December 18 2015

1

BirdWatch Ireland response to EPA public consultation call on Significant Water Management Issues Document

Contact Info and Address for correspondence Oonagh Duggan, Policy Officer, BirdWatch Ireland, Unit 20, Block D, Bullford Business

Campus, Kilcoole, Co. Wicklow Phone: 01-281-9878 Fax: 01-281-9763 email: oduggan@birdwatchireland.ie

December 18 2015

2

1.0 Introduction BirdWatch Ireland welcomes the opportunity to participate in the public consultation exercise on the Significant Water Management Issues (SWMI) report. This is a very important document that will set the foundation for the River Basin Management Planning. It is very important that this document comprehensively details the different SWMIs so that Ireland can meets its obligations under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) but also, so that the public can be assured of a rigorous approach to explaining and defining the issues relating to water and setting the future River Basin Management Plans on a path to ensure clean water for people as well as the birds and biodiversity depending on it. BirdWatch Ireland is a member of SWAN -The Sustainable Water Network. This is an umbrella network of 26 of Ireland’s leading environmental NGOs, national and regional, working together to protect and enhance Ireland’s aquatic resources through coordinated participation in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and other water-related policy and legislation. BirdWatch Ireland fully supports the submission made by SWAN to this public consultation.

In this submission BirdWatch Ireland focuses on particular issues are especially important for birds and biodiversity will be focused on. In addition, we go into detail on the interrelationship between the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive, and the Water Framework Directive. However, it is important to note that most sectors that rely on, use and discharge to water directly or indirectly have the potential to impact negatively on birds, their habitats and biodiversity, therefore correct transposition of the laws, and their full and complete enforcement, and transparency is required to minimise impacts. In addition, action is required to restore water bodies to good or high status.

2.0 The Goal of the WFD The WFD is the one of the most important pieces of environmental legislation in the EU providing an integrated approach to the protection, improvement and sustainable use of Europe’s rivers, lakes and ground water (McNally 2009). The main environmental objectives are to achieve and maintain good status for all surface waters and ground waters by the target date of 2015, and to prevent deterioration and ensure the conservation of high water quality where it still exists. This is to be accomplished by implementing the measures necessary to:

prevent deterioration of the status of waters,

protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface waters and ground waters.

promote sustainable water use (through effective pricing of water services),

progressively reduce discharges of priority substances and cease or phase discharges of priority hazardous substances for surface waters,

ensure progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater,

mitigate the effects of floods and droughts,

ensure sufficient supply of water,

protect the marine environment.

3.0 Issue 7: Biodiversity Management and Water While the SWMI consultation document states that “The National Biodiversity Plan 2011–2016 is the main tool by which Ireland seeks to meet its EU biodiversity commitments” we would contend that the Common Agriculture Policy, Forestry policy, Fisheries policies and other policies are tools for protection and sources of impacts. There must be greater integration of water and biodiversity concerns in these (and all) policies and their national implementation strategies including Food Harvest 2020, Food Wise 2025, and the National Forestry Programme 2014-2020 and Harvesting our

December 18 2015

3

Ocean Wealth. Therefore, any future recommendations or actions in the RBMPs should call for full integration of actions on water and water-dependent habitats and species into national policies. BirdWatch Ireland would like to direct the EPA to its Group Species Action Plans1 for birds which contain a signification amount of information and actions for birds. In particular specific focus should be on the following SAPs: Marine and Cliff Birds, Riparian birds, Lowland Farmland Birds, Shore and Lagoon Birds, Dune and Machair (a freshwater sourced habitat) Birds, Lake, Fen and Turlough Birds and Raised Bog Birds. The WFD also requires adherence to the objectives of the requirements of other directives including the Habitats Directive. However, water-dependent biodiversity outside of Natura 2000 sites is also very important so all efforts must be taken by the different sectors to ensure that there are no impacts to water quality throughout the country. Better implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives is critical to ensure that water-dependent habitats and species are protected. There are synergies and overlap between the Birds and Habitats Directives and the WFD and these are outlined below. 3.1 The WFD and Water-dependent Habitats and Species Efforts should be made to ensure that implementation of the WFD is in line with the requirements of the Habitats Directive as it relates to protected water-dependent habitats and species. Both the Birds and Habitats Directives and the WFD aim to ensure healthy aquatic ecosystems while at the same time ensuring a balance between water/nature protection and the sustainable use of nature's natural resources (EC 2011). Annex-listed habitats and species are vulnerable to both hydrological and water quality pressures, and pose particular challenges in the implementation of the WFD (Mayes & Codling 2009, p. 321). Because a water body, or a portion of water body, will be the source for water-dependent habitat or species in a Natura 2000 site, objectives within the Birds and Habitats Directives and the WFD must ensure that there is no deterioration in Favourable Conservation Status (FCS) (EC 2011). In fact, efforts in planning for our water infrastructure should aim to achieve FCS for water-dependent habitats and species. Protected areas can have stricter water quality status standards; they must, without exception, achieve standards relevant to their designation which may be stricter, in some aspects, than good or high status. The main linkages between the Habitats Directive and WFD:

The WFD does not change what Member States must achieve for the Habitats Directive, but it provides a joint framework for the implementation of measures needed by both WFD and the Birds and Habitats Directives in water-dependent Natura 2000 sites (EC 2011)

There is a need to identify the water related requirements to achieve FCS of habitats and species dependent on water (EC 2011 p. 9). Article 1 (a) of the WFD clearly mentions the protection and enhancement of the status of aquatic ecosystems and with regard to their water needs, also the protection of terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on them.

Requirement for identifying and including Natura 2000 sites with water-dependent habitats and species in a Register of Protected Sites which the Environmental Protection Agency in Ireland. Protected areas that have been designated only for national purposes can be

1 BirdWatch Ireland Group Species Action Plans

http://www.birdwatchireland.ie/OurWork/SpeciesHabitatConservationinIreland/ActionPlansforIrishBirds20091

1/tabid/946/Default.aspx

December 18 2015

4

included in the register in order to ensure that the water-relevant objectives of the WFD are contributing to the protection of species and habitats.

The measures serving the Habitats Directive and WFD objectives need to be included in the RBMPs required under Art. 13 of the WFD and should also be included in the management plans of the Natura 2000 sites (EC 2011 p. 9).

The European Commission produced a guidance document (EC 2011) to explain overlap, complementarity and how to implement the requirements of the two directives. Some of the key points arising from this and the Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government (2008) guidance, include the following:

The objectives in the Birds and Habitats Directives are listed for species and habitats whereas in the WFD they are specified for the water bodies. According to WFD Article 4.1.(c) the WFD objective of good status may need to be complemented by additional objectives in order to ensure that conservation objectives for protected areas are achieved. Art. 4.2. WFD says that "where more than one of the objectives … relates to a given body of water, the most stringent shall apply" (EC 2011 p. 10).

For the purpose of returning water dependent Natura 2000 sites to FCS it is widely acknowledged that environmental quality standards (e.g. physico-chemical or hydro-morphological conditions) should be established. These standards should be sufficiently stringent to support FCS. In this way measures can be focussed on achieving the environmental quality standards with the aim of achieving FCS (DEHLG 2008).

In Ireland where a water dependent Natura 2000 site has more stringent environmental quality standards prescribed separately in National legislation then any surface water body associated with it, shall be classified as being at less than good status if these more stringent objectives are not also met. To be classified as good status or better the water body must achieve both the relevant standards/objectives for the surface water body in question and the relevant protected area objectives and standards (DEHLG 2008).

The programme of measures must include any measures necessary to achieve compliance with standards and objectives for Natura 2000 sites listed in the register of protected areas as far as their ecological status is concerned. Measures needed under the Birds and Habitats Directives can be included either directly into the RBMPs or as a reference to the relevant Natura 2000 management plan or other conservation instruments containing Natura 2000 related conservation measures. In any case, the Programme of Measures must take into account the provisions of Art. 12 of the Habitats Directive on the strict protection of animal and plant species of Community Interest listed in Annex IV HD. It must be kept in mind that such measures may also apply outside a SCI (EC 2011 p.27).

The use of derogations/extensions needs to be coherent with the objectives and measures established under the Birds and Habitats Directives and the implementation of water-related measures should be well coordinated so that both objectives can be met. In any case, steps must be undertaken to ensure that the application of extensions "guarantees at least the same level of protection as the existing Community legislation" (Art. 4.9 WFD) which means Birds and Habitats Directive objectives still must be met (EC 2011, p.14).

Exemptions are allowed under strict conditions within the WFD to ensure sustainable use of water resources. Exemptions under the WFD must not allow derogation from requirements under the Birds and Habitats Directives (EC 2011, p. 22).

