water catchment boundaries that delineate the eastern extent of thin drift covering the chalk and demarcate the area that drains to the unconfined chalk. This defines the eastern extent of predicted high risk in the Anglian Chalk aquifer. It is worth noting that the western boundary has been extended to include the patchy drift catchment of the River Wensum. This is both because the drift is thinner and there is evidence of high nitrate at Lyng Forge.

The geology of this NVZ can be seen using the British Geological Society’s free Geology of Britain viewer available at: http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html. This shows the bedrock and superficial geology at the 1:625,000 scale for the whole of Britain.

http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html


Map of the designated area Designated area (NVZ ID G71) outlined in yellow

Figure 1 Map showing the boundary of the designated area for NVZ ID G71


Nitrate loading data Nitrate loading data is derived from agricultural practices and from urban (i.e. non-agricultural) sources. Both urban and agricultural loads were considered in the assessment in order to identify if agriculture provides a significant contribution of nitrate to the groundwater.

The agricultural nitrogen loading figures are derived from the Defra agricultural census returns and farm scale research undertaken for Defra and are extrapolated based on farming land-use data for the land area covered by this report. The data was obtained under contract from ADAS. Figure 2 indicates those areas within the catchment with higher or lower levels of agricultural nitrate leaching to the groundwater.

The urban sources maps are derived based on the work of Lerner (2000) using information on land use and population data. The map of urban loading score is shown in Figure 3. Results are shown on a 1km grid square for each.

Both maps categorise average annual leached nitrate concentrations into 3 categories which are assigned a score between 0 and 2 and a weight for inclusion in the final risk assessment score. Tables 2 and 3 show the scores and weights for agricultural and urban sources respectively. The weight for urban sources is negative since a high urban load means that the relative contribution of agriculture is less.

Table 2 Agricultural pressure scoring

Agricultural

Pressure

Concentration (mg/l as Nitrogen) Weight

Category < 5.65 5.65 – 11.3 >11.3

Score 0 1 2 3


Figure 2 Map showing the nitrate loading score from agricultural sources per 1

kilometre square in a grid over the designated area

Table 3 Urban pressure scoring

Urban

Pressure

Concentration (mg/l as Nitrogen) Weight

Category < 5.65 5.65 – 11.3 >11.3

Score 0 1 2 -2


Figure 3 Map showing the nitrate loading score from urban sources per 1

kilometre square in a grid over the designated area


Nitrate monitoring data For the 2017 designations nitrate monitoring data was analysed for the period 1st January 1980 to 31st December 2014 and current concentrations calculated using the appropriate statistical method for the data. This involves determination of the 95th percentile value, that is, the concentration which we would expect to be exceeded by 5% of monitoring results. Where sufficient data were available results were also projected to give a predicted future concentration in 2027.

Table 4 below provides the current and future nitrate concentrations of all the monitoring points within 1500 meters of this NVZ. It also contains summary information about the monitoring data and statistical methods applied.

The nitrate concentration data is presented as milligrams of Nitrogen per litre. Please note the limit of 50 mg per litre of Nitrate (NO3) from the Directive is equivalent to 11.3 mg per litre as Nitrogen (N).

Monitoring data from groundwater monitoring points only gives groundwater nitrate concentrations at specific discrete locations within aquifers. In order to estimate nitrate concentrations across the country and use the methodology at a 1km2 resolution, a statistical interpolation technique (kriging) was then used to help us to understand spatial patterns in the groundwater dataset and predict nitrate concentrations at unmonitored locations. See the Groundwater Methodology report for more details.

The results of the analysis were then compared to the standard of a value of 11.3 mg N /l. See the Groundwater Methodology report for more details (http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/141443.aspx).



Table 4 Summary information for groundwater monitoring data

Site ID Start Year

End Year

Number of Samples

Statistical method

Current concentration (mg/l as Nitrogen)

Future concentration (mg/l as Nitrogen)

