NS II FRESHWATER PEARL MUSSEL SUB-BASIN
MANAGEMENT PLANS
REPORT ON BIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF SURFACE
WATER QUALITY IN THE LICKY CATCHMENT
2009
CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 3
2
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 4
2.1
HABITAT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 4
2.2
INVERTEBRATE SAMPLING AND WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT .......................
..................................................................................................................................... 4
3
RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 6
3.1
LICKY SITE 1 ............................................................................................................. 11
3.2
LICKY SITE 2 ............................................................................................................. 12
3.3
LICKY STE 3 .............................................................................................................. 13
3.4
LICKY SITE 4 ............................................................................................................. 14
3.5
LICKY SITE 5 ............................................................................................................. 15
3.6
LICKY SITE 6 ............................................................................................................. 16
3.7
LICKY SITE 7 ............................................................................................................. 17
3.8
LICKY SITE 8 ............................................................................................................. 18
3.13
LICKY RIVER MONITORING 2009 ........................................................................... 19
4
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 20
5
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX 1
SITE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS
APPENDIX 2
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX 3
SPECIES LISTS
APPENDIX 4
ECOLOGICAL QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR PEARL MUSSEL
SITES
2
1
INTRODUCTION
Gerard Morgan, Aquatic Services Unit, was commissioned by RPS Group to carry out biological
sampling and water quality assessment in accordance with EPA Q-rating methodology at the
following 8 sites in the Licky catchment, County Waterford. These will form part of the baseline
assessments required for the NS II freshwater pearl mussel sub-basin management plans.
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
1
Site Name
Grid Reference
Main Channel: immediately
upstream of N25
Trib: north bank ~400m d/s N25
Main Channel: 1st riffle upstream
of ford at Carrigeen
Trib: north bank entering at fording
point on the main channel
(Carrigeen)
Trib: north bank just below byroad
bridge (Glenlicky)
Main Channel: just d/s unnamed
bridge north of Boherboy
Trib: northern bank from
Ballycurrane / Monagilleeny
Main Channel: d/s Grallagh Br.
X 23379 87462
No GPS coverage – estimated from map
3
X 22864 87360
X 20761 86716
1X
20675 86775
X 20245 85492
X 19790 84662
X 17117 84914
X 16712 83863
2
METHODOLOGY
Sampling was carried out at various sampling locations in August, September and October
2009 in fair weather under normal to slightly elevated flow conditions. Four stations from the
main channel and four from tributaries were chosen for samples. The main channel sites were
below, within and above stretches from where Margaritifera is know to occur on the Licky.
2.1
HABITAT ASSESSMENT
Habitat assessment was carried out at each of the sites selected for invertebrate/water quality
assessment. These sites were assessed in terms of:

Stream width and depth

Substrate type, listing substrate fractions in order of dominance, i.e. large rocks, cobble,
gravel, sand, mud etc.

Flow type, listing percentage of riffle, glide and pool in the sampling area

Instream vegetation, listing plant species occurring and their percentage coverage of the
stream bottom at the sampling site

Dominant bankside vegetation, listing the main species overhanging the stream

Estimated summer cover by bankside vegetation, giving percentage shade of the sampling
site
Grid references were recorded at all sites using GPS. Digital photographs were taken at each
site.
2.2
INVERTEBRATE SAMPLING AND WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Samples were taken using a 2-minute ‘kick’ sampling method in the fast flowing (riffle) areas of
the river utilising the EPA protocols.
Stone washing was undertaken to ensure that species
that cling to stone surfaces – e.g. leeches and gastropods were adequately collected.
Macroinvertebrates collected from each sample were preserved in situ with 70% Industrial
Methylated Spirits (IMS) and returned to the laboratory for identification.
Specimens were identified using the following literature, Elliott et al. (1988) for Ephemeroptera,
Hynes (1977) for Plecoptera, Macan (1977) for Gastropoda, Edington & Hildrew (1981) for
4
caseless caddis larvae, Wallace et al. (1990) for cased caddis larvae, Reynoldson & Young
(2000) for triclads, Savage (1989) for Hemiptera, Friday (1986) for adult water beetles and Elliot
& Mann (1979) for leeches.
The Biotic Index of Water Quality (BIWQ) was developed in Ireland by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
Q-values and water quality classes are assigned using a
combination of habitat characteristics and structure of the macroinvertebrate community within
the waterbody. Individual macroinvertebrate species are ranked for their sensitivity to organic
pollution and the Q-value is assessed based, primarily, on their relative abundance within a
biological sample. EPA indices, EPA water quality status and WFD status are interpreted in
Table 2.