In relation to Highly Modified Water Bodies, designation of a water body as heavily modified, and thus aiming to achieve good ecological potential instead of status, does not change the conservation objectives under the Habitats Directive (EC 2011, p. 22).

In relation to Appropriate Assessment (Art. 6.3 and 6.4 of the Habitats Directive) of plans and projects within the vicinity of a Natura 2000 site, Art 4(7) a member state is not in

December 18 2015

5

breach of the WFD for failing to meet Habitats Directive objectives, if the plan/project is of overriding public interest and all attempts have been made to mitigate impacts.

Coordination of measures for water-dependent habitats and species under the Birds and Habitats Directives and water bodies in the WFD should be ensured in the RBMP.

While both the Birds and Habitats Directives and the WFD require surveillance and monitoring respectively, and include different parameters, wherever possible joint monitoring should be arranged (EC 2011, p. 26).

In terms of public participation, measures for water-dependent habitats and species should be discussed with relevant stakeholders (EC 2011, p. 29).

3.2 Status of and pressures on Internationally important habitats Please see below extracts from the latest Article 17 report published by the NPWS in 2013 and the status of water-related habitats and pressures on those habitats. Considering that only 8% of our habitats are at FCS, it is imperative that actions coming out of implementation of the WFD also ensure that water-dependent habitats and species ensure that FCS is achieved. Please refer to the Article 17 report2 for a full description of the status and pressures on habitats and species. Table 1. Pressures on coastal habitats

Table 2: Pressures on freshwater habitats

2 NPWS (2013). The Status of Protected EU Habitats and Species in Ireland. Overview Volume 1. Unpublished Report, National Parks &

Wildlife Services. http://www.npws.ie/article-17-reports-0/article-17-reports-2013

December 18 2015

6

3.3 Status of water-dependent birds Many of our breeding waders which depend on wetland habitats for breeding are on the brink of extinction in Ireland. Habitat loss is one of the main reasons for this decline. Table 3: Status of breeding waders in Ireland (Bird Atlas 2007-20113)

3.4 Recommendations 3.4.1. That the SWMI document and future RBMPs ensure full consideration of water-dependent habitats and species and steps taken to achieve FCS.

3National Biodiversity Data Centre: Bird Atlas 2007-2011.

December 18 2015

7

3.4.2. Conservation Management Plans need to be developed for all water-based Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas and link any proposed RBMP measures with these plans to ensure FCS. 3.4.3. That funding is made available to implement measures specific to Natura 2000 water-dependent sites, in order to protect essential ecosystem services.

4.0 Issue 6 Floods and Water and Issue 14: Climate Change There has been a significant amount of work done at EU level on the integration of flood management with Water Framework Directive implementation. Much of this focuses on the multiple benefits for water status, flood protection and biodiversity of natural flood retention measures. A prime example is the reclamation of floodplains which helps to re-establish their functions as buffer zones and water storage areas during flood and dry periods and as a purification medium by trapping pollution or water run-off from hill slopes. BirdWatch Ireland proposes the following actions which fulfil this function:

Protect and restore wetlands, especially in floodplains

Ensure the establishment of optimum river bank vegetation cover to increase resistance to water flow in river channels and floodplains

Promote soil conservation best practice in agriculture and forestry, which assist in decreasing erosion and run-off and increasing water retention

Remove or block obsolete drainage systems to further promote attenuation

Prohibit construction on flood plains or areas at risk of inundation

Improve the regulation of private road construction in rural areas (such as to access forestry, peat, and mobile phone masts, etc.), as these have the capacity to reduce natural attenuation and increase sediment run-off in high rainfall

Implement better slurry management practices to lower the risk of nutrient and bacterial contamination from run-off

Expand the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to manage storm water and minimise the risk of overflow from sewer systems. SuDS ponds can provide the added benefit of creating amenities for local communities e.g. Camac Valley in Dublin

In order to implement natural flood retention measures very close integrated working relations are required between the OPW, the EPA, DECLG and LAs in order that all flood management decisions are made in a collaborative way taking into account catchment-based solutions. Secondly, in order for this to succeed the dominance of the engineering-led approach in the OPW must be addressed with the recruitment of suitably qualified catchment managers to lead this new approach.

Birdwatch Ireland would like to refer you to the report commissioned by the OPW and prepared by BirdWatch Ireland in 2012 called the ‘Potential Impacts of Flood Risk Management Methods on Birds in Ireland’ (attached). This report provides detailed information on the requirements of birds in Ireland and highlighting species most at risk of flood waters. It provides a review of how birds might be affected positively and negatively by flood risk management measures. This information and the recommendations made should be taken on board in the context of the draft Adaptation Plan and when any measures are considered on the ground to plan for adaptation to climate change. In relation to managed realignment, BirdWatch Ireland would be supportive of actions to reduce the impact of coastal squeeze on habitats and birds. We recommend that a demonstration project be undertaken that integrates practical management (i.e. managed realignment) paralleled with elements focussed on active monitoring (and possibly managing to some extent) the change in habitats, species distributions etc over time. It would be important to also measure the effectiveness of this application in managing flood risk from an economics perspective. We note that many

December 18 2015

8

countries in Europe are already undertaking similar projects. We have already initiated preliminary screening work on such a project with the support of the OPW and believe that this type of project is essential in the mix of measures to adapt to the impacts of climate change on our coasts and to minimise any loss of species and habitats. The focus of any work should be on Natura 2000 sites which are in danger of losing their conservation interests e.g. low-lying estuaries. We would also like to flag with you that BirdWatch Ireland is part of a team working on a Results –Based Agri Environment Pilot Scheme managed by the European Forum for Nature Conservation and Pastoralism and funded by a consortium of public bodies. One of the proposed trials in the scheme is to determine the efficacy of payments to farmers for providing the ecosystem service of flood storage capacity on their land. This project is at a very early stage but is worth monitoring to determine if it would fit in within the mix of flood climate change adaptation measures.

5.0 Issue 13 High Status Waters The goal of the WFD is to return sites to good ecological condition so not only must high status waters be protected and activities within the catchments of these sites must ensure that they do not impact on these waters, but previously high status waters must be restored.

6.0 Agriculture Almost half of our rivers and lakes (47% and 57%, respectively) are failing to meet the WFD target of good ecological status and agriculture is the primary pressure, accounting for an estimated 53% of river pollution and is the main contributor of nutrients: 88% of nitrogen and 49% of phosphorus4. BirdWatch Ireland is very concerned with the proposed expansion of the agriculture sector as presented in Food Harvest 2020 and Food Wise 2025 and the potential impacts on water quality and on birds and biodiversity. As is evidenced from the above figures, agriculture is currently making a significant contribution to waterbodies failing WFD targets and the Agriculture Catchments Project has thus far failed to present empirical evidence otherwise. Nor has it provided evidence to to support the argument that the proposed agricultural expansion under ‘Food Harvest 2020’ and now ‘Food Wise 2025’ can be reconciled with the need to reduce agricultural impact on water and meet WFD targets. 6.1 Nutrients Some of the findings in the interim report the of the Agriculture Catchments project (ACP) - Research commissioned as a part of a commitment to the Commission to test the effectiveness of the Nitrates Directive5 in protecting water quality – support SWAN concerns regarding the weaknesses of the current regulatory measures under current conditions, not to mention with the additional 300,000 cows envisaged under Food Harvest 2020:

Annual average P concentrations in three of the six catchment streams regularly exceeded the Irish Environmental Quality Standard (EQS);

50-100% of sites were found to be at risk of not meeting WFD ecological standards for macroinvertebrates;

Nitrate concentrations were over the EPA standard needed to support ‘Good status’6. The peer-reviewed papers emanating from the project further highlight the inadequacies in the current regulations in protecting water resources. In particular:

Jordan et al. (2012)7 found that “Soil P index alone is an unreliable indicator of linking P in stream water at the catchment scale…”; identifies the lack of a definition of transport risk as

4 Bradley C., Byrne C., Craig M., Free G., Gallagher T. , Kennedy B., Little R., Lucey J., Mannix A., McCreesh P., McDermott G., McGarrigle, M. Ní Longphuirt S., O’Boyle S., Plant C., Tierney D., Trodd W., Webster P., Wilkes R. and Wynne C. (2012) Water Quality in Ireland 2010-2012. Environmental Protection Agency. 5 Transposed in Ireland as the Good Agricultural Practise For Protection Of Waters) Regulations 2014 6 It is not clear from the wording in the report whether this is for all 6 catchments

December 18 2015

9

an important omission in the regulatory framework and recommends the incorporation of a ‘transport metric’ into nutrient loss risk assessments, which is not currently required by the GAP regulations.

