APPENDIX 6G

KINGS RIVER PILOT STUDY AREA (FORESTRY)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:42

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 1 Rev F01

1 KINGS PILOT STUDY AREA (FORESTRY)

1.1 INTRODUCTIONForestry in Ireland now comprises of approximately 649,813 hectares or 9% of the total land area. This percentage of forested land is one of the lowest in Europe. Much of this land is state owned andplanted in the ‘50’s however, there has been a considerable increase in afforestion from the privatesector since 1989 (Figure 1)

Private forestry comprised of 253,088hectares for 2000. Total new planting for2000 was 15,695 hectares (13,669ha ofconifers and 2,026ha of hardwoods). Theprivate sector planted 14,231ha and thestate planted 1,464ha.

The Kings River catchment was chosen asa Study Area (SA) because of the overallsignificance of forestry in the upper Liffeycatchments and the limited informationavailable on the effects of commercialforestry activities on a river system.

The basic objectives of the study comprised:

1. To define the nutrient export load generated in an active forestry catchment.2. To examine the effects of commercial forestry operations on water quality.3. To examine compliance with Forestry and Fisheries Guidelines (Code of Good Practice).

The project worked in close co-operation with Coillte in the operational activities that were taking place in the catchment and with the EPA in choosing suitable hydrometric monitoring sites to compliment the water quality sites.

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE CATCHMENT AND PROJECT STUDY AREAThe Kings River drains a catchment of 85km2 to the southeast of Pollaphuca Reservoir, into which itflows. The catchment boundaries include Moanbane and Mullaghcleevaun to the north, Turlough Hillto the east, and Table Mountain to the south. Catchment elevation varies from 823m atMullaghcleevaun, down to approximately 150m at Pollaphuca Reservoir.

The river system includes numerous tributaries, ranging in size from rivers to streams and brooks, and a multitude of minor streams that can vary from those carrying water all year round, to those appearing only during rainfall. During heavy rainfall, every available track, road, and drain turns into a gushingstream in an extremely short period of time typifying the flashy nature of the catchment.

A project area of 5,496 hectares was selected from the overall Kings River catchment, extending from the upper catchment boundaries down to an area known locally as Knocknadroose, some 5km south-east of where the Kings River enters Pollaphuca Reservoir. This project area contains some of themore significant tributaries such as Ballinagee River, Annalecka Brook, and Ashbawn/GleenreemoreBrook, but excludes the Douglas River.

A significant proportion of the landuse in the project area is commercial forestry, with large expansesof mountain moorland, an area of the Wicklow National Park, and a small degree of agriculture(predominantly sheep-rearing). Upper reaches of mountainside tend to be moorland, with forestryfurther down the slopes. Coillte owns approximately 1,570ha of the catchment (28% of the SA or 18% of the Kings River catchment), and dedicated agricultural land is likely to amount to less than 5% of the

Figure 1: Growth in Forestry Ireland

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:42

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 2 Rev F01

catchment. There are also areas of private forestry (mainly commercial partnerships with Coillte). The mountain moorland, although not dedicated farmland, is managed on a ‘commonage’ basis but hasseen none of the degradation of vegetation and subsequent erosion of soil that was experienced in anumber of the western counties.

1.3 FORESTRY ACTIVITIESThis area was chosen as an SA due to the amount of commercial forestry and the subsequent forestry operations that would be carried out as part of an ‘active’ forest region. There are four main operations that take place; clear felling, re-stocking, thinning, and drainage. The impact of these operations on ariver system can vary depending on the specific operation, the time of year that they are carried out(amount of rainfall), the topography of the area and the actual methodology employed during theoperation. Blocks of forestry are sub-divided into areas known as SPs (sales proposals) and it is inthese areas that the timber is sold and in which the four operations occur.

1.3.1 Clear FellingClearfells can visually be the most disruptive operation occurring in a commercial forest area. Removal of timber, exposure of soils and tracking from clearfell machinery can all contribute to erosion of these fragile soils.