SP91040CAN 2004 2012 16 AntB 8.2 9.5

SP91036CAN 2006 2014 22 AntB 2.2 1.8

SP91057CAN 2010 2014 11 Mean Concentration

9.6 9.6

TL02008CAN 1986 2010 12 AntC 4.4 4

SP92180CAN 2008 2014 26 AntB 9.6 7.7

PGWU2053TH 2006 2011 19 AntC 7.4 7.3

SP92019CAN 2004 2014 27 AntB 10.1 10.6

TL22083CAN 2005 2014 18 AntB 0.6 1

TL12137CAN 2004 2014 26 AntB 7.1 9

TL22007CAN 2006 2012 19 AntC 9.1 6.6

TL52006CAN 2002 2014 15 Mean Concentration

0.2 0.2

TL22088CAN 2006 2014 19 AntC 8.2 16.6

TL02139CAN 2006 2014 33 Weibull/AntB 18.4 15.5

TL23099CAN 2005 2013 22 AntB 1.6 2.4

TL03003SAN 1986 2014 8 Mean Concentration

0.3 0.3

TL23120CAN 2005 2014 12 AntC 5.5 1

PGWU1393TH 1996 2008 42 AntB 6.1 5.1

PGWU1401TH 1996 2014 25 AntB 9.4 13


Site ID Start Year

End Year

Number of Samples

Statistical method



PGWU2158AW 2006 2014 70 Weibull/AntB 12.2 14.8

PGWU2158TH 2006 2014 62 Weibull/AntB 12.3 14.8

PGWU0768AW 2000 2014 526 Weibull/AntB 12.5 12.3

PGWU0768TH 1992 2014 515 Weibull/AntB 12.6 14.5

PGWU0936TH 1992 1996 13 Mean Concentration

25.4 25.4

TL13034SAN 2006 2014 9 Mean Concentration

0.3 0.3

TL23002CAN 1988 2014 16 AntB 12.5 12.8

TL53014CAN 2002 2011 26 AntB 13.7 9.8


11.3 11.3

TL33065CAN 2006 2014 17 AntC 6 6.7

TL23140CAN 2006 2014 22 AntB 20.1 23.7

30M01AN 2002 2014 34 AntB 15 16.9


6.4 6.4

TL54168CAN 2005 2014 20 AntB 7 6.7

TL34173CAN 2006 2014 21 AntB 11 18.9

TL44230CAN 2006 2014 16 AntC 10.6 12

TL24044SAN 2004 2012 9 AntC 0.4 0.4

TL34097CAN 2006 2011 17 AntC 11 9.4

TL34206CAN 1996 2014 39 AntB 18.1 19.9


Site ID Start Year

End Year

Number of Samples

Statistical method



TL44251CAN 2007 2014 22 AntB 14.6 14.9

TL34177SAN 1997 2011 9 AntC 0.6 0.7


13.3 13.3

TL44299CAN 1996 2014 71 AntB 10.5 10.3

TL34079SAN 1997 2014 10 AntC 0.5 0.3

TL44345CAN 2007 2014 15 AntC 8.6 6.5

TL65300AN 1997 2014 27 AntB 0.5 0.6

TL45090SAN 1990 2006 37 AntB 0.3 0


8.9 8.9


16.6 16.6

TL45325CAN 2005 2014 26 AntB 16.9 23


4.2 4.2

TL56138CAN 1990 2011 35 AntB 12.6 20

TL76153CAN 2006 2011 15 AntC 13.7 8.9

TL86085CAN 2002 2011 24 AntB 1.5 0.0

TL96154CAN 1997 2011 33 AntB 6.3 6.6

TL86179CAN 2006 2014 18 AntB 2.5 2.2

TL96216CAN 2005 2011 21 AntB 13.8 12.8

TL76035CAN 1996 2014 37 AntB 11 11


Site ID Start Year

End Year

Number of Samples

Statistical method



TL66167CAN 2002 2014 21 AntC 6.9 8


9 9

TL76029CAN 2004 2011 23 AntB 19.1 28.6

TL96039CAN 2006 2012 19 AntC 23.6 24.3

TL97043CAN 2006 2011 18 AntB 8.1 10.5

TL77015CAN 2006 2014 12 AntC 16.8 12.8

TL97159CAN 2005 2012 21 AntB 0.9 0.0

TL87115CAN 1997 2012 28 AntB 17 21.2


26.2 26.2

TL97160CAN 2006 2014 21 AntB 11.2 14.4

TL77125CAN 2006 2013 14 AntC 9.6 8.3

TL77034CAN 2005 2014 22 AntB 19.2 32.1

TL77152CAN 2002 2012 30 AntB 14 16

TL77158CAN 2007 2014 17 AntB 4 6.4

TL87113CAN 1997 2006 34 AntB 11.5 10.7

TL67210CAN 2002 2014 26 AntB 0.0 0.0


13.5 13.5

TL98039CAN 2006 2014 21 AntB 31.3 30.6

TM08082CAN 2005 2012 19 AntC 2 3.7

TL98113CAN 2006 2011 11 AntC 22 21.7


Site ID Start Year

End Year

Number of Samples

Statistical method



TL88083CAN 1996 2012 44 AntB 11.8 14.7

TL78024CAN 1997 2014 37 AntB 5.9 0.0

TL78060CAN 2002 2014 28 AntB 17.5 13.6

TL88061CAN 2005 2012 27 AntB 10.5 0.0

TL98122CAN 2005 2011 16 AntC 4.1 5.5

TL78083CAN 1989 2014 25 AntB 2.8 1.4

TL88123CAN 2006 2011 15 AntB 1.6 1.8

TL78053CAN 2006 2011 14 AntC 19.9 38.8

TM08096CAN 2006 2012 16 AntC 18.6 26.6

TL98121CAN 2005 2014 17 AntC 12.3 13.8

TL98161CAN 2006 2014 29 AntB 25.1 28.2


6.8 6.8

TL89107CAN 1994 2011 40 AntB 3.8 0.2

TL99101CAN 2005 2012 14 AntB 0.2 0.1

TL99188CAN 2005 2014 13 AntC 0.9 0.9


1.1 1.1

TL89086CAN 1989 1995 14 AntB 26.5 34.8