Wall et al. (2013)8, in an evaluation of the nutrient-related provisions of the Regulations at different scales in five catchments, revealed that field-scale information on nutrients is crucial for assessing risk of nutrient loss to water. This is currently not required by the regulations.

Buckley (2010)9 reports that on average, there is a tendency to over-apply chemical and organic fertilisers to land on specialist dairy and tillage farms

A nutrient management plan is required for all farmers in the new Agri-environmental scheme GLAS (Green, Low-Carbon, Agri-Environment Scheme) but these do not include any nutrient input limitations beyond current regulations (the GAPP regs). Farms with high status water bodies (HSW) qualify for priority access to the scheme, and watercourse fencing is mandatory for dairy and beef farms with HSWs, which is positive but there do not appear to be any nutrient input restrictions beyond current regulations (GAPP regs) and low emission slurry spreading is optional. The scheme does have water protection measures e.g. Protection of Watercourse from Bovines but the exact water quality and water status targets are unclear in relation to nutrient and other pollution. It is therefore difficult to assess how the scheme was designed to meet these and whether it is ‘fit-for-purpose’.

6.2 Sedimentation Many agricultural activities drive sediment loss from agricultural soils to waters. Cultivation, especially arable crops, land drainage and overgrazing, particularly in upland areas, result in the exposure of bare soil which is vulnerable to erosion and sediment losses via overland flow. Overgrazing on upland commonage areas can also cause soil erosion and sediment losses. Land drainage also increases hydrological connectivity within the landscape which can facilitate the rapid transfer of sediments to water bodies. Livestock access to stream and river banks can cause bank erosion and livestock poaching on poorly drained soils generates muddy waters which can reach waters via overland flow10. Sediment losses to waters and the risk of loss is exacerbated by inadequate maintenance of buffer strips and riparian margins. Compaction by heavy machinery reduces soil porosity and permeability and increases the likelihood of overland flow. Farmyard run off can also become a significant sediment point source11. Water pollution from sediments has both a chemical and a physical aspect. Sediments are a natural component of river and lake systems however sediments lost from agricultural soils can carry

7 Jordan P., Melland A.R., Mellander P.E., Shortle G. and Wall D. (2012) The seasonality of phosphorus transfers from land to water: Implications for trophic impacts and policy evaluation’. Science of the Total Environment. 434: 101-109 8 Wall D.P., Jordan P., Melland A.R., Mellander P.E., Mechan S. and Shortle G. (2013) Forecasting the decline of excess soil phosphorus in

agricultural catchments. Soil Use and Management. 29: 147-154

9 Buckley C. (2010) Nutrient management efficiency in the Republic of Ireland-saving the environment and reducing costs. IWA 14TH International Conference Diffuse Pollution and Eutrophication, DiPCon 2010. Quebec 10 Archbold, M., Bruen M., Deakin J., Doody D.G., Flynn R., Kelly-Quinn M. and Misstear B. (2010) Contaminant movement and attenuation along pathways from the land surface to aquatic receptors-a review. STRIVE Report Series No. 56, Environmental Protection Agency. 11 Harrod T. R. & Theurer, F. D. (2002) Sediment. In: Haygarth P. M. & Jarvis S. C. (Eds.) Agriculture, hydrology and water. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

December 18 2015

10

harmful substances such as nutrients, pesticides and metals. Sediments suspended in water can increase turbidity which reduces light penetration which can negatively affect the composition of benthic communities (an important ecological indicator), and visibility for fish. The physical settling of sediments can cover fish spawning grounds and Freshwater Pearl Mussel (FWPM) gravel beds, smothering incubating fish eggs and mussel larvae. 6.3 Pathogens Contamination of rural groundwater supplies is an increasing problem. Archbold et al. (2010)12 provide a comprehensive review of the sources (point and diffuse) and mobility of water-borne pathogens. Pig, poultry and cattle housing units13 and unlined animal-waste storage units are primary point sources of pathogens14. Grazed grasslands are the main diffuse source of pathogens15 and the magnitude of the impact on water quality is a function of stocking density, length of grazing season and grazing practice16. Land application of organic agricultural wastes is also a major diffuse source of pathogen contamination8. Land spreading in wet conditions and in the vicinity of poorly constructed or improperly abandoned wells increases the risk of pathogen loss to waters17. Pathogens can also be directly deposited to waters by watering cattle. Livestock manure contains pathogens such as Escherichia coli 0157 and Cryptosporidium which are a serious public health concern if they enter drinking water sources or recreational areas.

6.4 Pesticides Pesticides can have a significant impact on birds and biodiversity when used incorrectly. According to recent research18, there are 877 different types of pesticides used in Ireland and the control of their use is a significant issue in terms of the water environment, especially the safety of drinking water. In total, about 2 million kilograms of active substances are used each year in Ireland, with the largest quantities used in the agricultural and forestry sectors19. Seed treatment chemicals, fungicides, herbicides and insecticides are used to treat seeds, prepare ground for planting and to treat crops. Herbicides alone are used in grassland management for the spot treatment of weeds20. Arable land also receives greater amounts of pesticide per hectare relative to grassland21. Pesticides reach surface waters via overland flow and leaching through soil to groundwater22. Surface waters can also be exposed to direct spray drift23. The main areas of pesticides usage are along the east coast of the country, with County Louth the greatest contributor of pesticides with an average pesticides application rate of 146.7 kg/km24. The

12 Archbold et al (2010) As above 13 Edwards A.C., Kay D., McDonald A.T., Francis C., Watkins J., Wilkinson J. R. and Wyer, M.D. (2008) Farmyards, an overlooked source for highly contaminated runoff. Journal of Environmental Management 87: 551-559. 14 Tymczyna L., Chmielowiec-Kovzeniowska A. and Saba, l. (2000) Effect of a pig farm on the physical and chemical properties of a river and groundwater. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 9: (2) 97-102. 15 Oliver D.M., Clegg C.D., Haygarth P.M. and Heathwaite A.L. (2005) Assessing the potential for pathogen transfer from grassland soils to surface waters. Advances in Agronomy 85: 125-180 16

Ferguson C., Croke B., Beatson P., Ashbolt N. and Deere, d. (2007) Development of a process based model to predict

pathogen budgets for the Sydney drinking water catchment. Journal of Water and Health 5: 187-208 17

Misstear B. and Hynds P. (2007) Research into the health risks associated with private well supplies in Ireland. Geological Survey of Ireland Groundwater Newsletter 46: 27-30 18 Zhao Y.Q., Singleton P., Meredith S., and Rennick G.W. (2013) Current status of pesticides application and their residue in the water environment in Ireland. International Journal of Environmental Studies 70: 59-72 19CDM (2008) Risk to Groundwater from Diffuse Mobile Organics. Dublin City Council Further Characterisation/Programme of measures. CDM, Dublin. 20 ibid 21 Archbold, M., Bruen M., Deakin J., Doody D.G., Flynn R., Kelly-Quinn M. and Misstear B. (2010) Contaminant movement and attenuation along pathways from the land surface to aquatic receptors-a review. STRIVE Report Series No. 56, Environmental Protection Agency. 22 Reichenberger S., Hollis J. M., Jarvis N. J., Lewis K. A., Izilivakis J., Mardhol V., Francois O., Cerdan O., Dubus I. O., Real B., Hojberg A. L. and Nolan B. T. (2008) Report on the Identification of Landscape Features and Contamination at Different Scales. Report DL25 of the FP6 EU funded FOOTPRINT Project. 23 CDM (2008) As above 24 Zhao et al. (2013) As above