The area of clear felling that took place during the lifetime of the project (October ’ 99 to September’01) was approximately 106 hectares. All the timber was removed by conventional methods, whichinvolved the use of specialised harvesting and gathering machinery referred to as a ‘Forwarder’ and‘Processor’. This method of harvesting timber under suitable ground and weather conditions wouldseem to have little or no effect on soil disturbance and therefore little impact on local water quality.Another method that is sometimes used when weather and ground conditions are unfavourable forconventional machinery is referred to as ‘Skylining’. This method involves the use of manual labour to chainsaw the timber, which is then extracted using suspended steel cables. Skylining can also be used for extracting timber during ‘Thinning’ operations. This method of timber extraction for both clearfellsand thinnings incurs greater costs, therefore, lower margins, and subsequently is only used whenconventional machinery is unable to operate.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:42

Figure 2 Kings Pilot Study Catchment - Location Map

LiffeyLiffeyLiffeyLiffeyLiffeyLiffeyLiffeyLiffeyLiffeyCatchmentCatchmentCatchmentCatchmentCatchmentCatchmentCatchmentCatchmentCatchment

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:43

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 4 Rev F01

1.3.2 ThinningThis is an operation carried out to remove specific trees from a plantation to improve the final crop.The operation may take place a number of times in a particular block depending on the growthpotential and the ease in which the site can be accessed. The area of timber that was thinned during

the project was 366 hectares of which 38 hectareswas thinned using the ‘Skylining‘ method. Generallythis operation is less intrusive than the wholesaleremoval experienced during clearfelling.

1.3.3 Drainage and Re-StockingBoth of these operations occur post harvest generally sometime in the proceeding 12 months. Of the twooperations, drainage would have to be considered the most likely to have a negative impact on the localriver system. The “Code of Best Forest Practice –Ireland” issued by the Forest Service in theDepartment of the Marine and Natural Resourceslays down guidelines for all the relevant operationsincluding drainage. It has been found by the project

these guidelines have been closely followed and adhered to in this catchment, thereby minimisingoperational impacts on surface waters.

1.4 MONITORINGFour key areas were identified that required monitoring in the Kings SA:

• Physico-chemical water quality• Biological Q-ratings• Hydrometrics• Monitoring of the various forestry activities, including compliance with Forestry and Fisheries

Guidelines (Code of Good Practice).

1.4.1 Water Quality Monitoring – Physico-ChemicalAn approach was adopted to monitor WQ at each significant stream system, both upstream of forestry activities, and near the downstream end of the stream system. This means that several SP’s may beincorporated in the catchment between the two monitoring points. In some cases, all SP’s in a stream system may be of one type, e.g. harvesting, or SP’s may be mixed, e.g. harvesting and thinning. Given the number of SP’s expected for the duration of the project it was not possible to monitor eachindividually. In any case, the aim of the project was not necessarily to monitor specific forestryactivities but rather the overall effect on the river.

The original Kings system WQ monitoring networks comprised of sixteen water quality sites, onedownstream site with autosampler (AS), and one temporary site. The initial water-monitoring network was reviewed and revised after approximately seven months for a number of reasons:

• Results from the autosampler showed that there was a rise to peak flow in six hours and grabsampling occurred every seven days therefore the viability of grab sampling and its ability to yieldrepresentative data was questioned.

• Therefore the investigation of specific sections of the Kings system in regard to water quality andnutrient loads export was not considered accurate by means of a grab sampling programme. Thesystem was revised to monitor overall water quality in the area, with loads generated at theautosampler at the downstream end of the system

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:43

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 5 Rev F01

The final water quality network comprised of eight grab sample sites and one autosampler (AS) site.These sites covered the majority of the major tributaries and were downstream of forestry blocks thatcontained the largest number of active SPs (Figure 3).

Table 1 – Water Quality Sites Monitored August 2001

Combined Code River Name Station Name WQ Monitor

RS9A01200 Annalecka us Kings River confluence Weekly

RS9A0150 Annalecka 1.8km us Annalecka Weekly

RS9K0130 Glashaboy Brook 200 us Annalecka Brook Weekly

RS9G03100 Kings Liffey Ford 700 m us Kings Weekly

RS9G05100 Kings Liffey u/s forestry at confluence Weekly

RS9G06300 Kings Liffey Br us Kings confluence. Weekly

RS9K0170 Kings Liffey 200 m ds Knockalt Weekly/auto

RS9B08200 Ballinagee River Ballinagee Br Weekly

The autosampler site was located on the main Kings River 200m downstream of the Knockaltconfluence. The autosampler was set to sample on a flow proportional basis. This enabled themachine to sample more frequently during periods of high flows when most nutrients were beingexported to the river from the surrounding area.