Table 2
EPA water quality status summary
Biotic Index
EQR2
EPA Quality Status
Water Quality
WFD3 Status
Q5
1.0
Unpolluted
Good
High
Q4-5
0.9
Unpolluted
Fair-to-Good
High
Q4
0.8
Unpolluted
Fair
Good
Q3-4
0.7
Slightly Polluted
Doubtful-to- Fair
Moderate
Q3
0.6
Moderately Polluted
Doubtful
Poor
Q2-3
0.5
Moderately Polluted
Poor-to-Doubtful
Poor
Q2
0.4
Seriously Polluted
Poor
Bad
Q1-2
0.3
Seriously Polluted
Bad-to-Poor
Bad
Q1
0.2
Seriously Polluted
Bad
Bad
The EQR represents the relationship between the values of the biological parameters observed
for a given body of surface water and the values for these parameters in the reference
conditions applicable to that body. The ratio is expressed as a numerical value between zero
and one, with high ecological status represented by values close to one and bad ecological
status by values close to zero (EPA, 2006) In Ireland it is calculated as Observed Qvalue/Reference Q-value (i.e., Q5). The EQR allows comparison of water quality status across
the European Union as each member state has an EQR value for ‘High’; ‘Good’ etc., based on
an intercalibration of boundaries between water quality categories e.g., ‘High-Good’; ‘Good–
Moderate’ (John Lucey, pers. comm).
2
3
EQR = Environmental Quality Ratio (Observed/Reference)
WFD = Water Framework Directive (EPA, 2006)
5
3
RESULTS
Data on habitat at each sampling location are tabulated in Appendix 1 and photographs of each
sampling site are shown in Appendix 2. Appendix 3 contains expanded macroinvertebrate
species lists. Table 3 presents the Q-rating results obtained, along with previous results for the
EPA, where the latter overlap in terms of sampling site.
The Licky catchment is drained by a single main channel flowing broadly east-west and several
small tributaries draining mainly to the northern bank. The Licky’s Margaritifera populations are
split between two stretches, one in the upper middle reaches and a second in the lower middle
reaches. There are no villages or towns draining to the river and the principle land-uses are
agriculture (pasture) and coniferous forest plantations.
The Licky is a moderate gradient, fast flowing system for the most part.
Substrates are
predominantly small boulder, cobble and coarse gravel with variable plant cover. Some shaded
stretches have good bryophyte cover, while rooted macrophytes (Ranunculus mainly) are
prominent in some open sites.
There were few obvious signs of point-source pollution in the classical sense (i.e. leaky
farmyards, grossly polluted streams or outfall pipes) however, concentrations of cattle poaching
and associated run-off to side streams were a fairly common feature, one of these associated
with considerable faecal runoff. Vehicular and livestock fording points of the main channel and
streams were also encountered.
Plate 1
Cattle poaching downstream of sampling point on Licky 7 tributary (X 17161
84826)
6
Plate 2
Cattle poaching & faeces on lane leading to ford upstream of Licky 7 stream
(X 16825 85090)
Plate 3
Cattle and vehicle fording point for lane shown in Plate 1 (X 16890 85118)
7
Plate 4
Heavy cattle poaching on clay-rich laneway leading to contamination of minor
side tributary u/s Licky 7. (X 16846 85401)
Plate 5
Main channel ford at Carrigeen (X20713 86688), downstream of Licky 3
8
Plate 6
Fording point upstream on Licky 5 tributary.
Plate 7
Bankside cattle poaching, Licky main channel d/s N25 (X22510 86859 to 22573
– 86896).
9
Plate 8
Small stream with foam from general area of farmyard near Licky 7 (X 17178
84776)
10
3.1
LICKY SITE 1
SITE CODE
LICKY 1
DATE OF SAMPLING
14/09/09
GRID REFERENCE
X 23379 87462
Q-RATING
Q3-4
INDICATOR GROUP
Group A - Very Pollution
Sensitive
Group B - Moderately
Pollution Sensitive
TAXON
none
Group C - Moderately
Pollution Tolerant
Group D - Very Pollution
Tolerant
Group E - Most Pollution
Tolerant
Number
Leuctridae
1
Nemouridae
Glossosoma
Silo
Baetis rhodani
23
1
14
97
Ephemerella
Rhyacophilidae.
