Sub-basin Management Plans for the Freshwater Pearl Mussel Dr E. Sides, J Ryan, Dr A O’Connor, Dr Colin Byrne Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Ireland

Links Between WFD and HD WFD Directive ( Art 4, 6 & Annex IV) provide a direct link between Directives Irish legislation* requires: – that a water body can only achieve Moderate WFD status if FCS of a protected habitat or species is not met due to water quality / quantity –sub-basin plans for the Freshwater Pearl Mussel *Statutory Instrument 272 of 2009 Statutory Instrument 296 of 2009

Freshwater Pearl Mussel

The Freshwater Pearl Mussel Very long lived – years Have a complex life cycle: –Juveniles spend about 9 months on the gills of Salmonid fish before dropping off into the sediment –Juveniles live buried in the sediment for 5+ years before emerging to join the adult population Juveniles require clean sand / gravel In Unfavourable / Bad Conservation Status

Freshwater pearl mussel SAC catchments

Ownagappul catchment

Aerial photographs of two SAC catchments Bundorragha Derreen

Owenriff

Kerry Blackwater

Munster Blackwater

Synergies To reach favourable conservation status –many HD water dependant habitats and species require a minimum of water at Good Status under WFD e.g. Naturally eutrophic lakes –But some require greater than Good Status e.g. the Freshwater Pearl Mussel Oligotrophic lakes

Synergies RBD Plans ensure that general environmental water conditions are maintained / improved HD Sub basin plans refine / focus / extend RBD plans to achieve HD specific requirements for Habitats / Species Identification and Integration of HD requirements helped to focus prioritisation of RBD POMs e.g. –19 waste water treatment plant (WWTP) upgrades

Synergies RBD Plans require all stakeholders involvement to; –Develop the plans –Implement the plans For SACs no mechanism existed to involve stakeholders at a catchment level The RBD structure facilitated stakeholder input into the FPM sub basin plans

Synergies Monitoring the FPM conservation status for the sub- basin plan has: – encouraged use / adaptation of standard WFD monitoring tools for HD purposes –led to close co-operation in the co-ordination and rationalisation of monitoring for each Directive

The Problems The lack of policy integration HD requirements into sectoral activities –e.g. in agriculture, forestry, planning Convincing sectors to look at activities at a catchment level Stakeholder concern about potential future restrictive measures –e.g. forestry and agriculture The availability of resources and ensuring that they are used most effectively

The two most important FAQs 5.2 How can River Basin Management Plans (WFD) and conservation measures / management plans of Birds /Habitats Directives be linked? 3.3 What is the relationship of good ecological status of WFD and favourable conservation status of BHD?

Further policy and guidance needs Policy –Improved integration across Government Departments/Sections of WFD /HD requirements into e.g. agriculture/forestry and planning –for controlling activities outside planning laws e.g. small scale land clearance, farm drains etc Guidance required. e.g. –best practice for the reduction of impacts e.g. agriculture, water discharges and abstractions (This should also be viewed as a synergy) Stakeholder awareness

Conclusions Protection of the freshwater pearl mussel requires a catchment perspective which is only possible through the WFD The identification of catchment wide measures required for FPM has integrated the HD into main stream land use planning The sub basin plans have highlighted the practical difficulties of saving small populations in catchments with high intensity land use and –this helps to optimise the use of resources to achieve the objectives of the HD

Acknowledgements –My co authors –Colleagues in other sections of my Department –National Conservation Working Group –RPS consultants and associates Thank You