1.4.2 Hydrometric Monitoring Originally there was only one hydrometric site existing in this area at Annalecka Brook. The project

initiated the installation of five new sites with the helpof the EPA. These five new hydrometric sites were set-up and monitored using rock controls and staffgauges. The EPA rated five of the sites (09026,09025, 09057, 09058 and 09059) and Project staffrated the sixth site at Glenogvore Brook (09242).Rating in this context involves the measurement offlow (area * velocity) and level in a selected river siteover a number of different flow conditions, thusdeveloping a “rating curve” illustrating the correlationbetween flow and level. The principal advantage of this is that “non-technical” staff can obtain a water level ata selected site quickly and easily that can later betranslated into a flow.

It has been recommended by the project that the Automatic Recorder at the Annalecka site should be replaced by a more modern Data Logger system.

Table 2 – Hydrometric Sites in the Kings SA

Hydro. Code River Name Site Name Control Monitoring Type

09026 ANNALECKA BROOK Annalecka Brook Rock control AR

09058 Kings River Oakwood Rock control Manual

09025 BALLINAGEE Ballinagee Br natural river-SG Manual

09057 Kings River Bawnoge natural river-SG Manual

09242 Kings River Glenogvore Brook at road Other Manual

09059 Kings River Knocknadroose Rock control Manual

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:43

09026

0905809242

09025

09059

09243

09057

Figure 4 Kings Pilot Study Catchment - Hydrometric Sites

Legend

Hydrometric Sites

Figure 3 Kings Pilot Study Catchment - Water Quality Sites

Legend

Water Quality Sites

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:43

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 7 Rev F01

1.4.3 Water Quality Monitoring – BiologicalTen sites were monitored biologically in the Kings SA on a yearly basis. These are shown in Figure 5.The project team recommends that a number of sites should continue to be monitored after the lifetime of the project and these sites are highlighted in red.

Some of the sites such as BO8200 (Ballinagee), AO1200 (Annalecka) had been monitored before theproject and in the interests of continuity of the data already collected and the significance of the sites monitoring should continue. Site KO130 defines the upper reaches of the Kings system and has arated hydrometric station, and monitoring of all three aspects (physico/chemical, biological, andhydrometric) should continue at this site. A new biological site should be introduced at GO5100 as this is also a significant catchment with a functioning hydrometric station. The nearest biological site on the main channel downstream of the SA is KO190 and this site should also continue after the termination of the project.

1.4.4 Forestry Codes of PracticePrior to 1991 little or no direction was available to Irish foresters on how to minimise the impact offorestry on the surrounding environment. The Forest Service in Ireland in 1991 devised andimplemented the “Forest and Fisheries Guidelines” (Anon1991) which was the first real step inproviding foresters guidelines for better management practices reducing impacts of forestry.

Mr. Hugh Byrne T.D. launched the “Code of Best Forest Practice – Ireland” in 2000. This Code wasproduced by the Forest Service and is one element in a series of initiatives supporting the IrishNational Forest Standard in providing direction for private and state foresters. The guidelines found in “Code of Best Forest Practice – Ireland” were used by the Project to monitor the possible impacts ofvarious forestry operations on water quality in the Kings SA.

Monitoring took place on a fortnightly basis wheremeasurements were taken of the distance that silttraps where from streams, distance of re-stockingfrom streams, and the development of new roadsand accompanying drainage. Regular discussionsalso took place with the Coillte Harvest Manager forthat area on the type and extent of current forestryoperations. The help and co-operation from theCoillte Harvest Manager for the Kings area wasinvaluable.

It was found by the project that Coillte adhered tothe guidelines in the Code of Best Forestry Practicein regards surface water impacts. They wereconscientious to avoid any pollution of receiving

streams during the various operations going as far as to divert streams away from clearfell areas forthe duration of the harvesting operation. It should be remembered that the project was looking at theeffects commercial forestry operations were having on water quality in local river systems only, and did not consider the effects of commercial forestry on other aspects such as aesthetics, species diversityetc and therefore did not consider the adherence to the “Code of Best Forest Practice – Ireland” byCoillte in regards to these.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:43

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 8 Rev F01

1.5 RESULTS

1.5.1 Biological Q-RatingsThe biological status (Q rating) of the rivers and streams was generally good in the whole of the upper Liffey catchment and the Kings SA shows the same characteristics. Of the 11 sites that have beenmonitored over the past number of years only two show a decrease in their biological status.

