IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

NS2 Freshwater Pearl Mussel Sub-Basin Management Plans

Phytobenthos monitoring of the Licky Catchment, Co. Waterford. (SWRBD)

June 2009

Licky river, North of Reanagullee

Dr Bernadette Ní Chatháin

RPS Consulting Engineers, Mulkear House, Newtown Centre, Annacotty, Co. Limerick.

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET

Client Donegal County Council

Project Title National Freshwater Pearl Mussel Sub-Basin Management Plans

Document Title NS2 Licky Phytobenthos Report

Document No. DC004

DCS TOC Text List of Tables List of Figures No. of

Appendices This Document Comprises

1 1 26 0 0 2

Rev. Status Author(s) Reviewed By Approved By Office of Origin Issue Date

0 Draft Bernadette Ní

Chatháin

Bernadette Ní Chatháin

Limerick March 2010

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Table of contents

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................. 4 2 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Macroscopic algae .............................................................................................. 6 2.2 Diatoms ............................................................................................................... 7

3.0 Results..................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Macroscopic algae .............................................................................................. 9 3.2 Diatoms ............................................................................................................. 14

4.0 Discussion of results ............................................................................................. 22 References......................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix I – Site survey condition assessments .............................................................. 26 Appendix II – Site photographs and macroalgal photographs.......................................... 28

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

1.0 Introduction RPS Consulting Engineers have been commissioned to carry out phytobenthos sampling

(diatoms and macroscopic algae) on the Licky Freshwater Pearl Mussel catchment.

Sampling was carried out at 3 sites in the Licky catchment in Co. Waterford to aid in the

development of a Freshwater Pearl Mussel sub-basin management plan for the Licky.

The Licky catchment is part of the South Western River Basin District.

Three sites were sampled on the river Licky and these are detailed in Table 1 below. Map

1 indicates the location of these sites.

Table 1 Licky phytobenthos monitoring sites

River Site Site Code Date Sampled X co-ordinate Y co-ordinateLicky North of Reanagullee LIC1 08/06/2009 222154 86776 Licky Site at Toor LIC2 08/06/2009 218574 84594 Licky Licky Bridge LIC3 08/06/2009 213153 82751

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Map 1 NS2 Phytobenthos survey site locations

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

2 Methodology

2.1 Macroscopic algae Macroscopic algal surveys were conducted concurrently with the diatom surveys between mid-April and mid-June 2009. A second more detailed survey of macroscopically visible algae was also conducted between late July and mid September. A detailed inspection of a 10m length of each river site was conducted, and the nature of the stream environment, the substrata available for macroscopically visible growths and the nature and abundance of any macroscopic growth forms present were recorded. The presence of all macroscopically visible assemblages was recorded and their abundance estimated. Samples of visible macroalgae for microscopic analysis were taken from each kind of substratum as well as from different positions within the site, representing the variation in current velocity, degree of shading, and depth. On average between 2-6 samples were collected per site. Samples were kept on ice and in the dark in a cool box until returned to the laboratory for identification, usually within 1 to 4 days of collection, in order to perform identifications on un-preserved specimens. Identification and abundance assessment of the organisms present was performed using a compound microscope. Taxonomic keys from John et al. (2000), Wehr and Sheath (2003), Entwisle et al. (1997) and Whitton et al., (2000) were used. Identifications were mainly to genus level, with some species level identification for common macroalgae. The assessment provides a semi-quantitative estimate of the abundance of those taxa that are visible to the naked eye. The abundance of each macroscopic element is estimated using a simple descriptor scale from the draft CEN standard ‘Water quality – Guidance standard for the surveying, sampling and laboratory analysis of phytobenthos in shallow running water’. This is based on the percentage of the stream or river bed (within the survey unit) that is covered by the assemblage (Table 2). The quantification is based on “qualified judgment”. Table 2 Descriptor scale for algal abundance estimates of macroscopically visible elements

Scale Description of coverage at the survey unit

1 Rare: just visible in the field, covers < 1 % of the river bed

2 Occasional: covers 1 % to < 5 % of the river bed

3 Frequent: covers 5 % to < 25 % of the river bed

4 Abundant: covers 25 % to < 50 % of the river bed

5 Dominant: covers > 50 % of the river bed

In order to combine field macroscopic abundance estimates with laboratory abundance estimates, the following was adopted from the draft CEN standard.

