1. Kings Water Management Unit Action Plan NameKings Water Management Unit Area381 km 2 River Basin DistrictSouth Eastern RBD Main CountiesKilkenny/Tipperary Protected AreasRiver Barrow and River Nore SAC

2. STATUS/IMPACTS Overall status27 RWB - 8 good, 12 moderate, 6 poor, 1 bad. 0 lakes. Status elements Q-score dictates status in 11 WBs, PhysChem is driving element for 3 moderate WBs. Phys Chemical is less than good in 5 WBs. The remaining 13 WBs are extrapolated including 5 of the good status sites. Chemical Status passes where monitored (2 water bodies, Barrow and Kilmaganny) Possible Impacts - EPA Water Quality 2004 CAHERLESK STREAM – (SE_15_1137, Status 2009- Poor) – Continuing moderately polluted. (Q3) COALBROOK STREAM – (SE_15_669, Status 2009 – Good) – Continuing satisfactory. (Q4) DESART STREAM – (SE_15_686, Status 2009 – Poor) – Continuing unsatisfactory, due to moderate pollution, from suspected agriculture sources. (Q3) ENNISNAG STREAM – (SE_15_1762, Status 2009 – Moderate) – Continuing unsatisfactory despite a slight increase in biological quality since previous survey. (Q3-4) GARRANACOOL STREAM – (SE_15_1736, Status 2009 – Moderate) – Again unsatisfactory, due to slight pollution, but with some improvement in biological quality since previous survey when seriously polluted. (Q3-4) GLORY – (SE_15_364, Status – Poor and SE_15_1870, Status 2009, Moderate) –Mostly unsatisfactory but with slight improvement recorded at all locations since previous survey. Satisfactory at final location which is immediately upstream of Kings River confluence. (Q2-3 and 3-4) KINGS (SE_15_282, Status 2009 - Good and SE_15_1819, Status 2009 - Moderate) Eutrophic or slightly polluted over much of its course (0500, 0800, 0900), improved to good quality downstream of Callan (0600) and continuing likewise at the uppermost location (0200). (Q score 4 and 3-4) MUNSTER – (SE_15_1734, Status – Moderate) – Mostly satisfactory, following improvement at first location but continuing slightly polluted at final sample station. (Q3-4) TULLAROAN STREAM – ( SE_15_660, Status 2009 – Moderate) – Following improvement, since 2005, both location assessed had good quality recorded in 2007. (Q4) PRESSURES/RISKS Nutrient sourcesMost TP is diffuse (96%) mainly from agriculture (87%) and unsewered properties (7%). Point pressures8 WWTP - Callan, Dunamaggan, Kells, Stonyford, Ballingarry, Commons, Kilmaganny, Coalbrook. Location of Tullaroan WWTP also shown on map – to be built 2010. 1 Section 4 – Private Company 1 IPPC licence – Private Company 4 WTPs - Coalbrook WTP, Commons WTP, Callan WTP and Kilmaganny WTP. Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) and Industrial Discharges Callan Sewerage Scheme WWTP - at risk Kells WWTP - at risk Stonyford WWTP – at risk Ballingarry WWTP - at risk Commons WWTP – at risk Coalbrook, Kilmaganny and Commons WWTP also at risk Kings Water Management Unit Action Plan PRESSURES/RISKS Quarries, Mines & Landfills There are 6 quarries within the WMU There are no landfills within the WMU. There is one mine present within the WMU: Slieve Ardagh.No water bodies at risk. AgricultureThere are 27 waterbodies within the WMU at risk from Agriculture: SE_15_1762, SE_15_1137, SE_15_143, SE_15_1991, SE_15_1819, SE_15_658, SE_15_222, SE_15_239, SE_15_629, SE_15_699, SE_15_301, SE_15_660, SE_15_1871, SE_15_1734, SE_15_1561, SE_15_1567, SE_15_1569, SE_15_1546, SE_15_1986, SE_15_686, SE_15_501, SE_15_1736, SE_15_282, SE_15_364, SE_15_1868, SE_15_976 and SE_15_1870 On-site systems There are 3479 septic tanks in this WMU, none of them are posing a risk to water quality due to their density, location and unsuitable hydrogeological conditions. ForestryThere are no waterbodies within the WMU at risk from Forestry. Dangerous substances There are no waterbodies at risk from dangerous substances within the WMU. Morphology There are 3 waterbodies at risk due to channelisation within the WMU: SE_15_501 (Kilbride Drainage District, pre 1945 drainage), SE_15_364 and SE_15_1870 (Kilmaganny Drainage, pre 1945 drainage). Barriers to Migration have also been risk assessed by SRFB and CFB using field based assessment and GIS. Kings river: O’Grady & Sullivan (1994) identified three weirs on the lower reaches of the King’s river which may inhibit the upstream migration of Atlantic salmon. These include Bradleys weir, Hutchinson’s weir and Mullins weir. Two year classes of juvenile salmon were captured at a site surveyed in 1990 and another site in 2008, both located upstream of all three barriers. Therefore Bradleys weir has now been classified as a moderate risk barrier. Hutchinson’s and Mullins have both been classified as low risk. The only location on the Kings River sub- catchment where a barrier (bridge apron) was deemed high risk post GIS analysis was on the Munster tributary. This was at one of the two bridges at Ballyclovan as no juvenile salmon were captured upstream when surveyed in 1992. Two barriers which were assessed as high risk barriers during field analysis have been reclassified as moderate risk post GIS analysis. Three other barriers on the Kings River have been classified as moderate risk following GIS analysis as two year classes were captured upstream in 2008. These include a weir at Drimeen on the main channel and a bridge located just upstream of Island bridge also located on the main channel. The 1992 CFB electro-fishing survey revealed low densities of juvenile salmon at a number of sites on the Kings River. Sullivan (2007) suggests that only a small percentage of adult salmon manage to ascend the lowest weir, Bradleys weir. It is evident from the electro-fishing results that although some adult salmon are migrating upstream every year, the weirs on the lower reaches of the Kings River; Bradleys weir, Hutchinson’s weir and Mullins weir are causing some impediment to salmon upstream migration. Arigna River: The SRFB field assessment classified a bridge apron at Clashacrow as a high risk barrier. In 2008 two year classes of juvenile salmon were captured. Under the GIS risk analysis the bridge has now been reclassified as moderate risk. AbstractionsThere are no waterbodies at risk from abstraction within the WMU. OtherThere are no HMWB or AWB within the WMU.

