NS II FRESHWATER PEARL MUSSEL SUB-BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS
REPORT ON BIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF SURFACE WATER QUALITY IN BALLYMURPHY CATCHMENT, CO. CARLOW.
September2009
Lauren Williams, 13 Barra an t’Sean Baile,
Goat Street, Dingle, Co. Kerry
ph066 915 2915; e-mail
CONTENTS
1INTRODUCTION......
2METHODOLOGY......
2.1HABITAT ASSESSMENT......
2.2INVERTEBRATE SAMPLING AND WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT......
3RESULTS......
3.1BALLYMURPHY SITE 1......
3.2BALLYMURPHY SITE 2......
3.3BALLYMURPHY SITE 3......
3.4BALLYMURPHY SITE 4......
3.5BALLYMURPHY SITE 5......
3.6BALLYMURPHY SITE 6......
3.7BALLYMURPHY SITE 7......
3.8BALLYMURPHY SITE 8......
3.9BALLYMURPHY SITE 9......
3.10BALLYMURPHY CATCHMENT MONITORING 2009......
4CONCLUSIONS......
4.1BALLYMURPHY RIVER MAIN CHANNEL
4.2BALLYMURPHY UPPER CATCHMENT......
5REFERENCES......
APPENDIX 1 / SITE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONSAPPENDIX 2 / SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX 3 / SPECIES LISTS, BMWP & ASPT
APPENDIX 4 / ECOLOGICAL QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR PEARL MUSSEL HABITAT (STATUTORY INSTRUMENT No. 296 of 2009)
1INTRODUCTION
Lauren Williams,freshwater ecological consultant, has been commissioned by RPS Group to carry out biological sampling and water quality assessment in accordance with EPA Q-rating methodology at the following 9 sites in theBallymurphy catchment, a tributary of the River Barrow, CountyCarlow. These will form part of the baseline assessments required for the NS II freshwater pearl mussel sub-basin management plans.
Site Name / Grid ReferenceSite 1 / North of Tinnacarrig / S 74657 47291
Site 2 / US EarlsBridge / S76281 46551
Site 3 / South Branch, Clanagh / S 76770 45256
Site 4 / South Branch, Ballyglasheen / S 77366 44390
Site 5 / Tributary SW of Kyle Cross Roads / S 75927 47468
Site 6 / North Branch, DS Ballymurphy Village / S 77073 47205
Site 7 / North Branch, US R702 Bridge / S 77160 47400
Site 8 / Rocksavage trib. Nth branch / S 78001 46276
Site 9 / Rocksavage trib. East branch / S 77958 46175
2METHODOLOGY
Sampling was carried outon the 16thof September,2009 in fair weather.
Within the catchment, a number of smaller tributaries confluence to form the main channel,which flows to the River Barrow. Site selection was dictated by a number of factors, including access and habitat availability. Sites were located to avoid immediate upstream point-sources of pollution and have been situated strategically across the catchment to broadly describewater quality trends.
2.1HABITAT 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, by percentage shade of the sampling site.
The silt plume was observed during kick sampling and recorded on a scale of Very Slight – Slight – Moderate – Considerable – Significant. Any obvious siltation (e.g., in pools) was recorded. Grid references were recorded at all sites using GPS. Digital photographs were taken at each site.
2.2INVERTEBRATE SAMPLING AND WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Samples were taken using a 2-minute ‘kick’ sampling method in the fast flowing (riffle) areas of the river using a standard hand net (250 mm width, mesh size 1 mm; adhering to ISO Standard for kick sampling and utilising the EPA/WRom 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 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 2EPA water quality status summary
Biotic Index / EQR[1] / EPA Quality Status / Water Quality / WFD[2] StatusQ5 / 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 Q-value/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).
In addition biotic indices developed in Britain, based on aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages, were calculated. The BMWP (Biological Monitoring Working Party) Score and ASPT (Average Score per Taxon) are useful in that each involve a precise calculation using scores that reflect species sensitivity to organic pollution from 1 (most tolerant) up to 13 (least tolerant). This is in contrast to the EPA – BIWQ assessment, which is not a precise science, and whereby assignment to water quality classes can vary between operators. Recently revised BMWP scores (Walley & Hawkes, 1996) are used as these are now becoming accepted as more accurately reflecting pollution sensitivity. BMWP and ASPT values are reported here for each site, which may be useful for future comparisons.