Table 3 – Biological Monitoring – Sites and Results

CombinedCode

River Name Station Name Pre ‘99 Q 99 Q 2000

RS9K0130 Kings Liffey Glashaboy Brook - 4.0 3-4

RS9G03100 Kings Liffey Ford 700 m us Kin - 3-4 4.0

RS9B08100 Kings Liffey us Gowlan Brook - 4-5 4-5

RS9G04400 Kings Liffey 100 ds Garryknock Br - 4-5 4-5

RS9G06300 Kings Liffey Br us Kings Conf. - 4.0 4-5

RS9K05300 Kings Liffey 100 m us Kings Conf - 4.0 4.0

RS9K0170 Kings Liffey 200 m ds Knockalt - 4-5 3-4

RS9K0150 Kings Liffey 400 us of Ballinagee - 4.0 4.0

RS9K0190 Kings Liffey 1km us Lockstown br - 4.0 4.0

RS9B08200 Kings Liffey Ballinagee Br 4-5 4.0 4.0

RS9A01200 Annalecka us Kings River confl 3-4 3-4 3-4

The site at Glashaboy Brook was one of two sites thatdecreased in Biological Q-Ratings (Q4 to Q3-4). Thissite had no forestry operations occurring upstreamduring the project, therefore, it may be presumedforestry operations had no bearing on the results.Whether the presence of forestry itself had an effect or whether the reason for the slight deterioration in Qvalues originated from the non-forested section in thiscatchment was not within the scope of the project todetermine.

Site KO170 situated on the main Kings River was theother site that deteriorated in Biological Q-Ratingsfrom ’99 to ’00 (Q4-5 to Q3-4). Reasons fordeterioration in Q ratings at this site could not bedetermined by the project.

The Annalecka Stream site has continuously shown signs of stress for no apparent reason.Physico/chemical analysis show that the deterioration in Biological Q-Ratings in the stream was notrelated to any increase in nutrient concentration in the water.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:43

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 9 Rev F01

Table 4 – Interim Statutory Standards for Rivers

Existing Biological Quality Rating (Q) MRP Annual Median (mgP/l) Corresponding Min. Target Q Rating

5 0.015 5

4-5 unpolluted 0.020 4-5

4 0.030 4

3-4 slightly polluted 0.030 4

3 0.050 3-4

moderately polluted

2-3 0.070 3

<2 seriously polluted 0.070 3

1.5.2 Physico/ChemicalAll sites in the Kings SA exceeded the threshold limits for minimum pH used by the EPA in assessing impaired water quality in Irish rivers. The lowest levels of pH were recorded on 3 sites of theAnnalecka River (AO1200, AO150, and AO170) and were less than or equal to 4.2. These low pHsmay go some way in explaining the relatively poor biological status of this system (Q value 3.5). Other

parameters that were exceeded were the maximumpercentages of dissolved oxygen of 120% at 7 of thesites. These exceedences were more likely due to the rapid movement of shallow water rather thanexcessive macrophyte growth.

Maximum nitrite levels were exceeded in 3 of thesites. One of these may be explained by its closeproximity to a number of farm dwellings where apossible point source may be the problem. The othersites may not be as easily explained. Site AO150 was situated upstream on the Annalecka River above anyforestry operations and away from any dwellings andthe parameter was only exceeded once, in thisinstance there was seemingly no attributable cause

and therefore may be considered as an erratic. The other site GO6300 was one of the sitesdownstream of a forestry operation that occurred in the months April to June, and the nitriteparameters of 0.015mgN/l were exceeded on the 26th of May and again on the 1st of June. Thisforestry operation was intensively monitored with a number of temporary sites introduced for theduration of the harvesting (Figure 6). The results can be seen in Figure 7 and although there is anincrease in MRP during the harvest operation the levels were not significantly greater than the winterbackground levels. It has been found in results from other stations on the Liffey that significant levelsof nitrite are recorded for no apparent reason and may be considered background levels.