December 18 2015

11

top six pesticides used in ROI are MCPA, Glyphosate, Chlorothalonil, Mecoprop-P, Chlormequat and Mancozeb. Pesticides become a potential pollutant in water environment following agricultural usage or accidental spills. The rates at which pesticides enter water courses vary according to soil properties, prevailing weather conditions, aspect and slope of the area of application and the chemical makeup of the individual pesticide. A number of cases of pesticide contamination have been monitored in drinking water samples across the country25. Pesticides and other chemical substances are also used in sheep dip to eliminate pests such as scab, ticks and lice. In the UK, case studies have shown that sheep dips can be a point source of groundwater pollution and similar problems are likely to occur in Ireland26. The active ingredient synthetic pyrethoid (Cypermethrin) in sheep dip is extremely toxic for aquatic environments27 and was withdrawn from sale in the UK in 2010. Sheep dip is the suspected cause of the loss of some previously high status rivers and there is an urgent for the complete ban on this substance in Ireland28. The continued use of this substance in Ireland is highly questionable, especially given that undocumented land-spreading is the current disposal method of synthetic pyrethoid based sheep dip29. Indeed this is the disposal method recommended in the handbook for farmers participating in the fourth Rural Environmental Protections Scheme (REPS 4). While the 2012 Sustainable Use Of Pesticides Regulations require that all farmers working with pesticides must train as ‘professional users’ and have registered by 26th November 2015, they do not restrict sale to registered users only. More research and monitoring is also needed on the ecological impact of pesticides on aquatic biota in order to develop the necessary catchment management tools for pesticides30 and it is important that the efficacy of agricultural pesticide controls are reviewed in light of water quality and WFD standards. In relation to protected areas, the use of a given pesticide in an SAC or SPA is accepted, following a risk assessment, if the person, can “show that there was no viable alternative and that appropriate risk management measures were put in place”. The terms “risk assessment” and “risk management measures” are not clarified in the Regulations. Assessing the risk of pesticide loss from soils to waters is notoriously difficult and further research to enable the development of catchment management tools for pesticides31. The absence of provisions for the regulation of sheep dip is a serious omission from the Irish regulatory framework and SWAN believes that S.I. No. 155 of 2012 should be amended immediately to include provisions for the regulation of sheep dip in Ireland, including an immediate prohibition on the use of synthetic pyrethroid, Cypermethrin, in sheep dip. 6.5 Physical Modifications Physical alteration of habitat structure and physical boundaries (banks and shores) can destroy aquatic habitats such as bird breeding habitats (e.g. Kingfisher, Dipper), fish spawning grounds and

25 ibid 26

CDM (2008) As above 27

Jahabakhshi A., Shaluei F. and Baghfalaki M. (2012) Acute toxicity of Cypermethrin on the Great Sturgeon (Huso huso

Juveniles). World Journal of Fish and Marine Sciences 4: 170-174. 28

McGarrigle M. (2010) Protecting High Status Water Bodies. Environmental Protection Agency National Water Event, June 9th-

10th 2010,Galway. 29

EPA (2008) National Hazardous Waste Management Plan 2008-2012. A Report by the Environmental Protection Agency,

Wexford. 30

Archbold, M., Bruen M., Deakin J., Doody D.G., Flynn R., Kelly-Quinn M. and Misstear B. (2010) Contaminant movement and

attenuation along pathways from the land surface to aquatic receptors-a review. STRIVE Report Series No. 56, Environmental

Protection Agency. 31

Ibid

December 18 2015

12

negate the buffering function of riparian margins. Riparian margins are sinks for nutrients lost from agricultural soils and they protect river banks from erosion32. The large weight and hoof pressures of cattle in particular can damage riparian soils and lead to river bank erosion and inputs of sediment to water bodies. Unlimited cattle access also increases the ‘embeddedness‘ of in-stream gravels.33 The effect of livestock access on the aquatic ecology of surface waters is dependent on factors such as bank steepness and length of the affected riparian area.34 The River Suir Surface Water Working Group, in cooperation with the EPA, promotes the many water quality, biodiversity and socio-economic benefits of limiting cattle access to streams and rivers.35 The authors highlight Irish research that demonstrates that fencing facilitates the recovery of riparian zones and promotes botanical and invertebrate diversity within otherwise intensively managed farmland.36 The socioeconomic benefits include reduced risk of animal injury and udder contamination and protection of drinking water supplies from pathogens. 6.5.1 Wetland drainage Wetland drainage is one of the main reasons for the decline in breeding waders in Ireland. The reclamation of land for agricultural purposes is an ongoing pressure. The EIA (Agriculture) Regulations and 2011 Planning & Development (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations have the potential to provide additional protection if they are implemented correctly. However, the system is fragmented and confusing for landowners, planning officials and other stakeholders and for this and other reasons is ultimately ineffectual.

The EIA (Agriculture) Regulations are administered by the Department of Agriculture and govern drainage works on lands used for agriculture, (excluding the drainage and reclamation of wetlands). The threshold for required screening is above 15 hectares. If the proposed area for agricultural drainage (not wetland drainage) is above 15 hectares an application for screening must be submitted to the Minister for Agriculture, who considers whether the proposed activity is likely to inter alia have significant effects on the environment or on a European site. Where s/he considers that the proposed activity is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, or on a Natura 2000 site, the activity may not proceed “without a consent given consequent to an application for consent accompanied by an environmental impact statement, or a Natura impact statement, as the case may be”37. The Planning & Development (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations control the drainage and reclamation of wetlands (including estuarine marshes or callows), which is the only element of the activities covered by the European Court of Justice judgment in Case C-66/06 remaining within the planning system. The threshold above which a landowner must conduct a mandatory environmental impact assessment (EIA) is 2 hectares and the threshold above which they must apply for planning permission (& screening for EIA) is 0.1 hectares. The separation of responsibilities between the DAFM and DECLG also leads to fragmentation in the system. Under the current system, wetlands are at risk from cumulative effects as there is no

32 Mitsch W.J. and Gosselink J.G. (2000) Wetlands (3rdEd.) John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey. 33 Davies-Colley and Parkyn (2001) Effects of livestock on streams and potential benefit of riparian management. Aukland Regional Council Technical Publication 351. 34 ibid 35 Kilfeather P. and Feehan J. (2009) Guidance for the farming community on protection of water resources and habitat quality from impacts due to livestock to waters. Environmental Protection Agency. 36 O`Grady (2006) Channels and Challenges: Enhancing Salmonid Rivers. Irish Freshwater Fisheries Ecology and Management Series. No. 4, Central Fisheries Board, Dublin. 37 Department of the Environment (2011) Guidance for Planning Authorities on Drainage and Reclamation of Wetlands consultation draft, September 2011

December 18 2015

13

centrally administered system in place for cross-reporting or integrated assessment of proposed drainage works on agricultural lands and within wetlands. In the absence of a clear strategy for cross-reporting, permission may be simultaneously granted for drainage both within a wetland and on adjacent agricultural land, the combined effects of which may seriously damage the site. BirdWatch Ireland believes that it is very important that the work carried out to determine the impacts on wetlands should be conducted by a qualified ecologist. The DAFM have developed a ‘Guide for Farmers’38 to support farmers in meeting the requirements of the EIA (Agriculture) Regulation. This guidance document suggests that “professional advice may be required” when making an assessment as to whether drainage or other works may have a significant effect on the environment. This statement should be strengthened to “professional advice should be sought” to encourage the fusion of the local knowledge of the farmer and the expertise of a wetland ecologist. This would improve confidence in the initial assessments of whether drainage works may have a significant effect on the environment and compensate somewhat for the lack of information on wetland connectivity or broader wetland issues in the EIA (Agriculture) Regulation guidance document. The DECLG in turn provide a guidance document ‘Guidance for Planning Authorities on Drainage and Reclamation of Wetlands’ for determining whether activities might have a significant effect on a wetland39. This document provides information on the environmental effects of drainage and reclamation of wetlands and this should also be incorporated into the EIA (Agriculture) Regulation guidance document. Assessing the potential effects of drainage on wetlands is extremely challenging, and even though the difficulties are well outlined in the Planning and Development Regulations guidance document, they overlook a conceptual model approach to describing the ecohydrogeology of different wetlands types and for assessing drainage risk to wetlands. This approach is recognised as a useful communication tool for identifying different wetland types and areas within wetlands that are most sensitive to drainage. In summary, the guidance documents for both sets of regulations do not provide enough information on the functions served by the different types of wetlands. There is also a heavy focus on NHA, SAC and SPA habitat types and more attention should be drawn to undesignated wetland types such as riparian margins and small ponds. Farmers are likely to be aware of NHA, SAC or SPA sites within the vicinity of their holding but they might not be as aware of the functions served by local undesignated wetlands. A combined guidance document for the EIA (Agriculture) Regulation and Planning and Development Regulations with a greater focus on wetland functions would potentially improve awareness of wetland protection issues among farmers. The role of the this combined regulatory system in protecting riparian wetlands, other Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs) from agricultural (and other) physical pressures, and in supporting the meeting of WFD objectives for associated waterbodies must be reviewed as part of the second cycle of river basin management planning. The use of small water courses as drains40 is also an issue. It is often seen as insignificant and the impacts on their use are not considered. 6.6.Upland burning

38

DAFM (2012) Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) Regulations. Guide for Farmers. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and

the Marine, Dublin.

39 DECLG (2011) Guidance for Planning Authorities on drainage and reclamation of wetlands-Consultation Draft. Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, Dublin. 40 This use of small watercourses as drains also applied to householders and industrial operations.