Where sites are not optimal for Q-rating assessment, e.g. sites with an exclusively or almost exclusively peat substrate; Q-ratings are given the suffix ‘(t)’ denoting a tentative Q-rating. Unless otherwise stated, Q-ratingswith the suffix (t) can be confidently assigned to the water quality bracket within a ½ Q-rating point margin of error. For instance where a Q3-4(t) rating is given,the operator is stating with a high level of confidence that the rating is no lower than Q3 and no higher than Q4.
3RESULTS
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 detailed species lists, BMWP and ASPT values.
The Ballymurphy (Barrow) catchment is remarkable for the high proportion of sandy substrates in the streams. Plate 1 shows the stretch upstream of Earl’s Bridge, where substrates were almost 100% sand, with patches of rooted macrophytes and some cobble in faster flowing sections. This was typical over much of the catchment, which made the location suitable riffle habitat for sampling sites quite difficult.
In general the catchment streams flow through agricultural land, with dairy farming appearing to be common. Agriculture-related stream drainage works were a common observation. Plate 2 shows a typical situation, whereby the stream has been drained to form a uniform channel. Land drains were observed in parts of the catchment, with these flowing directly tothe watercourse (see Plate 3).
Stock access to watercourses was fairly common, either facilitated by fencing to create a watering point (see Plate 5) or as a result of long stretches being unfenced. Bank and bed erosion issues related to poaching were noted at 6out of the 9sites and were observed in many places whilst accessing survey locations.
There was definite water quality issues at BM4, Ballyglasheen, where sewage-fungus type growths were recorded on submerged macrophytes (see Plate 6) and some invertebrate fauna were also covered in fungus. There was also a high proportional abundance of both Baetisrhodani and Simulium spp. The site was located upstream from a milking shed, but there were no obvious point sources upstream of the sampling site apart from somestock-access damage about 60m upstream.
A field drain near BM8 (see Plate 4) appeared to be enriched, and was trickling into the tributary stream above Rocksavage (downstream of BM8 sampling site). The drainage works seemed to be quite recent and the water surface was smothered with filamentous algae.
Plate 1Typical habitat in many parts of the catchment – clean sandy substrates with patches of rooted macrophytes, especially Ranunculus spp.
Plate 2Typical habitat – view upstream from bridge at S 77420 44340 - upstream of BM4. Drained, uniform channel with sandy substrates.
Plate 3Land drains were common– this one was upstream of EarlsBridge.
Plate 4Large, stagnant field drain in the upper catchment at S 77939 46149
Plate 5Stock access just downstream of site BM7
Plate 6Slimy “sewage fungus” type growths on submerged macrophytes at BM4
3.1BALLYMURPHYsite 1
SITE CODE / BM 1DATE OF SAMPLING / 16/9/09
GRID REFERENCE / S 74657 47291
Q-RATING / Q4
INDICATOR GROUP / TAXON / Number
Group A - Very Pollution Sensitive / Heptageniidae / 14
Isoperla sp. / 4
Group B - Moderately Pollution Sensitive / Leuctridae / 3
Nemouridae / 100+
Lepidostoma hirtum / 3
Silo pallipes / 3
Group C - Moderately Pollution Tolerant / Baetis rhodani / 33
Ephemerella sp. / 7
Hydropsychidae / 1
Rhyachophilidae / 20
Limnephilidae / 1
Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus) / 13
Simuliidae / 23
Elmidae / 100+
Gyrinidae / 3
Hydraenidae / 2
Gammarus sp. / 100+
Ancyclus fluviatilis / 12
Group D - Very Pollution Tolerant / Sphaeriidae / 2
Tricladia / 5
Group E - Most Pollution Tolerant / Oligochaetes / 4
Not assigned to any grouping / Empididae / 14
3.2BALLYMURPHY site 2
SITE CODE / BM 2DATE OF SAMPLING / 16/9/09
GRID REFERENCE / S76281 46551
Q-RATING / Q4 (t)
INDICATOR GROUP / TAXON / Number
Group A - Very Pollution Sensitive / Heptageniidae / 2
Group B - Moderately Pollution Sensitive / Leuctridae / 7
Nemouridae / 8
Odontocerum albicorne / 3
Sericostoma personatum / 1
Lepidostoma hirtum / 1
Group C - Moderately Pollution Tolerant / Baetis rhodani / 45
Ephemerella sp. / 6
Hydropsychidae / 7
Rhyachophilidae / 15
Limnephilidae / 30
Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus) / 65
Simuliidae / 200+
Tipulidae / 1
Dytiscidae / 1
Hydraenidae / 1
Elmidae / 75
Gammarus sp. / 23
Piscicola geometra / 1
Ancyclus fluviatilis / 2
Group D - Very Pollution Tolerant / None recorded
Group E - Most Pollution Tolerant / None recorded
Not assigned to any grouping / Empididae / 4
3.3BALLYMURPHYsite 3
SITE CODE / BM 3DATE OF SAMPLING / 16/9/09
GRID REFERENCE / S 76770 45256
Q-RATING / Q4
INDICATOR GROUP / TAXON / Number
Group A - Very Pollution Sensitive / Heptageniidae / 5
Isoperla sp. / 2
Chloroperla sp. / 2
Group B - Moderately Pollution Sensitive / Leuctridae / 14
Nemouridae / 72
Group C - Moderately Pollution Tolerant / Baetis rhodani / 100+
Ephemerella sp. / 8
Hydropsychidae / 25
Rhyachophilidae / 24
Limnephilidae / 10
Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus) / 100+
Simuliidae / 80
Tipulidae / 1
Elmidae / 95
Gammarus sp. / 14
Potamopyrgus sp. / 1
Ancyclus fluviatilis / 13
Group D - Very Pollution Tolerant / Erpobdellidae indet. / 1
Group E - Most Pollution Tolerant / Oligochaetes / 11
Not assigned to any grouping / Empididae / 13
3.4BALLYMURPHYsite 4
SITE CODE / BM 4DATE OF SAMPLING / 16/9/09
GRID REFERENCE / S 77366 44390
Q-RATING / Q3-4
INDICATOR GROUP / TAXON / Number
Group A - Very Pollution Sensitive / None recorded
Group B - Moderately Pollution Sensitive / Leuctridae / 6
Nemouridae / 6
Group C - Moderately Pollution Tolerant / Baetis rhodani / 400+
Ephemerella sp. / 7
Rhyachophilidae / 7
Limnephilidae / 2
Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus) / 46
Simuliidae / 200+
Tipulidae / 3
Hydrophilidae / 1
Elmidae / 38
Gammarus sp. / 2
Group D - Very Pollution Tolerant / None recorded
Group E - Most Pollution Tolerant / Oligochaetes / 15
3.5BALLYMURPHYsite 5
SITE CODE / BM 5DATE OF SAMPLING / 16/9/09
GRID REFERENCE / S 75927 47468
Q-RATING / Q3-4
INDICATOR GROUP / TAXON / Number
Group A - Very Pollution Sensitive / None recorded
Group B - Moderately Pollution Sensitive / Leuctridae / 18
Nemouridae / 4
Goeridae / 2
Glossosomatidae / 22
Group C - Moderately Pollution Tolerant / Baetis rhodani / 100+
Hydropsychidae / 6
Rhyachophilidae / 15
Polycentropidae / 3
Philopotomidae / 21
Limnephilidae / 3
Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus) / 50
Simuliidae / 90
Tipulidae / 5
Hydraenidae / 1
Elmidae / 52
Gammarus sp. / 100+
Group D - Very Pollution Tolerant / None recorded
Group E - Most Pollution Tolerant / Oligochaetes / 12
Not assigned to any grouping / Empididae / 3
3.6BALLYMURPHYsite 6
SITE CODE / BM 6DATE OF SAMPLING / 16/9/09
GRID REFERENCE / S 77073 47205
Q-RATING / Q4
INDICATOR GROUP / TAXON / Number
