Catchment Management at Severn Trent Water

Dr. Jodie RettinoCatchment Management & Biodiversity Lead17th May 2018

FARMING FOR WATER

2

PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

• AMP6 catchment schemes• Progress to date• AMP7 new catchment schemes• New areas being explored• Measuring success

3

INTRODUCTION• Since AMP5 there has been a step change in the scale of catchment management

activity at STW

• This presentation provides an insight into our plans for AMP7

Our Farming4water aim To work in partnership agricultural to improve our water environment

AMP5

•Investigations in 7 surface water and 49 groundwater catchments

•Trials of metaldehydeschemes

•Stakeholder consultation around our plans for farmer support in AMP6

AMP6

•Recruitment of 8 STW and 3 partnership agricultural advisors

•Launch of farmer grants scheme across 26 catchments and metaldehyde scheme in 9 catchment

•Investigations in 3 further surface water catchments and 10 groundwater catchment

•Intake management trials

AMP7

•The emerging view…•Continuation of ongoing schemes

•New schemes addressing clean water drivers in 3 SW catchments. (GW still under review)

•Catchment approaches for biodiversity, flooding and managing P inputs upstream of sewage works

•Utilising our CaBApartnerships to explore large integrated catchment management

4

OUR AMP6 WORK – THE START OF A 25 YEAR PROGRAMME

• Programme of...• Farmer engagement• Advice and training• Water and soil monitoring• Grants and product substitution scheme

• In 27 priority catchment, covering pesticides, crypto, nitrate, colour and metaldehyde

• Delivered through 7 STW Agricultural Advisors and 11 partnership advisors

• Monitored through...• Water and soil monitoring• Farmer behavioural surveys• Farmer feedback • Advisor and mitigation audits

5

A TOOLBOX OF SCHEMES

Scheme DescriptionProduct Substitution Payments to help farmers switch from

metaldehyde to ferric phosphateFarmers as Producers of Clean Water (FaPCW) Payments to reward farmers for improving

water quality by reducing metaldehyde use via any means (e.g. changing crop) but also including product substitution

Severn Trent Environmental Protection Scheme (STEPS)

Grants of up to £5,000 per farm to address any water quality issue but mainly focusing on infrastructure investments and land management changes

Pesticide Amnesty Service to allow farmers to dispose of unused and unwater pesticides

Farm Advice Framework Specialist farm advice visits (collaboration between Natural England and ST)

6

AMP6 PROGRESS TO DATE

2000priority farms engaged with

over 27 catchments

16 tonnesof unwanted pesticides safely

disposed of to date

36,000 ha signed up to Farmers as

Producers of Clean Water (Metaldehyde scheme)

841‘STEPS’ grant applications

received to address local WQ issues

Our AMP6 Progress

BENEFITS Reduced treatment costsWider environmental benefits

AIM To reduce water quality risks in our catchments by working with farmers and land managers

Biofilter (above), and pesticide sprayer wash down area

(left)

Rainwater harvesting (above)

and sediment retention ponds (left)STEPS Innovation - Signal Crayfish

trapping (above)

7

MONITORING PROGRESS

Current target (Apr 2018), 86%End of AMP target (90%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Farm Engagement - 90% Target

Current target (Apr 2018), 65%

End of year target (Mar 2019), 75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Metaldehyde Scheme Sign up – 75% Target

8

FARMERS AS PRODUCERS OF CLEAN WATER RESULTS

Mean metaldehyde concentration change

Catchment WQ changes1 (µg/l)Percentage changes

(%)2

Mean change (%) across priority catchments from 2016-

18

Mean change since baseline (%) i.e. pre-

schemes3

Avon and Leam 0.005 4.5

-30.2

-48.5Cound -0.010 -29.1 NDCropston 0.002 3.0 NDMiddle Severn -0.182 -93.9 -48.2Shropshire Middle Severn -0.059 -57.5 NDTeme -0.079 -69.8 NDWhitacre 0.211 77.8 -92.7Worcestershire Middle Severn -0.040 -60.5 -60.0Lower Derwent 0.005 12.1 -32.9Staunton Harold -0.183 -88.3 -17.41mean change since 2016. Negative values indicate water quality improvements.

2mean percentage change between 2016-18

3Pre-scheme baseline data 2010-2015

ND = no data

9

EVALUATION OF SCHEMES

20 months into a 25 year programme (1st December 2016)

• All catchments have an advisor in post for 1 year• So we wanted an early indication (in view of imminent

planning for PR19) of whether or not our catchment schemes were having the desired impact

Are the schemes working?