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Table 3 Final abundance estimates based on 5 point scales for field surveys and laboratory analysis

Abundance in field

Abundance in laboratory

1 Rare

2 Occasional

3 Frequent

4 Abundant

5 Dominant

Integrated estimate of abundance 1 (<1%) 1 1 1 1 1 2 (1% to <5%) 1 2 2 2 2 3 (5% to <25%) 1 2 3 3 3 4 (25% to <50%) 1 2 3 4 4 5 (>50%) 1 2 3 4 5

2.2 Diatoms

Diatoms can be found growing on most submerged surfaces; however, the composition of the community varies depending upon the substratum chosen. Ideally, a single substratum should be used at all sites included in a survey. Areas of the river bed with naturally occurring moveable hard surfaces (large pebbles, cobbles and boulders) are recommended wherever possible (CEN, 2003), and indices such as DARLEQ (Diatom Assessment of River and Lake Ecological Quality) have been designed with this substrate type as the preferred choice. Cobbles were the preferred substrate for the purposes of this survey. Suitable hard substrata were randomly sampled within the defined survey site. At least five cobbles were sampled from the centre channel at each river site. An area of approximately 10 cm2

or more from each hard substrate was brushed with a stiff toothbrush and the resultant diatom material transferred directly from the cobble in to a white tray. The cobble is then placed back in to the river. The sample is transferred to a labeled sampling tube. Preservation is required to stop cell division of diatoms and decomposition of organic matter. Lugols iodine was used to preserve samples during this survey. Samples were placed in a cool, dark fridge on return to the laboratory until processing was possible. Before processing, the sample is washed to remove all traces of Lugols iodine. A preliminary microscopic examination of the sample is performed in order to look for unusual features (e.g. large numbers of empty frustules, or distorted frustules). A portion of the sample is retained in case problems are encountered during the preparation process. For accurate identification of diatoms, it is necessary to remove all the cell contents and mount the diatoms using a mountant with a high refractive index. A cold acid (permanganate) method of cleaning was used (CEN, 2003). The cleaned diatom suspension is then dried on a coverslip, and mounted on a glass slide. Naphrax was used

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

as the mounting medium. The slide is labeled with details of the river, site, sampling date, type of sample (riffle) and analyst’s initials. Diatom valves were identified and counted at 1000x magnification until a minimum of 300 valves are enumerated and identified. The identification of diatoms followed the nomenclature in the monographs of Krammer and Lange-Bertalot (1986-1991), and any subsequent revisions of taxa were also adhered to. Results were entered in to excel and then analysed using a Microsoft windows programme designed as part of the DARLEQ project – Diatom Assessment of River and Lake Ecological Quality. The program implements a classification algorithm using a metric based on a revised Trophic Diatom Index (TDI). Details of the metric, algorithm and derivation of the status class boundaries are provided in Kelly et al. (2006 and 2008). The programme calculates the TDI score, Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) and status class for each sample. EQRs are produced by comparing the observed TDI with that expected to be obtained if the site was at reference condition i.e. in the absence of eutrophication pressures.

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

3.0 Results The composition and abundance of the macroscopically visible algae at the sampling sites are presented in Section 3.1 below. The results from the diatom assessment includes the composition and abundance of each taxon and the results from the calculation of the Trophic Diatom Index which provides an EQR and Water Framework Directive status class for each site. These results are presented in Section 3.2. Site survey condition assessments were also completed for each site, and results are presented in Appendix I. Photographs taken of each site during sampling, and of macroalgae identified from each site are included in Appendix II.