Monitoring site GV 4 was situated in very close proximity to the harvested area and has the mostdramatic increase in MRP levels. Sites situated further down the system have more moderateincreases. It can also be seen on this graph from the water level recorded at “gauge 2” that thisclearfell operation occurred during a period of heavy rainfall, which would have increased the problem of suspended solids getting into the river and therefore increased levels of nutrients for this period.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:43

Figure 6 Kings Pilot Study Catchment - WQ Sites Glengvore Clearfell

GV1

GV2

GV3

GV4

Figure 5 Kings Pilot Study Catchment - Biologically Monitored Sites during

Project and Proposed Sites for Continued Monitoring

Legend

Biological SitesMonitored duringthe Project

Continued Sites

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:43

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 11 Rev F01

Glenogvore

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

31-Dec-99 19-Feb-00 9-Apr-00 29-May-00 18-Jul-00 6-Sep-00

Time

mg

P/l

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

Riv

er le

vel (

m)

GV1 MRP

GV2 MRP

GV3 MRP

GV4 MRP

Gauge2

Pre-harvest Harvest Post-harvest

Figure 7: Harvesting at Glenogvore

The various forestry operations were superimposed on graphs showing water quality results at the nearest downstream station and for many of these graphs it was seen that there were little or no correlations with forestry operations and increased levels of nutrients in samples. The exception to this

B a l l in a g e e B r id g e B O 8 2 0 0

0

0 .0 0 5

0 .0 1

0 .0 1 5

0 .0 2

0 .0 2 5

0 .0 3

0 .0 3 5

0 .0 4

0 5 -J a n - 0 0 2 3 - F e b -0 0 0 6 - A p r - 0 0 3 0 - M a y - 0 0 0 9 - M a y - 0 0 1 8 -J u l-0 0 0 1 -A u g - 0 0 0 5 -S e p - 0 0 1 9 /1 0 /0 0 2 3 /1 1 /0 0

T im e

0

0 .0 5

0 .1

0 .1 5

0 .2

0 .2 5

0 .3

0 .3 5

0 .4

0 .4 5

0 .5

O rh to - P

T o ta l P

Figure 8: MRP and TP at Ballinagee Bridge and Harvest Start Dates

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:43

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 12 Rev F01

was site BO8200 at Ballinagee Bridge where two clearfell operations occurred upstream as shown onFigure 8. The first clearfell operation involved 13 hectares alongside the river and operations startedat the beginning of June. Little or no effect on the river quality occurred from this operation but a lateroperation on two sites involving a total of 16 hectares did have an impact on the river and although this impact looks significant on the graph it was still only over the EPA median threshold of 0.03mgP/l. The median MRP for this site over the whole duration of the project was 0.0061mgP/l, with a maximumvalue recorded of 0.036mgP/l on the 2nd of November (just at the end of the clearfell operations). Thesite of this final clearfell was extremely steep and would have been at the operating limit ofconventional harvesting equipment.

The poor correlation between the operations and various water parameters leads to two possibleconclusions:

1) There was little or no impact on the water quality from the various operations.

2) The grab-sampling regime was missing events.

It would seem from autosampler results and targeted monitoring that both probabilities have merit.

Total phosphorus, water level, and start dates for harvesting operations are displayed in Figure 9. This graph shows that water level rather than harvesting had a greater effect on nutrient concentration inthe water. At the end of July a value of 0.126 (mgP/l) TP was recorded by the autosampler after arelatively small rainfall event. The reason for this seemingly exaggerated spike may have been due tothe lack of rainfall for a number of weeks prior to this event, followed by a “wash off” of soil particlesand thus attached nutrients. The entire grab sampling data was analysed for that period and noelevated nutrient concentrations were seen. It must be concluded from this that the grab samplingmissed the event, and the question over the viability of grab sampling in hydrometrically similar areasas the Kings may be asked. Considerable differences were also recorded between grab sample dataand autosampler data at the site KO170. The median total phosphorus from the AS of 0.026mgP/lwhile the grab sampling recorded a median total phosphorus of 0.015mgP/l, the AS total organicnitrogen (TON) results were 0.057mgN/l, while grab sampling TON was 0.114mgN/l.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:43

Thr

ee R

iver

s P

roje

ct

F

inal

Rep

ort

MC

OS

/192

/001

/002

/Rp3

6 13

Rev

F01

Lv

l&T

P Y

ea

r00

Kin

gs

(K

O1

70

)

0.00

0

0.50

0

1.00

0

1.50

0

2.00

0

2.50

0

3.00

0

Tim

e

0.00

0

0.02

0

0.04

0

0.06

0

0.08

0

0.10

0

0.12

0

0.14

0Le

vel (

m)

Tot

al P

AS

_MR

P (

indi

cativ

e)

Sta

rt o

fC

lear

fell

Fig

ure

9:

Au

tos

amp

ler

da

ta f

or

the

year

200

0

For in

spec

tion p

urpo

ses o

nly.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:43

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 14 Rev F01

Table 5 shows the operations that occurred during the period of the project or just before sampling for water quality started. It can be seen from this table that the 0.03 mgP/l median MRP threshold wasnever exceeded. Even the maximum MRP results never went over the 0.03mgP/l threshold except atone site (GO3100).