December 18 2015

14

Illegal and prescribed burning in the mountainous and hilly areas of the uplands has been increasing over the last 15 years. There is no register of the number of fires that occur each year or the amount and type of habitat burnt or the intensity of the burn. The EPA has stated that ‘the burning of biomass is a threat to (air) and water quality through the generation of pollutants including Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)”41. This issue needs to be addressed in the river basin planning process due to the potential impact of upland burning on water resources Other impacts on water and hydrology have been documented in a UK research report from the University of Leeds42 looking at the effects of moorland burning on the ecohydrology of river basins, which has shown that burning on peatlands has ‘clear effects on peat hydrology, peat chemistry and physical properties, river water chemistry and river biota.’ It also found:

Rivers draining burned catchments were characterised by lower calcium concentrations and lower pH relative to rivers draining unburned catchments. Rivers draining burned sites had higher concentrations of silica, manganese, iron and aluminium compared to unburned catchments.

Burning vegetation alters the natural peat hydrology in the upper layers of the peat affecting the balance of where water flow occurs.

Macroinvertebrate population diversity was reduced in burned sites where populations were dominated by groups that are commonly found in higher abundance in disturbed river systems, such as (Chironomidae and Nemouridae).

Particulate organic matter (predominantly peat) deposits were increased up to four-fold in the bed sediments of burned rivers compared to unburned rivers.

Whilst this research is from the UK, the findings are cause for some concern in Ireland given the widespread but periodic nature of upland burning practices some of which can go out of control during periods of warm weather causing large scale fires significantly impacting habitats and species. Research into the wider impacts, including on affected water bodies is required. In summary, agriculture presents the greatest breadth and depth of pressures on Ireland’s water environment, in terms of the magnitude and variety inputs and pressures. It is very important that a full and complete description of the issues is presented in the final SWMI and the next river basin management plan. These documents should comprehensively address all pressures from agriculture with specific measures for each pressure.

7.0 Urban Waste Water Discharges Urban Wastewater discharges are second only to agriculture as a significant pressure on the aquatic environment. Ireland is home on a permanent and seasonal basis to water bird species of international importance. Many of these sites are Special Protection Areas for birds and are located on our coasts and close to large urban centres. According to the EPA’s most recent report ‘Urban Waste Water Treatment in 2014’43 raw sewage is still being discharged from 45 municipal areas with several discharges being non-complaint with the UWWT directive. 15 large urban areas did not meet the UWWTD Directive requirement to either provide secondary treatment or infrastructure to reduce nutrients and did not meet nutrient quality standards, with Ireland’s largest waste water treatment plant at Ringsend in Dublin, which serves a population equivalent of over 1.7 million failing to achieve the UWWTD standards.

41 EPA submission to NPWS on the review of Section 40 of the Wildlife Act, January 8th, 2015, http://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/files/Environmental%20Protection%20Agency.pdf 42

Brown L. E, Holden J. and Palmer S. M. (2014) Effects of moorland burning on the ecohydrology of river basins. Key findings

from the EMBER project. University of Leeds. 43 Environmental Protection Agency (2015) Urban Waste Water Treatment in 2014. Wexford

December 18 2015

15

20% of the 174 large urban areas non-compliant with Directive’s effluent quality and sampling standards and because this includes large population areas, this comprises 53% of the national waste water load (in p.e.). Only 24% of the total waste water load (in p.e.) from the 33 large urban areas discharging to designated sensitive areas met all the applicable nutrient quality standards for phosphorus and nitrogen effluent quality in 2014. There is significant non-compliance with the statutory timelines specified in waste water discharge licences for completion of improvement works: Waste water discharge licences include a requirement to carry out infrastructural improvements within certain timeframes where they are necessary in order to improve waste water discharges and reduce environmental risks. Approximately 46% of the improvement works due between 2009 and 2014 were reported as complete at the end of 2014, with the remainder still outstanding. In the context of this current unsatisfactory situation and the existence of the open European Court of Justice case against Ireland regarding the UWWTD44, and the later infringement case 2013/2056, provision of secondary or equivalent treatment for these areas and wider compliance with the UWWTD should therefore be addressed as a matter of the utmost strategic priority and this should be reflected in the Irish Water Water Services Strategic Plan (WSSP). SWAN does not believe that the WSSP reflects this urgency and this is a matter of the utmost seriousness. The significance of this pressure is of even more concern in the context of Irish Water investment targets and priorities. Significant weaknesses in these have been identified by SWAN in its submission on Irish Water’s 25 years Water Services Strategic Plan, (WSSP) which was published in October. Firstly, the deadline for compliance with the UWWT Directive has been extended out to 2040 in the WSSP and the target is 90% of the population (pe) to be served by compliant UWWT plants by 2021. 10% pe still represents a large number of small-medium discharges non-compliant with the UWWT Directive over the next 15 years. In relation to the more exacting requirements of the WFD, UWWT discharge targets in Irish Water’s 25 years Water Services Strategic Plan, are not ambitious enough: Only 60% of WWTPs for >500pe are proposed to be compliant with Emission Limit Values (ELVs) to achieve WFD requirements by 2021, with full compliance not planned until 2040. Currently Irish Water estimate 33%* compliance based on based on 2013 Annual Environmental Reports (AER). The Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations of 2007 are an improvement on historical non regulation of LA discharges. BirdWatch Ireland shares SWAN’s concerns regarding the licensing system which is circumscribed by a legacy of poor infrastructure investment in waste water treatment, leading to the regulator being compromised since it has to issue licenses to certain untreated wastewater discharges regardless of the impact on the aquatic environment, on the basis that the discharge cannot go unlicensed but cannot be treated to the requisite standard for the time being, pending investment. The regulations also suffer from low levels of compliance. According to the most recent report ‘Urban Waste Water Treatment in 2014’45 of the 263 treatment plants at which the EPA conducted independent effluent monitoring at 263 more than a quarter (27%) failed to comply with effluent quality standards set in EPA licences.

44

Case C316/06: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber); 11 September 2008; (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations -

Environment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisance - Treatment of urban waste water) 45 Environmental Protection Agency (2015) Urban Waste Water Treatment in 2014. Wexford

December 18 2015

16

BirdWatch Ireland welcomes the statement in the draft SWMI that ‘Addressing locations where urban discharges are causing water quality problems will be a key focus of the next cycle of RBMPs.’ and it is hoped that this focus will include measures to address the cumulative effects of discharge consents along a watercourse/ within a catchment which are currently not addressed. 7.1 Sewage sludge Irish Water’s waste water treatment plants produced a collective total of 53,543 tonnes of sewage sludge (dry solids) during 2014, with 42,483 (79.3%) being spread on agricultural land. The issue of the disposal of sewage sludge, with associated concerns around land-spreading and resulting potential contamination with heavy metals and endocrine disruptors also needs to be addressed.

8.0 Abstractions Water abstraction represents a significant pressure on some of Ireland’s inland surface waters, groundwaters and GWDTEs. As explained in the South Eastern River Basin Management Plan (SE RBMP) (2009-2015), ‘too much abstraction reduces flow in springs and rivers and lowers water levels in lakes, wetlands and wells. That can make water supplies unsustainable and adversely affect aquatic plants and animals and wetland areas. In extreme cases river beds may dry up, lake shores can become exposed and, in coastal areas, salt water may seep into groundwater.’ The Water Framework Directive identifies abstraction as a ‘significant anthropogenic pressure’ and requires inter alia:

‘Estimation and identification of significant water abstraction for urban, industrial, agricultural and other uses, including seasonal variations and total annual demand…..’;

The identification of all waterbodies abstracted for human consumption46 (Art 7);

The establishment of ‘controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater, and impoundment of fresh surface water, including a register or registers of water abstractions and a requirement of prior authorisation for abstraction…’ (Art 11.3(e))47.

The 2009 ‘PoMs report’ (Programme of Measures) carried out by the Eastern RBD, ‘National POM/Standards Study Revised Risk Assessment Methodology for Surface Water Abstractions from Lakes’ identified 79 lakes nationally at high risk from abstraction pressures and stated that ‘basic measures will not be sufficient to address abstraction pressures in some lakes and site-specific (supplementary) measures will be needed.’ The accompanying 2008 report ‘Revised River Risk Assessment for Abstraction Pressures’ found 237 river water bodies to be ‘at risk’ or ‘probably at risk’ from abstraction (ref. Table 3.1). There can also be significant upstream impacts of abstractions, especially on the re-charge implications which may see feeder streams run dry. These may be vital habitats, spawning grounds, etc. Similar concerns exist for aquifers, where there is not awareness or research into recharge issues. Controls for abstractions are limited and inadequate. At present only abstractions exceeding 10m3/day require licensing. The SE RBD SWMI report, Water Matters - Have Your Say stated that ‘Abstraction legislation is dated and needs to be updated and extended to protect waters adequately, with a modernised system of registration and prior authorisation for significant abstractions.’ Similarly, the 2008 PoMs report ‘Revised River Risk Assessment for Abstraction Pressures’ states that ‘Ireland’s current institutional arrangements to support the evaluation of the effects of surface water abstractions need to be modernised. The primary governing legislation for water supplies (Water Supplies Act, 1942) does not consider environmental issues.’