TL89122CAN 2006 2011 18 AntC 22.5 22.5

TL69019CAN 2006 2014 23 AntB 18.3 0.2

TL79080CAN 1990 2011 46 AntB 23.4 25.4

TL99143CAN 1994 2012 23 AntB 1.9 1.9


Site ID Start Year

End Year

Number of Samples

Statistical method



TL79138CAN 1990 1996 10 AntC 19.4 21.8


11.6 11.6

TF80186CAN 2005 2011 21 AntB 19.7 22.5

TF80068CAN 1988 1999 22 AntB 95 137.6

TF80243DAN 2007 2014 13 AntC 22.4 25.6

TF70004CAN 1989 2012 48 AntB 17 20.3

TF60073SAN 2006 2014 11 AntC 0.2 0.2

TF80009CAN 2002 2014 27 AntB 13.3 10.8

TF60079SAN 2005 2014 10 Mean Concentration

0.2 0.2

TF80176CAN 1989 1999 20 AntB 22.8 28.1

TF60059SAN 2005 2014 8 Mean Concentration

0.2 0.2

TF90118CAN 2006 2011 7 Mean Concentration

0.2 0.2


17.6 17.6

TF80177CAN 2006 2014 19 AntB 5.3 0.8

TF70100CAN 1993 1999 14 AntC 0.0 0.0

TF81086CAN 1988 2012 43 AntB 11.8 11.6


0.2 0.2

TF71061CAN 1989 1999 25 AntB 22.9 33.5


Site ID Start Year

End Year

Number of Samples

Statistical method



TF71155CAN 2004 2014 31 AntB 11.5 11.1

TF71095CAN 1989 1996 14 AntB 13 13.9


10.9 10.9


11.2 11.2

TF71100CAN 2004 2014 28 AntB 16.8 14

TF91133CAN 1989 2014 40 AntB 7.8 7.1

TF81066CAN 1992 2012 27 AntB 18.2 21.6


19.5 19.5

MANORBITAN 2006 2013 9 Mean Concentration

0.2 0.2


11.5 11.5


15.1 15.1

LYNDHRSTAN 2006 2010 11 Mean Concentration

5.2 5.2

TF71064CAN 1989 1999 25 AntB 12 15.8

70439016AN 1999 2014 10 AntC 6.8 19.4

TF81093CAN 2006 2012 14 AntC 12.8 6.5

TF81015CAN 1989 1999 18 AntB 7.5 10.9

37HOLTRDAN 2006 2014 18 AntB 3.5 0.0


Site ID Start Year

End Year

Number of Samples

Statistical method



TF72104CAN 1988 2004 40 AntB 17.8 18.9


15.8 15.8

TF72095SAN 2004 2010 12 AntC 0.1 0.0

TF72008SAN 1989 1998 18 AntB 0.0 0.0

FAKENHCKAN 2005 2014 11 AntC 12 11.8

TF83047CAN 2006 2011 9 AntC 15.3 11.3

TF63019CAN 1989 2014 50 AntB 7 6.2

F837310AAN 2005 2014 15 AntB 23.2 22.7

F837310BAN 2005 2014 15 AntB 14.3 14.8

F836406BAN 1995 2014 31 AntB 12.8 11.9

TF73163CAN 2005 2014 15 AntC 23.6 26.5

TF63016SAN 1989 2014 37 AntB 5.1 7.7

70437011AN 2006 2014 7 AntC 0.1 0.1


12.9 12.9

70437009AN 1999 2014 11 AntC 27.2 53.3

F835662AAN 1995 2014 34 AntB 13.2 12.8

F835662BAN 1997 2014 27 AntB 8 5.1

F835737BAN 1996 2014 30 AntB 13.6 10.9

F835737AAN 1995 2014 33 AntB 14.9 14.7

FIELDHSEAN 2006 2014 9 Mean Concentration

0.1 0.1


Site ID Start Year

End Year

Number of Samples

Statistical method



TF74002CAN 1989 2011 61 AntB 19.7 24.2

PRETTYCRAN 2005 2013 8 Mean Concentration

0.2 0.2

SHERWDSGAN 2005 2014 19 AntB 10 11.7

SHERINSGAN 2005 2012 14 AntB 17.5 13.5

HOLMECKAN 2005 2010 15 AntC 16 15.6


Table 5 Current groundwater concentration scoring

Monitored

concentration

Nitrate mg/l Weight

Category < 5.65 5.65 – 11.3 >11.3

Score 0 1 2 3

Figure 4 Map showing the score for predicted current concentration of nitrate in

groundwater per 1 kilometre square in a grid over the designated area


Table 6 Predicted future groundwater concentration scoring

Monitored

concentration

Nitrate mg/l Weight

Category < 5.65 5.65 – 11.3 >11.3

Score 0 1 2 2

Figure 5 Map showing the score for predicted future concentration of nitrate in

groundwater per 1 kilometre square in a grid over the designated area


Overall risk score A weight of evidence approach was used to integrate the loading and monitoring datasets and to incorporate any additional factors such as evidence of denitrification or unrepresentative monitoring. Details of specific additional evidence relevant to this proposed NVZ are provided in the following chapter ‘Additional lines of evidence’.