Group A - Very Pollution Sensitive / Heptageniidae / 12
Group B - Moderately Pollution Sensitive / Leuctridae / 14
Nemouridae / 50
Silo pallipes / 2
Glossosomatidae / 1
Group C - Moderately Pollution Tolerant / Baetis rhodani / 100+
Ephemerella sp. / 6
Hydropsychidae / 19
Rhyachophilidae / 9
Limnephilidae / 3
Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus) / 75
Simuliidae / 11
Gyrinidae / 1
Elmidae / 100+
Gammarus sp. / 27
Ancyclus fluviatilis / 13
Group D - Very Pollution Tolerant / None recorded
Group E - Most Pollution Tolerant / Oligochaetes / 24
3.7BALLYMURPHYsite 7
SITE CODE / BM 7DATE OF SAMPLING / 16/9/09
GRID REFERENCE / S 77160 47400
Q-RATING / Q3-4
INDICATOR GROUP / TAXON / Number
Group A - Very Pollution Sensitive / Isoperla sp. / 1
Group B - Moderately Pollution Sensitive / Leuctridae / 8
Nemouridae / 72
Sericostoma personatum / 2
Group C - Moderately Pollution Tolerant / Baetis rhodani / 200+
Hydropsychidae / 4
Rhyachophilidae / 9
Simuliidae / 12
Tipulidae / 8
Elmidae / 100+
Gammarus sp. / 37
Ancyclus fluviatilis / 9
Potamopyrgus sp. / 5
Group D - Very Pollution Tolerant / Sphaeriidae / 2
Group E - Most Pollution Tolerant / Oligochaetes / 40
Not assigned to any grouping / Empididae / 10
3.8BALLYMURPHYsite 8
SITE CODE / BM 8DATE OF SAMPLING / 16/9/09
GRID REFERENCE / S 78001 46276
Q-RATING / Q4
INDICATOR GROUP / TAXON / Number
Group A - Very Pollution Sensitive / Heptageniidae / 11
Group B - Moderately Pollution Sensitive / Leuctridae / 5
Nemouridae / 100+
Sericostoma personatum / 1
Group C - Moderately Pollution Tolerant / Baetis rhodani / 26
Ephemerella sp. / 2
Hydropsychidae / 5
Rhyachophilidae / 7
Polycentropidae / 1
Limnephilidae / 2
Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus) / 20
Simuliidae / 66
Hydrophilidae / 1
Hydraenidae / 1
Elmidae / 48
Gammarus sp. / 32
Ancyclus fluviatilis / 1
Group D - Very Pollution Tolerant / None recorded
Group E - Most Pollution Tolerant / Oligochaetes / 3
Not assigned to any grouping / Empididae / 3
3.9BALLYMURPHYsite 9
SITE CODE / BM 9DATE OF SAMPLING / 16/9/09
GRID REFERENCE / S 77958 46175
Q-RATING / Q4
INDICATOR GROUP / TAXON / Number
Group A - Very Pollution Sensitive / Heptageniidae / 5
Group B - Moderately Pollution Sensitive / Nemouridae / 13
Odontocerum albicorne / 1
Sericostoma personatum / 1
Group C - Moderately Pollution Tolerant / Baetis rhodani / 25
Hydropsychidae / 2
Rhyachophilidae / 16
Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus) / 12
Simuliidae / 85
Gyrinidae / 1
Elmidae / 100+
Gammarus sp. / 7
Group D - Very Pollution Tolerant / None recorded
Group E - Most Pollution Tolerant / Oligochaetes / 10
3.10BALLYMURPHY Catchment MONITORING 2009
River / LWSite No. / 2009 / EQR[3] / WFD Status
Barrow Trib. Ballymurphy / 1 / 4 / 0.8 / Good
Barrow Trib. Ballymurphy / 2 / 4(t) / 0.8 / Good
Barrow Trib. Ballymurphy / 3 / 4 / 0.8 / Good
Barrow Trib. Ballymurphy / 4 / 3-4 / 0.7 / Moderate
Barrow Trib. Ballymurphy / 5 / 3-4 / 0.7 / Moderate
Barrow Trib. Ballymurphy / 6 / 4 / 0.8 / Good
Barrow Trib. Ballymurphy / 7 / 3-4 / 0.7 / Moderate
Barrow Trib. Ballymurphy / 8 / 4 / 0.8 / Good
Barrow Trib. Ballymurphy / 9 / 4 / 0.8 / Good
1
4CONCLUSIONS
Macroinvertebrate EQR’sare below target value for pearl mussel sites (≥0.9; Appendix 4) at all locations in the Ballymurphy (Barrow) catchment. This suggests water quality is not presently meeting optimum ecological objectives for pearl mussel habitat in the majority of the catchment.