Site AO1200 on the Annalecka had the highest median MRP of 0.016mgP/l. This may have beeninfluenced by a thinning operation in 1999, but the two “control” sites above forestry operations(AO170 and AO150) on this river also showed “elevated” levels of MRP at 0.012 and 0.013mgP/l. The site with the highest maximum MRP recorded was GO3100 with 0.043mgP/l. This site had no forestryoperations impacting upon it, but was situated downstream of a number of dwellings and it wouldseem that these dwellings might have had some influence on the quality of the water.

Table 5 – Forestry Operations ‘99 and ’00 and WQ sites with Median MRP and Maximum MRP

Sampling Site ID Stream System Forestry Activity Upstream Area(ha)

MedianMRP

(mgP/l)

MaximumMRP

(mgP/l)

RS9A01200 Annalecka Thinning ‘99 34 0.016 0.022

RS9A0170 Annalecka Control 0.012 0.016

RS9A0150 Annalecka Control 0.013 0.029

RS9K0130 Glashaboy Brook Thinning ‘00 11.4 0.004 0.008

RS9G0250 Glashaboy Brook None 0.004 0.009

RS9G03100 Kings Liffey None 0.009 0.043

RS9B08100 Kings Liffey Control 0.005 0.016

RS9G04400 Kings Liffey Clearfell ’99Drainage & re planting

9.99.9

0.010 0.021

RS9G05200 Kings Liffey Thinning ‘00 37 0.003 0.012

RS9G05100 Kings Liffey Control 0.003 0.009

RS9G06300 Kings Liffey Clearfell ‘00 7.4 0.009 0.026

RS9K04100 Kings Liffey None 0.002 0.005

RS9G06100 Kings Liffey Control 0.005 0.007

RS9K05300 Kings Liffey Thinning ‘00 39 0.007 0.013

RS9K0170 Kings Liffey Clearfelling’99 &’00Thinning ’99 & ’00Drainage &restocking

91.326980

0.006 0.015

RS9K0150 Kings Liffey Clearfell ‘99 44.5 0.005 0.011

RS9B08200 Kings Liffey Clearfell ‘00 30 0.006 0.036

RS9G06200 Kings Liffey Clearfell ‘00 7.4 0.008 0.027

1.5.3 Nutrient loadsNutrient loads were calculated for all significanttributaries in the Kings system to discern areas of theoverall river catchment that are contributing highloads, and therefore help to prioritise these areasappropriately when deciding which to target first forfurther investigation or pollution abatement strategies.

Nutrient load exports were calculated at theautosampler site and five other water quality andhydrometric sites in the Kings SA. The autosampler

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:43

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 15 Rev F01

loads were calculated from flow-proportional sampling together with high-resolution level/flowdatalogging. The loads at the grab-sample sites were estimated from instantaneous flows obtainedfrom level readings recorded weekly, and should be considered indicative only due to the possibleinaccuracies of using weekly data. Table 6 displays the results obtained and also shows two othersites, one on the Camac (urban catchment) and one on the Killcullen Stream (agricultural catchment),to compare the forestry catchment to areas with other land uses.

Table 6 – Loads produced (MRP kg/ha/yr) at 5 Kings SA sites and 2 other sites for comparison

Site ID Site Description Area of Sub-catchment (ha)

MRPkg/year

MRPkg/ha/yr

TPKg/ha/yr

TONKg/ha/yr

09026 Annalecka Forestry 645 208 0.32 0.58 2.66

09025 Ballinagee Forestry 1493 168 0.112 0.53 1.56

09059 Gleenreemore Brook Forestry 684 77 0.11 0.29 2.57

09058 Kings River 150m u/s Annalecka Forestry

948 27 0.062 0.26 1.6

09242 Glenogvore Brook Forestry 360

09057 Kings River d/s Knockalt Forestry (grab)

5610 924 0.15 0.4 3.06

09057 Kings River d/s Knockalt Forestry AUTOSAMPLER

5610 785 0.14 0.65 1.76

09040 Killcullen Stream Agriculture 3594 628 0.17 16.13

09035 Camac Urban 3728 3066 0.82 1.08 12.9

The TP load analysed from autosampler data is over 1.6 times greater than grab-sample load. TheMRP loads were similar using either grab sample or autosampler data, whereas TON loads were lower using autosampler data. These discrepancies may stress the inaccuracies of the grab-samplingmethod, and the need to use autosampler monitoring techniques for nutrient load investigations incatchments that are strongly event based. Nonetheless, the grab-sampling estimation methodologydoes allow indicative loads to be calculated within the scope of commonly available data.

