Assessments of groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTEs) in Ireland: Progress and challenges Sarah Kimberley

Presentation outline Identification of GWDTE types and sites in Ireland. Assessments of groundwater (GW) related damage to Irish GWDTEs-1st WFD cycle outputs. Overview of recent GWDTE related studies in Ireland. Lessons learnt so far and priorities for the 2nd WFD cycle.

EU Water Framework Directive Identification of GWDTE types and sites EU Water Framework Directive EU Habitats Directive GWDTEs 21 habitat types on the EU WFD Register of Protected Areas (Annex I habitat types under the EU HD) are directly dependent on groundwater. 11 priority GWDTE types are those that are the most dependent on groundwater. Priority GWDTE sites are within the Natura 2000 network.

Eleven Irish GWDTE types GWDTE Type/Annex I Habitat Type EU Habitats Directive Alkaline fen *Calcareous fen with Cladium mariscus and Carex davalliana *Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion) *Active Raised bog Transition mire (quaking bogs) Blanket bog (* if active) (FLUSHES ONLY) Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix (FLUSHES ONLY) *Turloughs *Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior Machair (*in Ireland) Humid dune slacks

*Turloughs

*Turloughs

*Active Raised Bog

GWDTEs and the EU Water Framework Directive The chemical and quantitative status of groundwater bodies (GWBs) must be classified as either GOOD or POOR Classification involves the application of a series chemical and quantitative status tests to GWBs ‘at risk’ GWDTE related chemical and quantitative status tests (other tests relate to surface water, water balance etc.)

GWDTE related chemical and quantitative status tests Assessment of ecological damage within GWDTE GWDTE Assessment of GW nutrient and quantitative pressures on GWDTEs

GWDTEs-1st WFD cycle outputs 2004: 132 GWBs with GWDTEs were Risk Assessed 48 GWBs identified as ‘at risk’ owing to GWDTEs and required GWDTE test 23: Abstraction and/or arterial drainage 19: Diffuse P 5: Abstraction and diffuse P 1: Point sources Red: GWBs at risk owing to GWDTEs GWDTE chemical and quantitative status tests were only undertaken at a limited no. of the ‘at risk’ GWBs owing to a lack of ecohydrogeological data

GWDTE related studies in Ireland since 2004 Assessing the Conservation Status of turloughs: Trinity College Dublin , funded by NPWS Four PhD projects completed between 2009 and 2012 on different ecological aspects of turloughs. Other relevant PhD research: Trinity College Dublin Gill, L. 2010. Modelling a network of turloughs, PhD Thesis. Kuczyńska, A. 2008. Ecohydrology of Pollardstown fen, Co. Kildare, Ireland. PhD Thesis. Regan, S. 2013. The hydrogeology and restoration of a raised bog, PhD Thesis. Lyons, M. (ongoing) The flora and conservation status of petrifying springs in Ireland, PhD research.

GWDTE related studies in Ireland since 2004 Postdoctoral research Kilroy et al. 2008. A framework for the assessment of GWDTEs under the Water Framework Directive. A report prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland. Kimberley, S. and Coxon, C. 2013. Evaluating the influence of groundwater pressures on GWDTEs. A report prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland. Rolston, A. McCarthy, V. and Linnane, S. (ongoing) TELLUS Border Wetland Research, Dundalk IT. County wetland surveys funded by The Heritage Council and Local Authorities.

Aquatic invertebrates NPWS Turlough Conservation Project: TCD 22 turlough sites surveyed over a four year period Hydrochemistry Aquatic invertebrates Soils/Landuse Hydrology Vegetation Procedure for assessing the conservation status of turloughs which is relevant to significant damage assessments. P is the key limiting nutrient in the floodwaters of the majority of turloughs. Regional drainage identified as a significant quantitative pressure.

EPA desk study on evaluating the influence of groundwater pressures on GWDTEs: TCD Overall Aim: Inform the development of chemical and quantitative GWDTE tests. Describe the key hydrogeological characteristics of the 11 Irish GWDTE types and potential ecological responses to chemical and quantitative GW pressures. Review the quantitative assessment framework for GWDTEs. Develop GW nutrient threshold values for selected GWDTE types.

GWDTE test and threshold values TVs are used in the assessment of nutrient inputs from groundwater bodies into GWDTEs. To date, no specific TVs have been determined for Irish GWDTEs.

UK TAG methodology for determining TVs Compare GW nitrate and phosphate concentrations among GWDTEs in good and poor ecological condition Identify protected GWDTEs with hydrogeologically linked GW monitoring points. Calculate 6 or 3 yearly mean GW N and P concs. for each site. Assign GWDTE sites to either good or poor ecological condition groups. Ideally TVs should lie above the 75th percentile for sites in good condition and below the 25th percentile for sites in poor condition.

Alkaline fen Key characteristic: Extensive areas of species-rich vegetation communities

Alkaline fen surveys 2012 2 sites per day Within-site management Basic surveys of 44 calcareous fens with hydrogeologically linked GW monitoring points 2 sites per day Within-site management Surrounding land-use intensity Aerial photography to identify stream/river inputs and small or adjacent lakes Assessments of nutrient impact using vegetation based nutrient indicators

Positive nutrient indicators Extensive areas of species-rich vegetation communities

Negative nutrient indicators Wet grassland

Negative nutrient indicators Extensive, dense reedbed

Negative nutrient indicators Extensive, dense scrub

Alkaline fen surveys Ecological Condition Criteria No. of sites Good Sites with only positive indicators 11 Poor Sites with negative indicators 20 Unassigned Access difficulties, obvious quantitative pressures, sites that were not fens 13

Outputs of alkaline fen work so far TV development work focussed on N (nitrate mg L-1) owing to insufficient P data. Ideally TV should lie between the 75th percentile of good ecological grouping and 25th percentile of poor ecological grouping (UK TAG methodology). Ecological Condition Median 25th Percentile 75th Percentile Good (n=11) 4.2 3.9 5.9 Poor (n=20) 22.3 9.1 26.8

Lessons learnt and future priorities A number of site specific studies on GWDTEs have been undertaken since the last GWB classification process in 2004. These studies primarily focussed on developing ecohydrogeological understanding of GWDTEs. Focussed assessments of the ecology and hydrogeology of GWDTEs helps to prioritise GWDTE sites for further assessment under the WFD. Resources are wasted if hydrogeologists and ecologists work in isolation or if the EU HD and WFD are considered in isolation. Priority for 2nd WFD cycle: Combined ecological and hydrogeological assessments should focus on the aspects of ecological quality of the GWDTE that depend on the inter-linkage with groundwater (e.g. species-rich vegetation communities in alkaline fens).

Acknowledgements EPA: Matthew Craig, Donal Daly NPWS: Aine O`Connor, Jim Ryan, Caitriona Douglas, John Cross, Brian Nelson Geological Survey Ireland Trinity College Dublin: Catherine Coxon, Bruce Misstear, Paul Johnston, Laurence Gill, Owen Naughton, Shane Regan, Steve Waldren, Nova Sharkey, Gwen Porst, Helder Pereira, Norman Allott, Melinda Lyons SEPA: Hans Schutten UK TAG Wetlands Task Team Julian Reynolds, Congella McGuire Landowners for granting access to sites