Hydropsychidae
Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus)
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
Elmidae
Gammarus sp.
Ancylus fluviatilis
Sphaeridae
1
13
1
1
27
3
52
101
9
1
Oligochaetes
16
11
3.2
LICKY SITE 2
SITE CODE
LICKY 2
DATE OF SAMPLING
11/10/09
GRID REFERENCE
4X
Q-RATING
Q3-4
INDICATOR GROUP
Group A - Very Pollution
Sensitive
Group B - Moderately
Pollution Sensitive
TAXON
none
Group C - Moderately
Pollution Tolerant
Group D - Very Pollution
Tolerant
Group E - Most Pollution
Tolerant
22864 87360
Number
Leuctridae
45
Nemouridae
Sericostoma personatum
Baetis rhodani
4
1
33
Rhyacophilidae.
Polycentropidae
Philopomatidae
Limnephilidae
Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus)
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
Elmidae
Gammarus sp.
none
2
1
1
2
6
27
8
10
40
Oligochaetes
23
4
This GPS reading is a little bit south of the correct map position, possibly because of the intermittent
coverage in dense vegetation – the site is on the north-bank tributary just a few meters upstream its
confluence with the main channel of the Licky
12
3.3
LICKY SITE 3
SITE CODE
LICKY 3
DATE OF SAMPLING
14/09/09
GRID REFERENCE
X 20761 86716
Q-RATING
Q3-4
INDICATOR GROUP
Group A - Very Pollution
Sensitive
Group B - Moderately
Pollution Sensitive
TAXON
Heptageniidae
Number
1
Baetis muticus
4
Nemouridae
Silo
Baetis rhodani
13
3
280
Ephemerella
Rhyacophilidae.
Hydropsychidae
Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus)
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
Elmidae
Gammarus sp.
Ancylus fluviatilis
Potamopyrgus sp.
Polycelis
1
9
1
9
59
14
92
63
4
2
1
Oligochaetes
16
Group C - Moderately
Pollution Tolerant
Group D - Very Pollution
Tolerant
Group E - Most Pollution
Tolerant
13
3.4
LICKY SITE 4
SITE CODE
LICKY 4
DATE OF SAMPLING
14/09/09
GRID REFERENCE
5X
Q-RATING
Q 3-4
INDICATOR GROUP
Group A - Very Pollution
Sensitive
Group B - Moderately
Pollution Sensitive
TAXON
none
Group C - Moderately
Pollution Tolerant
Group D - Very Pollution
Tolerant
Group E - Most Pollution
Tolerant
5
220675 86775
Number
Baetis muticus
8
Leuctridae
Nemouridae
Silo
Sericostoma personatum
Glossosoma
Baetis rhodani
3
37
8
4
4
147
Rhyacophilidae.
Hydropsychidae
Limnephilidae
Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus)
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
Elmidae
Gyrinidae
Gammarus sp.
Ancylus fluviatilis
Potamopyrgus sp.
None recorded
15
2
2
20
200
18
50
1
43
2
2
Oligochaetes
35
No GPS coverage – estimated from map
14
3.5
LICKY SITE 5
SITE CODE
LICKY 5
DATE OF SAMPLING
14/09/09
GRID REFERENCE
X 20245 85492
Q-RATING
Q3
INDICATOR GROUP
Group A - Very Pollution
Sensitive
Group B - Moderately
Pollution Sensitive
TAXON
None present
Number
Baetis muticus
4
Leuctridae
Odontocerum albicorne
Lepidostoma hirtum
Glossosoma sp.
Baetis rhodani
1
2
5
1
24
Rhyacophilidae.
Hydropsychidae
Limnephilidae
Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus)
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
Elmidae
Gammarus sp.
Ancylus fluviatilis
Sphaeridae
6
15
2
5
145
20
8
3
8
1
Oligochaetes
100
Group C - Moderately
Pollution Tolerant
Group D - Very Pollution
Tolerant
Group E - Most Pollution
Tolerant
15
3.6
LICKY SITE 6
SITE CODE
LICKY 6
DATE OF SAMPLING
14/09/09
GRID REFERENCE
X19790 84662
Q-RATING
Q3-4
INDICATOR GROUP
Group B - Moderately
Pollution Sensitive
TAXON
Baetis muticus
Group C - Moderately
Pollution Tolerant
Group D - Very Pollution
Tolerant
Group E - Most Pollution
Tolerant
Number
1
Leuctridae
Nemouridae
Sericostoma personatum
Silo
Baetis rhodani
1
6
4
6
123
Caenis sp.