It must be noted that due to the high proportion of sandy substrates it was difficult to find suitable riffle habitat for Q-assessment. Whilst every effort was made to sample in stretches that had some small boulder, cobble or pebble, most sites comprised between 50% and 90% sand. Under the Q-rating system macroinvertebrate criteria do not (specifically) apply to rivers with sand substrata (Toner et al., 2005). It is recommended, therefore, that a caveat be applied to the Q-values assigned due to the high proportion of fine substrata.
4.1BALLYMURPHYRIVER MAIN channel
The main channel of the Ballymurphy tributary catchment flows from approximately 500m upstream of Earl’s Bridge to the confluence with the Barrow. This stretchmerits ratings of Q4throughout, translating to ‘Fair’ water quality, during these surveys.
BM2 was rated Q4(t) as this site had the highest proportion of sand out of all the sites (90%) and whilst Group A fauna was scarce, there was a reasonable diversity and abundance of Group B fauna. There were no filamentous alga in this stretch, but rooted macrophyte was common (Ranunculus spp. = 20%) and exceeds optimum ecological objectives for pearl mussel sites (≤4%, Appendix 4).
Site BM1 was downstream of the quad-biking track highlighted in the Draft Plan (NS2, 2008). No serious effects relating to siltation were recorded at this (fast flowing) site. Macrophyte growth was considered normal, being a predominantly bryophyte community, and sands were ‘clean’, generating only a slight silt plume when disturbed.
A small tributary (site BM5) flowing from the north confluences with the main channel within the reference range for M. margaritifera and this rated Q3-4. This was a very small stream, forming a field boundary ditch and has probably been drained in the past. It was fenced along its’ length, apart from a section downstream of the sampling site that was left unfenced to facilitate stock watering.
4.2BALLYMURPHYUPPER CATCHMENT
Sites in the upper catchment rated Q3-4 and Q4, translating to ‘Doubtful-to-Fair’ and ‘Fair’ water quality. Unless discussed below, there were no compounding factors (other than the high proportion of sandy substrates) at sites assigned Q4 to suggest definite water quality issues.
Sites BM4 and BM7 both scored Q3-4 as there were compounding factors (other than macroinvertebrate assemblages) that signify water quality issues at both sites. Q3-4 was confidently assigned at both sites in spite of the high proportion of sandy substrates.
“Sewage fungus” -type growths were observed at BM4, and Simulium spp. and Baetis rhodani were dominant in the sample. Dominance of a taxonomic group (or groups) usually indicates that there is an imbalance in the aquatic environment, which is favouring a population explosion in that particular group. In this stream the proportion ofSimulium sp. suggests there is a supply of fine organic particulate matter (upon which the species feeds by filtering the water). High levels of fine organic particulates are often associated with discharges from agricultural or municipal sewage waste and food or dairy processing factory wastes. Fungal growths are usually associated with fresh silage liquor, sugar factory waste, dairy and other high-sugar, alcohol or fatty acid run-off or discharges. The source of the enrichment this site was not located in the course of this study.
At BM7, the filamentous green algae, Vaucheria sp., was recorded along with the pollution tolerant moss, Amblestegium riparium. The combination of plant indicators, a considerable silt plume and the macroinvertebrate assemblage points towards there being a water quality problem at this site. Certainly there were issues just 15m downstream where cattle were accessing the stream (see Plate 5, section 3).