46 Providing more than 10 m3/day as an average or serving more than 50 people, and those bodies of water intended for such use. 47 Member States ‘can exempt from these controls, abstractions or impoundments which have no significant impact on water status.’

December 18 2015

17

The implications of abstraction from the Shannon to supply the greater Dublin area is of particular concern, and merits specific mention in the draft SWMI, given the scale of the project and abstraction involved. The draft SWMI states that ‘The linkages between aquatic ecology and river flow / lake level are not well understood, and research has been initiated to establish criteria for ecological flows and lake levels in our surface waters.’ On the basis of this lack of scientific understanding, insufficient information is available on which to assess the potential ecological impacts of this project. BirdWatch Ireland believes that the issue of reducing abstractive pressure by reducing demand for water, as required by the Directive48 is also important and should be mentioned in the draft SWMI. e.g. supporting and promoting rainwater harvesting; grey water use and other water conservation measures in the home and in businesses; pricing incentives to reduce water consumption.

9.0 Forestry BirdWatch Ireland welcomes the additional section to the draft SWMI which recognises that forestry activity represents a potential source for sediment and for nutrients”. Coniferous plantations can significantly impact both the quantity and quality of water passing through forest stands. Good forest management can improve water quality and regulate the flow of water in the landscape. Poor forest management can damage or destroy valuable aquatic habitats and exacerbate local flooding. There are serious impacts on water quality from afforestation and forest management, particularly in upland areas and areas with thin or otherwise fragile / erodible soils. Impacts include nutrient enrichment, sedimentation and consequently loss of wildlife and ecosystems services. The planned expansion in forestry is particularly worrying in light of the recent increase in storm events and rainfall which would further increase the loading of nutrients and sediments to streams/rivers/lakes and further increase acidity. These two factors combined have the potential to significantly negatively impact water quality, high status and sensitive sites in particular, and forestry should be emphasised more than it is in the draft SWMI report as a highly locally significant water management issue. Future afforestation should be planted in the right places to avoid damage to birds and biodiversity49 (Graham et al 2015) as well as to water quality and quantity.

Most forestry in Ireland relies on heavy use of artificial fertilisers, which then run off the forested land in to waterways causing serious pollution (eutrophication). Nutrient loss to streams is particularly evident after clearfelling and storm events50

Some types of forestry, spruce plantations in particular, acidify water making conditions inhospitable for fish and aquatic invertebrates. The acidification of head water streams from forestry has been shown to have localised impact on the entire macroinvertebrate community51.

Other forest management practices such as planting techniques, road and track building, and clearfelling, cause soil erosion. This leads to heavy loads of silt entering waterways, thus damaging aquatic wildlife and habitats. Conversely, good forest management can minimise soil disturbance and help reduce sedimentation that is associated with other land uses.

48

Recital 23; Article 1; Article 9 49 Graham, C.T., Wilson, M.W., Gittings, T., Kelly, T.C., Irwin, S., Quinn, J.L., O’Halloran, J., (2015), Implications of afforestation for bird communities: the importance of preceding land-use type Biodiversity Conservation DOI 10.1007/s10531-015-0987-4

50

Rodgers M.,O’Connor M., HealyM.G., O’Driscoll C., Asam Z., Nieminen M., Poole R., Müller M.and Xiao L. (2010) Phosphorus

release from forest harvesting on an upland blanket peat catchment. Forest Ecology and Management. 260: 2241–2248 51

Feeley H. B., Kerrigan C, Fanning P., Hannigan E. and Kelly-Quinn M (2011) Longitudinal extent of acidification effects of

plantation

forest on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in soft water streams: evidence for localised impact and temporal ecological

recovery. Hydrobiologia 671:217–226

December 18 2015

18

Nutrient and sediment load is increased in streams both during and after harvesting operations and management measures to mitigate this are not always implemented or implemented adequately and can be ineffective after a large storm.52

Forestry on peat soils in particular causes a suite of environmental problems. All of these problems described can and often do result in reduced water quality, loss of wildlife and ecosystems services, damage to fisheries, and increased costs of treatment for drinking water. Drinan et al. 2013 found elevated nutrient, iron, aluminium and DOC in lakes in afforested blanket bog catchments with the highest concentrations recorded in lakes in clearfelled catchments. The study ‘demonstrated a clear, deleterious impact of conifer plantations on the water quality draining from blanket bog catchments, with major implications for the management of afforested peatlands. ‘53

The 2009-2015 Plans accurately describe the very significant risk of many rivers ‘failing to achieve the required standards due to potential impacts from forestry’ (Section 2.2.2 ‘Pressures’), as shown by a risk assessment of acidification, eutrophication and sedimentation pressures. It is unfortunate that that assessment is not reflected in the draft SWMI.

Approximately 10% of Galway-Mayo is afforested and the most recent Integrated Water Quality Report54 from that region states ‘Many of these afforested areas are located in sensitive salmon and trout spawning catchments, such as the Owenriff, underpinning the need for adequate control of forestry operations in sensitive areas. The impact of forestry on water quality continues to be an issue of concern in Galway and Mayo.’ Again this highlights how forestry is a highly significant water management issue in our most vulnerable sites.

The Forest Water Quality Guidelines have not been amended since 2000. These guidelines contradict each other, have significant inaccuracies, and in relation to certain issues are largely ignored. This is resulting in negative impacts on aquatic environments. Set back distances of 15m are not being applied, and should be used as standard in all High Status Sites. A consistent definition of watercourses is required. Some are not being identified as such and as a result are not protected by set-back requirements. ‘Aquatic zones’ are only identified as such if they appear on an Ordnance Survey 6 inch map.

The Article 17 Habitats Directive report cites forestry as one of the sources of sediment and nutrients that enter freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM) rivers which results in serious impacts to their recruitment and survival. The Overall Status of FWPM sites are assessed as being as bad and declining55.

Concentrated periods of planting historically mean that extensive areas are likely to be felled at one time, leading to an exacerbation in felling impacts. Appropriate actions to tackle these need to be identified and applied.

The negative impacts of the planned expansion in forestry planting to 15,000ha/year by

2050 have not been adequately considered, especially given that 75% of the proposed new

planting is anticipated to be of conifers.

The planned expansion in forestry is particularly worrying in light of the recent increase of storm events and increasing rainfall which would further increase the loading of nutrients

52

Clarke J. and Bruen M. (2014) Clearfelling impacts in the East. Presentation at HYDROFOR End-of-Project Workshop, 8th April

2014, University College Dublin 53

Drinan T.J., Graham C.T., O’Halloran J., Harrison S.S.C. (2013) The impact of catchment conifer plantation forestry on the

hydrochemistry of peatland lakes. Science of the Total Environment 443: 608-620 54

EPA (2013) Integrated water quality report 2012 Galway Mayo. Environmental Protection Agency. 55

NPWS (2013) The status of EU protected habitats and species in Ireland. National Parks and Wildlife Service, DAHG

December 18 2015

19

and sediments to streams/rivers/lakes and further increase acidity, these two factors combined have the potential to significantly negatively impact high status and sensitive sites and could see forestry becoming a more highly significant water management issue than it is currently considered in the draft SWMI report.

Cypermethrin a Priority Substance pesticide which is highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates is widely used by Coillte. The FSC has classed cypermethrin as highly hazardous and Coillte have applied for a further derogation to continue to use it. The Environmental Pillar called for a ban on its use in its submission on the public consultation this year the continuation of the derogation56.