Rhyacophilidae.
Polycentropidae
Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus)
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
Elmidae
Gammarus sp.
Ancylus fluviatilis
Planorbis
1
18
4
4
22
5
77
86
3
6
Erpobdella
Polycelis
Oligochaetes
1
11
16
16
3.7
LICKY SITE 7
SITE CODE
LICKY 7
DATE OF SAMPLING
22/08/09
GRID REFERENCE
X 17117 84914
Q-RATING
Q4
INDICATOR GROUP
Group A - Very Pollution
Sensitive
Group B - Moderately
Pollution Sensitive
TAXON
Heptageniidae
Number
1
Baetis muticus
9
Leuctridae
Nemouridae
Silo
Odontocerum
Baetis rhodani
1
3
8
1
54
Ephemerella
Rhyacophilidae
Hydropsychidae
Polycentropidae
Philopotimidae
Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus)
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
Elmidae
Gammarus sp.
Ancylus fluviatilis
none
20
6
1
2
3
7
9
5
19
104
5
Group C - Moderately
Pollution Tolerant
Group D - Very Pollution
Tolerant
Group E - Most Pollution
Tolerant
none
17
3.8
LICKY SITE 8
SITE CODE
LICKY 8
DATE OF SAMPLING
22/8/09
GRID REFERENCE
X16712 83863
Q-RATING
Q4
INDICATOR GROUP
Group A - Very Pollution
Sensitive
Group B - Moderately
Pollution Sensitive
TAXON
Heptageniidae
Group C - Moderately
Pollution Tolerant
Group D - Very Pollution
Tolerant
Number
2
Leuctridae
15
Glossosoma
Odontocerum albicorne
Baetis muticus
Baetis rhodani
2
1
30
6
Caenis sp.
Ephemerella sp.
Rhyacophila
Hydropsychidae
Philopotimidae
Limnephilidae
Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus)
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
Elmidae
Gammarus sp.
Ancylus fluviatilis
Potamopyrgus jenkinsi
4
2
6
2
2
1
7
13
13
15
76
1
2
18
LICKY RIVER MONITORING 2009 – COMPARED WITH EPA MONITORING
GM
2009
2009
-
3-4
0.7
2
3-4
0.7
-
3
3-4
0.7
-
4
3-4
0.7
5
3
0.6
3-4
0.7
4
0.8
4
0.8
EPA
GM
Site No
Site
1990 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006
EQR6
No.
18L01/0050
1
18L01/0120
6
-
7
18L01/0150
8
4-5
-
4-5
4
4
4-5
3-4
4
4-5
3-4
3-4
3-4
4
4
4-5
6
3-4
-
4
-
-
Figures highlighted in red indicate where EQR falls below the ecological quality objective target value
for pearl mussel sites (see Appendix 4)
19
4
CONCLUSIONS
EQR’s (see Appendix 4) are below target value for pearl mussel sites (≥0.9) at all 8 sites
sampled. This suggests water quality is not presently meeting optimum ecological objectives
for pearl mussel sites (DEHLG, 2008) in most of the catchment.
4.1
LICKY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
What was remarkable in this survey of the Licky and its tributaries was the complete absence of
Group A stoneflies e.g. Perla, Isoperla or Chloroperla, and the great scarcity of Heptageniid
mayflies.
Seasonal factors and perhaps the very wet summer may have influenced this
outcome but it was nevertheless pronounced. A Q4 ratings for Sites Licky 8 (most downstream
site) and Licky 7 (a nearby tributary) were assigned in the absence of or very low numbers of
Group A macroinvertebrates mainly due to fair representation of Group B taxa, not excessive
numbers of Group C, no Group D or E invertebrates and favourable site factors (i.e. virtually no
FGA and or rooted macrophytes).
The only overt signs of water quality pressure was from the frequent instances of stream side
cattle poaching and fording points dispersed throughout the system. However, these alone
cannot explain the results and general land-use changes (in the absence of obvious point
sources) seem the most likely candidate for the trends observed.
Since 1990 when the EPA began monitoring the Licky, there has been a slight to significant
decline in water quality, most sites drpping from Q4-5 to Q4, with the most upstream site at the
N25 crossing dropping to Q3-4. In their most sampling run in 2009, they chose just 2 sample
sites, neither of which coincided with my sites.