Final scores were calculated for each 1 km square across England based on the weights and values from each section and one of three levels of risk was assigned to each:

High risk – both the loading data and the monitored concentrations agree that

nitrate concentrations exceed or were likely to exceed 11.3mg/l, and that

agriculture was a significant source of the pollution identified.

Medium risk– either the loading data or the monitored concentrations show

that nitrate concentrations exceed, or were likely to exceed, 11.3mg/l,

Low risk– both the loading data and the monitored concentrations agree that

nitrate concentrations were not likely to exceed 11.3mg/l.

The table below presents the overall risk scores associated with High, Medium and Low risk.

Table 7 Summary of categories for final risk score

What is the risk that groundwater nitrate is >11.3 mg/l or will be in future and

agriculture is the main source?

Category High - Designate Medium Low

Score >8 3-8 <3


Figure 6 Map showing the overall risk score per 1 kilometre square in a grid over

the designated area


Additional lines of evidence Advice was sought from local Environment Agency staff to identify any additional information that could be used to improve the decision making process for a particular area. This local knowledge of the land and/or hydrogeology are incorporated into the risk assessment, for example through:

Identification of point source pollution affecting a monitoring point

Behaviour of nitrogen in the environment e.g. processes of de-nitrification or

mixing

Hydrogeological setting of the monitoring borehole e.g. age of groundwater

being sampled

Availability of surface water monitoring in areas with infrequent groundwater

monitoring

The additional evidence is incorporated into the risk assessment using the scores and weights corresponding to the type of evidence being considered. Tables 8 to 11 in Appendix 1 show the scores and weights for all possible lines of additional evidence. A full description of all possible additional lines of evidence is provided in the groundwater methodology available via http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/141443.aspx.

For this area, no lines of evidence have been modified from local Environment

Agency staff.




References Lerner, D.N., 2000. Guidelines for estimating urban loads of nitrogen to groundwater. NT1845 Report for defra. Published on this webpage: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=NT1845_479_FRP.doc

Bewes, V et al (2015). WRc report UC10943. Statistical methods for nitrate vulnerable zone review 2017. http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/141443.aspx

Davison, R and Davey, A. (2016). WRc Report 11460 Review of the 43 mg/l threshold for groundwater NVZ assessment. http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/141443.aspx

Defra (2016). Methodology for defining Nitrate Vulnerable Zones 2017 review – groundwater. Published on this webpage:


http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=NT1845_479_FRP.doc







Appendix 1 Scores and weights for additional lines of evidence The scores and weights shown in Table 8 to 11 enable local EA staff to modify the final risk score by incorporating additional local knowledge. Broadly, these cover circumstances where confounding factors such as the presence of a nearby non-agricultural point source of nitrate exists or conversely where the monitoring data may not yet reflect known pollution due to the time lag inherent in groundwater monitoring at depth. In making these scores EA staff must demonstrate that there is some evidence for their choice and likely evidence items are shown below.