10.0 Aquaculture Aquaculture production is a source of a range of pressures in the coastal and estuarine environment. However it is barely mentioned in the draft SWMI report. The EC commissioned report on sustainable aquaculture development in the context of WFD and MSFD57 stated that ‘high quality aquatic environments and the prevention of their deterioration are fundamental to the sustainable development of European aquaculture’ and aquaculture was identified as a significant water management issue in the 2009-2015 River Basin Management Plans. The River Shannon RBD Plan states that ‘Aquaculture activities (including harvesting) unless appropriately managed and controlled, can affect water quality, physical habitat, biodiversity and indigenous species populations. Finfish farming can cause increased nutrient loading and organic pollution around cages. Misuse of authorised chemicals and medicines to control disease and possible infection of wild fish with sea lice if not appropriately managed are other concerns’. 10.1 Finfish Farming Most recent figures available for 2012 put overall production of finfish at 13,880 tonnes, with a gross value of over €86m (BIM Strategy 2013-2017). Over 90% of the finfish farmed in Ireland (and the value of this sector) is generated by Atlantic salmon farming and Finfish aquaculture is associated with a number negative impacts on the aquatic environment58. These include: Waste inputs and nutrient enrichment

Waste inputs in the form of faecal or other excretory wastes and uneaten fish feed that commonly contains carbon-based organic matter, Nitrogen and phosphorus. This results in nutrient enrichment that may stimulate or exacerbates algal blooms of phytoplankton or algae which in turn, when they die and decay, can significantly reduce the oxygen available in the water, resulting in deaths of fish and other aquatic organisms.

High levels of nutrients can also increase growth of toxic algae (such as Pfiesteria) which causes large fish kills, contaminates shellfish, and represents health risks for humans. It is not clear what effects increased incidence (and duration) of phytoplankton blooms, including some toxin-producing species, has on other aquatic organisms, but over time this will lead to changes in marine plant and animal communities, with probably loss of species, possible colonisation by new species or increased numbers of certain species, and degradation of habitats. Definitive links between nutrient inputs from fish farms and

56 http://environmentalpillar.ie/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Cypermethrin-Consultation-July-2015.pdf 57Jeffery K.R., Vivian C.M.G., Painting, S.J., Hyder K., Verner-Jeffreys D.W., Walker R.J., Ellis T., Rae L.J., Judd A.D., Collingridge K.A., Arkell S.,

Kershaw S.R., Kirby D.R., Watts S., Kershaw, P.J. and Auchterlonie N.A. (2014) Background information for sustainable aquaculture

development, addressing environmental protection in particular. Sustainable Aquaculture Development in the context of the Water

Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. CEFAS.

58 Silvert W. (1992) Assessing environmental impacts of finfish aquaculture in marine waters. Aquaculture 107: 67-71

December 18 2015

20

increased incidence of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) are difficult to establish, but possible underlying causes may clearly arise from aquaculture activities59.

Pathogen introduction It is well established that finfish production can represent a source of pathogens, parasites and other contaminants for wild fish populations. In Ireland the most significant of these relates to problems of sea lice transfer from farmed fish to wild stocks, particularly to smolts journeying to sea. The Marine Institutes Survey of Fish Farms 201460 found that average sea lice levels are increasing as levels in the first half of 2014 were higher than the same periods in both 2013 and 2012.

While a Sea Lice Monitoring Programme was established by the then Department of the Marine in 1991, and the Marine Institute, Bord Iascaigh Mhara and Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food now undertake a (not-uncontroversial) sea lice control and management strategy to limit sea lice amongst farmed fish, there is still no universal acknowledgement, or public recognition, amongst state agencies involved in the regulation and development of aquaculture in Ireland of the causal link between fish farms and increased incidence of lice amongst wild Atlantic salmon and Sea Trout stocks. This has been well documented internationally.61,62,63,64,65

It has been demonstrated that infestation of young smolts with sea lice will increase fatalities and thus ultimately threaten the survival of the wild stocks.66 Data shows that control of sea lice on fish farms has been very variable over the past decade67 and according to the IFI ‘Following a sea lice infestation and a resultant collapse in sea trout stocks in western fisheries during the early nineties, sea lice control protocols were introduced in the mid 1990’s to control sea lice on salmon farms nationally. However, despite the protocols in place, monthly lice monitoring shows that sea lice levels regularly breach protocol levels.’ 68 Chemical Inputs

Chemical inputs, such as antibiotics used for disease control amongst farmed fish, and pesticides to control algae, weeds and parasites, have significant damaging impacts on non-target species69 (Burridge, 2003). An example of this is the use of copper-based products to prohibit algae which are toxic to shellfish and to humans when residues are found in seafood. The effects of chemicals used in fish farms on other crustaceans including lobster

59 Davenport J.,Black K., Burnell G., Cross T., Culloty S., Ekaratne S., Furness B, Mulcahy M and Thetmeyer H. (2003) Aquaculture: the Ecological Issues. The British Ecological Society, Ecological Issues Series 11. Blackwell, Oxford. 60 O’Donohoe P., Kane F, Kelly S, McDermott T, Drumm A and Jackson D. (2015) National survey of sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis krøyer and Caligus elongatus nordmann) on fish farms in Ireland – 2014 Irish Fisheries Bulletin no. 45. Marine Institute 61 Gargan P.G., Tully O. and Poole W.R. (2002) The relationship between sea lice infestation, sea lice production and sea trout survival in Ireland, 1992-2001. In: Mills, D. (ed.) Salmon on the edge, pp. 119-135. Proceedings of the 6th International Atlantic Salmon Symposium, Edinburgh, UK, 16-18 July 2002. Atlantic Salmon Trust/Atlantic Salmon Federation. 62 McKibben M.A. and Hay D.W. (2002) Planktonic distribution of sea lice Lepeoptheirus salmonis larvae in inter-tidal plankton samples in Lock Shieldaig, Western Scotland in relation to local salmon farm production cycles. ICES Summer Meeting, Theme Session T, Paper 2002/T:06. 63 Penstan M.J., McKibben M., Hay D.W. and Gillibrand, P.A. (2002) (2004) Observations on open-water densities of sea lice larvae in Loch Shieldaig, Western Scotland. Aquaculture Research35: 793-805. 64 Ford J.S. and Myers R.A. (2008) A global assessment of salmon aquaculture impacts on wild salmonids. PLOS Biology 6: e33. 65 Thorstad E.B., Todd C.D., Ugle I., Bjorn P.A., Gargan P.G., Vollset K.W., Halttunen E., Kalas M.B. and Finstad B. (2015) Effects of salmon lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis on wild sea trout Salmo trutta—a literature review. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 7: 91-113 66 Krkosek M., Lewis M.A. and Volpe J.P. (2006) Transmission dynamics of parasitic sea lice from farm to wild salmon. Proc. Royal Society. 67 O’Donoghue et al. National Sea Lice Surveys from 2003-2014 68 IFI Factsheet on the impacts of fish farms on wild salmon and sea trout stocks (accessed Dec 2015) http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/fisheries-management-1/330-factsheet-on-salmon-farm-impacts-1/file

69

Burridge L.E. (2003) Chemical use in marine finfish aquaculture in Canada: a review of current practices and possible

environmental effects A scientific review of the potential environmental effects of aquaculture in aquatic ecosystems. Vol. 1.,

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2003. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2450:ix + 131 p

December 18 2015

21

are poorly understood although recent research has shown that their reproduction may be affected70 . There is little information on the impacts of food and chemical inputs on the wider aquatic environment and species. The same is true for outputs; particularly waste and dead fish in fish kill situations.

Waste water from well boats which have been using hydrogen peroxide to control amoebic gill disease and sea lice is subsequently dumped into the sea and the waste water can have an effect on other crustaceans.

Hydrogen peroxide is commonly used to treat amoebic gill disease in Ireland when freshwater is not available71 which could have negative impacts on other marine organisms.

Cypermethrin, enamectin benzoate and teflubensuron are the active ingredients in the 3 products licensed for use to control sea lice in Ireland. Contamination of wider water and the sea floor with these controversial substances from the open net cages raises issues for the wider environment.

10.2 Shellfish Farming Since shellfish production less commonly involves feed inputs, fewer negative impacts to water quality (though there can be other impacts on birds and biodiversity depending on the location of shellfish trestles etc..) tend to be associated with this form of aquaculture. However, while the nature of the impacts and their relative severity may vary, these may be nonetheless significant72. These impacts include:

Increased volumes of production may reduce nutrients in the water body available for other aquatic organisms, thus altering the ecology of the water body. Overstocking can result in poor growth or mortality of the farmed organisms, reduction in the food available for other organisms, and risk high rates of parasite or pathogen infestation. High stocking levels may also mean that young spat of other organisms are filtered out and so levels of other non-target species are also affected.

Aggressive harvesting damages inter-tidal habitats and encroaches on wild oyster and other indigenous fisheries.

Physical concentration of large volumes of production – such as mussel and oyster trestles, may displace other organisms. This may be exacerbated if predators are actively controlled in the area. The impact of oyster trestle tables in areas with flocking seabirds is only beginning to be understood but studies have shown that there is a significant impact on bird assemblages in Dungarvan Harbour SPA.73. Increasing the extent of trestles in Special Protection Areas (SPAs) reduces foraging opportunities for birds and increases silt deposition. In addition traffic associated with servicing these sites leads to damage and disturbance to the sea floor, and will affect seal haul out areas.