In 2006, their most upstream Site (0050)
coincided with Licky 1 of the current survey and returned the same Q-value (Q3-4), while their
Grallagh Bridge site (0150) returned the same value as for the current survey (Q4). Licky 6 site,
which coincided with their Site 0120 (Br. WNW of Kiely’s X-rds), was assigned a Q3-4 in the
current survey, while the EPA gave it a Q4 in 2003 and a Q3-4 in 2000. Overall, the findings of
the current survey are similar to those of the EPA.
20
5
REFERENCES
Clabby, K. J., Lucey, J. and McGarrigle, M. L. 2006. Interim report on the biological survey of
river quality. Results of the 2004 investigations. Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland
DEHLG 2008. Draft European Communities Environmental Objectives (Fresh Water Pearl
Mussel) Regulations 2008. Consultation Paper. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Ely
Place, Dublin.
Edington, J. M., Hildrew A. G., 1981. Caseless caddis larvae of the British Isles. Freshwater
Biological Association, Scientific Publication No. 43.
Elliott, J. M., Humpesch, U. H., Macan, T.T. 1988. Larvae of the British Ephemeroptera - a key
with ecological notes. Freshwater Biological Association, Scientific Publication No. 49.
EPA 2006. Water Framework Directive Monitoring Programme. Version 1 2006. Prepared to
meet the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and National
Regulations implementing the Water Framework Directive (S.I. No 722 of 2003) and National
Regulations implementing the Nitrates Directive (S.I No. 788 of 2005). Environmental
Protection Agency, Ireland.
Friday L.E. 1986. A Key to the adults of British Water Beetles. Field Studies Council. Henry
Ling Ltd, Dorset press
Holmes, N. T. H., Newman, J.R., Chadd, S., Rouen, K.J., Saint, L. and Dawson, F.H. (1999)
Mean Trophic Rank: A User’s Manual. R & D Technical Report E38. UK Environment
Agency.
Hynes, H. B. N. 1977. A key to the adults and nymphs of British stoneflies (Plecoptera).
Freshwater Biological Association, Scientific Publication No. 17.
Macan, T. T. 1977. A key to the British fresh and brackish water gastropods with notes on their
ecology. Freshwater Biological Association, Scientific Publication No. 13.
Moorkens, E. A. (2000b) Conservation management of the freshwater pearl mussel
Margaritifera margaritifera. Part 2: Water Quality Requirements. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 9.
Toner, P., Bowman J., Clabby, K., Lucey J., McGarrigle, M., Concannon, C., Clenaghan, C.,
Cunningham, P., Delaney, J., O’Boyle, S., MacCárthaigh, M., Craig, M. and Quinn R. 2005.
Water Quality in Ireland 2001 – 2003. Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland.
Wallace, I. D., Wallace, B., Philipson, G. N. 1990. A key to the case-bearing caddis larvae of
Britain and Ireland. Freshwater Biological Association, Scientific Publication No. 51,
Liverpool.
21
APPENDIX 1
HABITAT ASSESSMENT AT SAMPLING SITES
22
APPENDIX 2
PHOTOGRAPHS
23
Plate A1
Licky 1 – view upstream (14/09/09)
Plate A2
Licky 2 – view upstream (14/09/09)
24
Plate A3
Plate A4
Licky 3 – view downstream (14/09/09)
Licky 4 – view upstream (14/09/09)
25
Plate A5
Licky 5 – view upstream (14/09/09)
Plate A6
Licky 6 – view downstream (14/09/09)
26
Plate A7
Licky 7 – view upstream (22/08/09)
Plate A8
Licky 8 – view upstream toward Garralagh Bridge (22/08/09)
27
APPENDIX 3
MACROINVERTEBRATE LIST incl. Q-VALUE, BMWP & ASPT
28
APPENDIX 4
Ecological Quality Objectives for Freshwater Pearl Mussel Sites (DEHLG,
2009)
Element
Macroinvertebrates
Objective
EQR ≥0.90
Filamentous algae
(Macroalgae)
Trace or Present
(≤5%)
Phytobenthos
(Microalgae)
EQR ≥0.93
High status
Macrophytes - rooted
higher plants
Trace or Present
(≤5%)
Rooted macrophytes
should be absent or
rare within the
mussel habitat.
Siltation
No artificially
elevated levels of
siltation
No plumes of silt
when substratum is
disturbed
29
Notes
High status
Any filamentous
algae should be
wispy and ephemeral
and never form mats