The grab-sample load in the Kings SA expressed per unit area was approximately 18% and 37%(MRP and TP, respectively) of the load (kgMRP/ha/yr) generated from an urban catchment on theLiffey and very similar to an agricultural catchment (Killcullen Stream). Total Organic Nitrogen (TON)loads produced from the urban and agricultural catchments are up to five times greater than highestTON load produced in the Kings SA (Site 09057 – 3.06 kg TON/ha/yr). This may be due to the use of nitrogenous fertilisers in the agricultural catchment and the influence of foul water on the urbancatchment.

In the Baseline Report issued by the Three Rivers Project estimates were made of nutrient loads from different landuses using CORRINE (Ordnance Survey of Ireland and Ordnance of Northern Ireland,1994) to obtain the area of land use and export coefficients from different Irish research studies. Onestudy done in Ireland (McGuckin et al., 1998) showed forestry with an export coefficient of 0.33kg/ha/year total phosphorus These results were similar to USA studies (Vaithiyanathan and Corell,1992; Beaulac and Reckhow, 1982). The TP export coefficients obtained by the project usingautosampler results are significantly higher than the co-efficients from these studies and thereforesuggest that the original coefficients used in the Baseline Report may have been inaccurate orinappropriate for the Kings SA. Spatial and temporal variations may somewhat explain the differences between the nutrient coefficients obtained by the project and the McGuckin study but the ability of theautosampler situated on the Kings River to obtain a more accurate composite water sample and flowrecord is possibly a better explanation.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:43

Figure 10 Kings Pilot Study Catchment - Nutrient Loads

LegendTP (kg/ha/year)

0.5 to 0.60.3 to 0.50 to 0.3No Data

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:44

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 17 Rev F01

1.6 DISCUSSIONThe water quality of the Kings River is generally of a pristine nature with little or no signs of the nutrient levels found in much of the Liffey system at lower altitudes. A number of sources may have a possible impact on the river system such as forestry, farming and septic tanks from private dwellings but results from the water quality monitoring would seem to suggest that the impact of these sources arenegligible. Target monitoring of a clearfell operation in a wet time and on a particularly wet site showed MRP results that were not a great deal higher than the background winter results.

Farming practices in this part of the catchment are of a very small scale consisting mostly of low-intensity sheep farming, with a number of farms participating in REPS. The catchment was deliberately chosen so as to minimise any possible farming influences and it is concluded that the very limitedfarming in the area had a negligible effect on water quality. As stated in the previous section some ofthe sites with the highest recorded MRP results are control sites with no forestry and very low intensity agriculture influencing them.

It should be noted that Coillte did not use any rock phosphate or any other fertiliser type in the Kingscatchment during the lifetime of the project.

Grab sampling was found to be an inappropriate technique in investigating the nutrient export of thistype of river catchment. The rise to peak flow of the Kings River at the autosampler site isapproximately six hours and grab samples were taken every seven days. For example, the highestrecorded total phosphorus level at the autosampler site was 0.122mgP/l for 2 days in August, and thehighest grab sample recorded at this site for the whole 2000 was 0.015 mgP/l TP. The autosamplerresult was almost certainly due to the low levels of precipitation in the previous weeks allowing a build-up of nutrients to be washed off in the next rain event. The grab samples never recorded this eventand therefore missed an important nutrient flush. The accurate TP nutrient load calculated from theautosampler was 0.65 Kg/Ha/yr as compared to 0.40 Kg/Ha/yr from the grab-sampling estimation. It is concluded that any investigation into nutrient loads from similar types of areas, or any river systemprone to event-type nutrient flushes, should be carried-out using autosampler techniques.

Little difference in water quality was evident betweenthe forested and un-forested monitoring sites in terms of nutrient concentrations, and thus it could besurmised that the nutrient load from an entirelyunforested upland area may be similar to a uplandforested area. It was a significant shortcoming of thestudy that funding could not be secured to monitor acontrol site upstream of forestry using anautosampler to ally to the downstream site, therebyallowing a direct and accurate comparison.