3. River Status Kings Water Management Unit Action Plan SELECTED ACTION PROGRAMME NB All relevant basic measures, general supplementary measures and SEA mitigation measures apply Point SourcesSee Action Table for WWTP at risk to the right. INDUSTRY- Examine the terms of discharge authorisations to determine whether they require review for the purpose of compliance with water body objectives including protected area objectives and environmental quality standards. Diffuse Sources AGRICULTURE – Good Agricultural Practice Regulations and Enforcement. Other MORPHOLOGY - 3 waterbodies (SE_15_501, SE_15_364 and SE_15_1870) will require Channelisation Investigation to determine impact. The 1 high risk and 4 moderate risk barriers within SE_15_1986; SE_1819 and SE 15-222 require further investigation to determine the appropriate type of remediation and its feasibility. OBJECTIVES Restore/Protect 201512 water bodies Alternative ObjectivesExtended Deadlines – 15 water bodies with 2021 deadline New Modifications or Development – none requiring alternative objectives at present. HMWB/AWB - none FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Future Pressures and Developments Throughout the river basin management cycle future pressures and developments will need to be managed to ensure compliance with the objectives of the Water Framework Directive and the Programme of Measures will need to be developed to ensure issues associated with these new pressures are addressed. High Good Moderate Poor Bad Yet to be determined

4. River Data Kings Water Management Unit Action Plan This table outlines water body information including status and a breakdown of its elements, protected areas, objectives and timescales.