• Farmer engagement and changes in farm management – Yes

• farmers on 30% of priority farms have been engaged by us representatives in a positive way

• 80% of these (24% of target farms) confirmed better knowledge of water quality issues in the catchment,

• STWL also influenced many farms to change their operations for the benefit of water quality:• 19% of metaldehyde target farms participating in a metaldehyde

reduction scheme,• 7% taken up grants for infrastructure improvement, with farmers

contributing approx. 50% of cost.• Water quality changes – generally too early to tell (as

expected)

10

AMP7

11

NEW CATCHMENT SCHEMES

• NEP Investigations for 3 SW catchments (Ogston, Dove and Mitcheldean) and 10 GW sites

• Phased approach:

Phase 1Catchment

conceptualisation –identification of potential sources and pathways of

pollution

Phase 2Source apportionment

– modelling and water balances. Identification of target areas and impact of

interventions

Phase 3Cost benefit analysis

using UKWIR CBA for catchment management framework and EA water

Appraisal Tool

Example of groundwater

highest contribution

modelling, part of GW

investigations, for targeting of catchment measures.

Purple = max. contributing area

of catchment

• New surface water catchment schemes proposed for metaldehyde and nutrients (Ogston only) in parts of the Wye, Dove and Ogston Reservoir catchments.

• New schemes = new safeguard zone

• Still reviewing the need for catchment schemes in additional GW catchments – balance of operational and environmental gains

Example of groundwater highest contribution

modelling, part of GW investigations, for

targeting of catchment measures.

Purple = max. contributing area of

catchment

12

HOLISTIC CATCHMENT APPROACH

13

OTHER AREAS BEING EXPLORED

• Opportunities to develop catchment management for biodiversity and flood risk benefit – already contributing to this but looking at options to formalise and capture the benefits … e.g. facilitation funds, STEPS items for biodiversity and or flood risk, special projects on tenant farms to boost biodiversity

• Intake management – missing the metaldehyde peaks through use of catchment modelling

• Reverse auctions – a cost effective way to delivery catchment interventions? Trialling over Autumn 2018 but cost data to date suggests that STEPS is a better economic model Above – Predicting and responding to peak

metaldehyde concentration in the River Leam to reduce metaldehyde pumped into Draycote reservoir

Opposite – An example of sedimentation ponds implemented through a

STEPS funding

14

MONITORING PROGRESS

Moving towards outcomes rather than outputs

15

Individual catchment scheme load reduction targets

Changes in improved control of raw water quality risk are driven by reductions in parameter risk/loading e.g.

• Reduction in pesticide loading as a result of farmers changing management practices or installing biobeds• Changes in pesticide use e.g moving from metaldehyde to ferric phosphate

AMP5 EA NEP catchment investigations defined required target reductions for each individual catchment and at risk parameter. This will be used as target and converted into a load reduction.

Determinand Actual Max (µg/l) Target Max (µg/l)* Reduction required (%)

2.4-D 0.06 0.12 N/AClopyralid 0.06 0.05 21%MCPA 0.12 0.11 7%Mecocrop 0.11 0.05 55%Metaldehyde 0.25 0.05 80%Propyzamide 0.20 0.10 51%

Raw data shown was monitored at the Staunton Harold reservoir intake of the WTW between January 2000 and May 2013.*Target maximum values are site specific and consider blending and treatment conditions.

MEASURING AGAINST TARGETS

16

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR PERFORMANCE?

Funnel diagram showing conversion from engagement to behavioural change in the Leam catchment (our most challenging

catchment) • The diagram allows us to see the conversion from total number of farmers engaged with and subsequent behavioural and management improvements.

• To date in the Leam catchment we have engaged with 49% of our priority farmers and this has led to 17% or 62 grants being awarded in the catchment –a conversion rate of 37%.

• In order to meet our AMP7 outcome target in the Leam catchment we will need to achieve a conversion factor of 58%.

• Therefore significantly increasing our engagement levels and better targeting our advice to not only ensure farmer uptake of our incentive schemes but the right grant options are implemented to achieve our outcome target.

• These farm improvements will potentially impact farm yields/profits so we are know that it is going to be more difficult to incentivise farmers. As a percentage of total priority farms

All farms Metaldehyde farmsProgress at 1 Apr 2018Target by 1 Apr 2018Target by 31 March 2019

17

SUMMARY

• Over the last two AMPs our catchment management programme has been both ambitious (covering the whole of the STW region) and pioneering (one of the first such programmes in the country)

• This AMP we are working in 27 catchments and aiming to engaged with over 4000 farmers

• To date we have engaged with ~2000 farmers and spent £2,537,553 on grant funding

• Our plan for AMP7 includes the continuation of current 27 catchment schemes plus 7 new schemes. The proposed catchment schemes will help protect our current sources from WQ risks

• We are also exploring utilising our catchment activities in other areas of the business – waste water, biodiversity and flooding. This needs to be brought together into a holistic catchment approach

• We’ll be measuring success on an outcome basis – specific parameter load reductions for each individual catchment. This is a significant step up from AMP6 and requires:

• 1410 extra grants being awarded, a 42% increase compared to AMP6.

• At least a 50% increase in the conversion from farmer engagement to behavioural change and infrastructure improvements