Where non-indigenous species are farmed, there is a significant danger of introducing invasive species that may ultimately out-compete indigenous ones (as the introduction of Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) threatens to take over the indigenous oyster and mussel habitats). Such introductions once made are difficult, if not impossible, to contain. This problem may also be associated with finfish aquaculture. Significantly around 40% of all known introductions of alien or exotic species to aquatic ecosystems have been related to aquaculture.74

70

Burridge L.E. and Van Geest J.L. (2014) A review of potential environmental risks associated with the use of pesticides to treat

Atlantic salmon against infestations of sea lice in Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Res. Doc. 2014 71

Ruane M.N and Jones S.R.M. (2013) Amoebic gill disease (AGD) of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) ICES identification

leaflets for diseases and parasites of fish and shellfish..Leaflet no. 60. ICES 72 Cranford P., Dowd M., Grant J., Hargrave B. and McGladdery S. (2003) Ecosystem level effects of marine bivalve aquaculture. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 2450 73 Gittings, T. and O’Donoghue, P.D. (2012). The effects of intertidal oyster culture on the spatial distribution of waterbirds. Marine Institute. 74 Davenport J.,Black K., Burnell G., Cross T., Culloty S., Ekaratne S., Furness B, Mulcahy M and Thetmeyer H. (2003) Aquaculture: the Ecological Issues. The British Ecological Society, Ecological Issues Series 11. Blackwell, Oxford.

December 18 2015

22

The introduction of imported seed also poses the risk of introducing non-native species that may disrupt aquatic ecosystems. An example of this is Bonamia ostrea that devastated the native oyster population in the 1970s. Factors such as climate change and the northward spread of species, means that even with controls on imported seed, the risk of such introductions remains worryingly high.75

10.3 Adequacy of Controls Aquaculture is licensed by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and the Marine (DAFM) under the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997 and thus is also subject to the requirements of the Surface Water Regulations. Therefore all aquaculture licenses should have been examined and if necessary reviewed by December 2012, as above for industrial point source discharges. There is no information in the public domain as to whether this has been carried out. This is particularly pressing given the potentially significant impacts of the targeted increase in aquaculture production set out in the National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture Development 76 (NSPA)which projects ‘an increase of 45,000 tonnes in the output from the sector by 2023’. This is an increase of 122% on the 2012 baseline of 36,700 tonnes.

This more than doubling of aquaculture output can also be anticipated to lead to new and increased problems for the environment that are as yet poorly understood and worrying given failures of existing regulatory regimes. BirdWatch Ireland is concerned that the Appropriate Assessment process is not robust in order to protect the marine environment including taking into account impacts on birds of cumulative projects in bays. It is the responsibility of member states to ensure compliance in the planning, development, licensing and regulation of aquaculture with WFD and MSFD in the overlap zone of these two directives and SWAN believes that this obligation is not being fulfilled in Ireland. The planning and regulatory system for aquaculture is deeply flawed and is not adequately addressing this pressure in terms of its impacts on achieving WFD and MSFD targets. According to the most recent EPA Environment Assessment Report77 ‘aquaculture and fisheries measures implemented nationally should be monitored and reported on to ensure that they bring about measurable improvements in the conservation status of species and habitats and in the provision of ecosystem services’. The monitoring programme is based on risk assessments from 2005 which as it stands is inadequate as the NSPA SEA states that in relation to finfish aquaculture they ‘do not specifically deal with risk to the wider water body as a whole’ with shellfish monitoring confined to human health issues and ‘there are no monitoring programmes that can define the impact on the level of a water body as defined by the WFD’. It is also worrying that, ‘as a consequence of the lack of distinct information pertaining to the wider impacts of aquaculture activities on water bodies, at the time of the risk assessments in 2005, and acknowledging that aquaculture activities have inherent risks associated with them, all water bodies having licensed aquaculture activities were classed as 2a -probably not at risk but there is insufficient information to class as not at risk.’ It is vital especially with the proposed increase in aquaculture that all current and proposed sites must undergo risk assessment on a regular basis and that monitoring programmes are designed to determine the impact on the level of a water body as defined by the WFD and sufficient resources are made available to do this.

Secondly, it is vital that DAFM liaise very closely with DECLG, other Departments State Agencies and stakeholders to ensure that any aquaculture or other activities proposed in the NSPA is in line with WFD environmental objectives for the transitional and coastal waterbodies in question. Currently such close liaison is not taking place.

75 EPA, 2003 Climate Change: Scenarios and Impacts for Ireland. Environmental Protection Agency 76 DAFM (2015) Draft national strategic plan for sustainable aquaculture development. 77 EPA (2012) Ireland’s Environment, An Assessment. Environmental Protection Agency

December 18 2015

23

Further matters of concern regarding aquaculture as it relates to the achievement of WFD targets in relevant waters:

There is no monitoring of the environmental impacts of shellfish aquaculture so no enforcement of licence conditions is possible where operations are licensed. Where no license exists, the operator can continue under Article 94a as if a license were in place, so that neither monitoring nor enforcement is carried out. This is equally the case for inland aquaculture sites.

All applications for licenses refer to blanket appropriate assessments for waters and do not require a re-assessment of the site. This results in individual applications not being considered in terms of the cumulative impacts in a water body. This needs to be related to effective implementation of the EIA Directive.

The Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Salmon farms in Galway Bay did not adequately assess the negative impacts that could result and this was highlighted by State Agency IFI who also stated that ‘the present proposal does have the potential to pose a risk to wild salmonid stocks in the vicinity of Galway Bay’ they were particularly concerned about the impacts on the Salmon and lamprey in the Corrib SAC.

78

Freshwater abstraction for treatment of amoebic gill disorder in salmon farm stock is not regulated and needs to be effectively controlled in the planning and licensing systems.

Treatment of fish kill waste; its management and disposal, represents a potential threat for aquatic environments which is not currently addressed in the monitoring or regulatory system.

Inadequate posting and issues with timeliness with posting of information of notices of license applications online

EMFF grants can only be accessed for operations and sites which have a full aquaculture licenses. The majority of operations are in Natura 2000 sites and able to run without license if they had a previous license based on article 194A of the Act - pending government work on appropriate assessments and decision making

10.4 Other Issues

The promotion and development of new species aquaculture in both the freshwater and marine environments, and the impacts of this, is a cause for concern.

Considerable concern is felt over developments in rearing and selling GMO aquaculture products (as seen with salmon in North and South America). Bord Iascaigh Mhara is currently involved in the development of GMO Gigas oysters in a lagoon in Galway Bay. There is a serious risk of escape of tetraploids into the wider environment.

There is little, if any, research on the impacts of aquaculture on biodiversity including shore birds and other water-dependent birds and biodiversity.

In summary, there is wide range of pressures and impacts from aquaculture on the immediate waters and wider bay/waterbody. Especially when taken cumulatively, the current planning regulatory system is not fit for purpose in terms of assessing and controlling aquaculture impacts on WFD and MSFD targets. This significant water management issue, because it falls within the remit of another government Department has been effectively ignored in the WFD implementation process to date and the fact that it is not identified as an issue in the draft SWMI suggests that there is an intention in the second cycle to continue to ignore it. This is wholly unsatisfactory and it is the strong position of SWAN that it is imperative that this glaring omission is addressed in preparatory work for the second cycle of RMBPs.

Conclusion

BirdWatch Ireland is available to discuss any component of this submission.

78

IFI (2011) Submission by Inland Fisheries Ireland on the Environmental Impact Statement for a Deep Sea Fish Farm

Development in Galway Bay. Inland Fisheries Ireland.

December 18 2015

24

References:

DEHLG (2008) River Basin Management Planning - A practical Guide for Public Authorities. Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin European Commission (2011), Links between the Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000/60/EC) and Nature Directives (Birds Directive 2009/147/EC and Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC) Frequently Asked Questions, European Commission, Brussels. Kavanagh, P. & Bree, T (2009) ‘Water Framework Directive Programme of Measures: Protection of High-Status Sites, Forest, Water and On-Site Wastewater-Treatment Systems'. Biology and Ecology: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Vol. 3, 345-364, Dublin McNally, T. (2009) Overview of the EU Water Framework Directive and its implementation in Ireland. Biology and Ecology: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Vol. 3, 131 - 138. Dublin Mayes, E., & Codling, I., (2009) Water Framework Directive and related monitoring programmes. Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 109B, 321–44.