Table 8 Point source pollution scoring

Point

source

risk

Groundwater concentration is unduly influenced by point

source pollution

Weight

Category Yes, good evidence Maybe some evidence No

evidence

Score 2 1 0 -5

Identifiable point source

of nitrate AND

groundwater

concentrations

significantly higher than

soil leaching

concentrations.

Identifiable point source

of nitrate OR

groundwater

concentrations

significantly higher than

soil leaching

concentrations.

Table 9 Summary of categories for de-nitrification or mixing (Area)

De-

nitrificatio

n or

mixing

NO3 is either de-nitrified or diluted by mixing Weight

Category Yes, good evidence Maybe some evidence No

evidenc

e

Score 2 1 0 -1


De-

nitrificatio

n or

mixing

NO3 is either de-nitrified or diluted by mixing Weight

Baseline report indicating

de-nitrification or mixing.

Lack of impacted

groundwater monitoring

sites. Local report,

indicating as above.

Quantifiable source of

dilution e.g. forested

recharge area. Drift >

10m thick and clay rich.

Table 10 Groundwater monitoring scoring

Monitoring

not fully

representative

Monitored nitrate concentrations not fully representative Weight

Category Yes, good

evidence

Yes, some

evidence

No evidence

No, maybe some

evidence

No, good evidence

Score 2 1 0 -1 -2 3

Additional

data from

WFD

assessments

OR

Water

company has

abandoned a

source

nearby due to

high NO3

OR

Large

uncertainty

in trend

analysis

OR

Significant

drift > 10 m

delaying

nitrate

measure-

ment

Expert view is

that kriging is

not sufficient

in this setting

OR

large

uncertainty in trend analysis results

Expert view is

that kriging is

not sufficient

in this setting

AND

large uncertainty in trend analysis results


Monitoring

not fully

representative

Monitored nitrate concentrations not fully representative Weight

Unsaturated

zone > 30 m

delaying

nitrate

measurement

OR

Aquifer is

layered or the

sampling is at

depth

Table 11 Use of surface water monitoring data

Surface water

monitoring

Surface water quality is representative of

groundwater quality

Weight

Category Yes, good

evidence

Yes, some

evidence

No

evidence

Score 2 1 0 1

Confident fail and

>2 point source

discharges in

surface water.

OR

Marginal fail and

<2 point source

discharges in

surface water.

Face value fail and

<2 point source

discharges in

surface water.

OR

Face value pass

and <2 point

source discharges

in surface water.



Appendix 2 Trend analysis graphs

The following figures show the monitored nitrogen concentration in groundwater and the associated trend analysis undertaken for the groundwater NVZ methodology. Graphs are provided for all monitoring points used to predict current and future nitrate trends that are within 1.5km of this NVZ.

The groundwater method uses comparison against the threshold of 11.3 mg/l as Nitrogen (or 50 mg/l as Nitrate) with the Lower 90% Confidence Limit (LCL) around the 95th percentile of the monitored nitrate sample distribution, which equates to a threshold of 9.7 mg/l as Nitrogen (or 43 mg/l as Nitrate). These are included in the following graphs for comparison as a green and blue dashed lines respectively.

Full details of the development of the 43 mg/l threshold can be found in the paper by Davison and Davey (2016). Further explanation of the statistical trend analysis of the data can be found in Bewes et al. (2015).

Please be aware that because data is included for a monitoring site it does not mean this data is representative of the groundwater that is proposed for designation, for example some sites may be sampling groundwater from a different groundwater unit, or be sampling groundwater that is up gradient of the source of groundwater pollution. This is due to the complex 3-dimensional nature of groundwater bodies and the direction of flow of that groundwater.


Figure A1: Site ID 30M01

Figure A2: Site ID 37HOLTRD

Figure A3: Site ID 70437009





Figure A6: Site ID F835662A

Figure A7: Site ID F835662B









Figure A13: Site ID FAKENHCK


Figure A14: Site ID FIELDHSE

Figure A15: Site ID HOLMECK


Figure A16: Site ID LYNDHRST

Figure A17: Site ID MANORBIT


Figure A18: Site ID PGWU0768












Figure A26: Site ID PRETTYCR

Figure A27: Site ID SHERINSG


Figure A28: Site ID SHERWDSG

Figure A29: Site ID SP91036C








Figure A34: Site ID TF60059S






Figure A38: Site ID TF63019C

































Figure A60: Site ID TF80243D



















Figure A73: Site ID TL02008C



Figure A75: Site ID TL03003S


















































Figure A108: Site ID TL65300








































































Figure A156: Site ID TM08082C

Figure A157: Site ID TM08096C



Date post:	07-Dec-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

DATASHEET: Nitrate vulnerable zone (NVZ) designation 2017 -...

Documents