It is concluded that the study in this area obtained aqualified estimation of the nutrient load from thisactive commercial forestry area, and will thus allowbetter management of the overall Liffey river system

through knowledge of the nutrient load from this upland-forested area.

No significant difference was found between water quality upstream and downstream of forestedareas, nor was there any significant adverse effect due to forestry operations. The constraints of themonitoring system did not allow confident comparison between nutrient loads produced by unforested upland versus forested upland areas. The automatic monitoring of a control site and of the parameterpH would have been highly desirable but could not be funded within the scope of this project given its nutrient focus, and representations made to the forestry sector for assistance were unsuccessful in this regard. Monitoring of pH may well have assisted in determining the effect, if any, of pH on theoccurrence of depressed Q-values at some of the study sites.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:44

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 18 Rev F01

A significant distinction is evident in the water quality characteristics of low-lying versus flashy riversystems, with a similar nutrient load capable of causing elevated nutrient concentrations in sluggishrivers, distinct from the very low concentrations observed in upland areas.

1.7 CONCLUSIONS• The water quality in the study area was of a pristine nature with very low concentrations of

nutrients. The downstream site in the study showed median phosphorus levels of 0.006 and 0.014 mg/l for MRP and TP, respectively.

• Biological Q-ratings showed generally unpolluted water quality, except at three sites where a‘slightly polluted’ rating was found. It is concluded that these depressed Q-ratings were due tofactors other than nutrient enrichment.

• No significant difference was found between water quality upstream and downstream of forestedareas, nor was any significant adverse effect due to forestry operations found.

• The constraints of the monitoring system did not allow confident comparison between nutrientloads produced by unforested upland versus forested upland areas.

• The phosphorus load was calculated as 0.14 and 0.65 Kg/Ha/yr for MRP and TP, respectively,using flow-proportional auto-sampling techniques. The MRP load was calculated using laboratoryanalysis outside the recommended timeframe of 24 hours and is presented as an indicative value only, but is nonetheless considered reliable.

• There was good adherence by Coillte to the guidelines in the “Code of Best Forest Practice -Ireland”.

• Soils on certain clearfell sites would have benefited from “Skyline” extraction of the timber due toslope or adverse weather conditions

• Coillte did not use any rock phosphate or any other phosphorus type fertiliser in their re-stockingprogramme in the Kings catchment.

• Intrusive forestry operations may not be the main cause of nutrient exports to river systems. Theslightly elevated nutrient levels in the Annalecka area would seem to suggest that something other than forestry operations was contributing to the nutrient concentrations found in the AnnaleckaStream. Reasons for this were not ascertained by the project.

• Nutrient export monitoring in “flashy” catchments should be done using autosamplers collecting on a flow related basis due to the probability that weekly grab sampling would miss significant rainfall events.

• Phosphorus export loads from this Study Area were comparable to loads produced from low tomedium intensity agricultural areas. This is because although nutrient concentrations are low, flow rates are high.

• Total Oxidised Nitrogen loads are a great deal less than those measured from agricultural or urban catchments.

1.8 RECOMMENDATIONS• Monitoring with autosamplers upstream and downstream of forestry operations to identify more

accurately the nutrient export coefficients from these operations.

• The use of pH probes on the autosamplers monitoring upstream and downstream of forestryblocks (active and inactive) may help identify/exclude forestry as a contributor to acidification ofupland waters.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:44

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 19 Rev F01

• The replacement of the automatic recorder at the Annalecka stream for a more modern DataLogger system.

1.9 REFERENCESMcGUCKIN S.O., JORDAN C. and SMITH R.V. (1998). Deriving Phosphorus Export Coefficients forCorine Land Cover Types. Third International Conference on Diffuse Pollution, ConferenceProceedings. (1998). Paper from Thursday 3rd September, p 25. SEPA, Edinburgh.

ORDNANCE SURVEY of IRELAND and NORTHEN IRELAND. (1994). CORINE Land Cover Project (Ireland). Ordnance Survey of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

VAITHIYANATHAN and CORELL D. (1992). Ecosystem Processes: The Rhode River Watershed:Phosphorus Distribution and Export in Forest and Agricultural Soils. J. Environ. Qual.: 21: 280-288.

Anon (1991a) Forestry and Fishery Guidelines. Forest Service. Dublin 2

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:44