3.1 Macroscopic algae

Table 4 June 2009 macroscopic algal composition and abundance (See Table 3 for explanation of details on ‘final abundance’)

Sample No Catchment River Location Site Code Date sampled

NS2_FPM_56 Licky Licky

N of Reanagullee* LIC1

08/06/2009

NS2_FPM_57 Licky Licky Toor LIC2

08/06/2009

NS2_FPM_58 Licky Licky

Licky Bridge LIC3

08/06/2009 % Abundance of macroscopic algae in field

5 to <25%* 1 to <5% 75-100%

Presence/ absence

Final abundance

Presence/ absence

Final abundance

Presence/ absence

Final abundance

Cladophora glomerata Present 5 Lemanea fluviatilis Present 1 Melosira varians Present 1 Oedogonium sp Present 2 Oscillatoria sp Present 1 Spirogyra sp Present 1 Stigeoclonium sp Present 2 Ulothrix sp. Present 1 Ulothrix zonata Present 1 Ulothrix sp Present 1 *Diatom biofilm 3

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Table 5 July 2009 macroscopic algal composition and abundance (See Table 3 for explanation of details on ‘final abundance’) Sample No Catchment River Location Site Code Date sampled

NS2_FPM_56 Licky

Licky N of Reanagullee*

LIC1

27/07/2009

NS2_FPM_57 Licky Licky Toor LIC2

27/07/2009

NS2_FPM_58 Licky Licky

Licky Bridge LIC3

27/07/2009

Presence/ absence

Final abundance

Presence/ absence

Final abundance

Presence/ absence

Final abundance

% Abundance of macroscopic algae in field

5 to <25%* None visible 1 to <5%

Cladophora glomerata Present 2 Oscillatoria sp Present 1 *diatom biofilm Present 3

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Plate 1 Blue green algal biofilm on a stone at the site north of Reanagullee Plate 2 Cladophora glomerata from Licky Bridge

Plate 3 Cladophora glomerata filament covered in diatoms epiphytes, Licky Bridge Plate 4 Example of Navicula spp. from north of Reanagullee

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Map 2 Results of macroscopic algal survey (% abundance) – June 2009

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Map 3 Results of macroscopic algal survey (% abundance) – July 2009

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

3.2 Diatoms

Table 6 Diatom count data Site ID LIC1 LIC2 LIC3 Sample Date 08/06/2009 08/06/2009 08/06/2009 Site name N of Reanagullee At Toor Licky Bridge Species code Species name Count Count Count AC023A Achnanthes conspicua 1 AC083A Achnanthes laevis 7 2 AC143A Achnanthes oblongella 9 12 4 ZZZ912 Achnanthidium biasolettiana 1 ZZZ835 Achnanthidium minutissima 29 385 187 AM012A Amphora pediculus 18 CO001A Cocconeis placentula 5 13 EY011A Cymbella minuta 1 12 EY016A Cymbella silesiaca 9 7 6 EU013A Eunotia arcus 1 EU070A Eunotia bilunaris 1 FR009H Fragilaria capucina var. gracilis 17 12 1 FR007A Fragilaria vaucheriae 18 1 30 FR009A Fragiliaria capucina 1 ZZZ842 Fragiliaria perminuta 2 FU002A Frustulia rhomboides 2 FU001A Frustulia vulgaris 7 GO006A Gomphonema acuminatum 1 GO003A Gomphonema angustatum 5 58 GO050A Gomphonema minutum 1 18 GO001A Gomphonema olivaceum 2 GO013A Gomphonema parvulum 8 5 1 GO9999 Gomphonema sp 6 GO9999 Gomphonema sp2 16 ME015A Melosira varians 4 MR001A Meridion circulare 10 4 4 NA066A Navicula capitata 3 NA007A Navicula cryptocephala 1 NA023A Navicula gregaria 55 1 38 CI005A Navicula halophila NA009A Navicula lanceolata 72 12 35 NA030A Navicula menisculus 1 NA003A Navicula radiosa 6 NA008A Navicula rhynchocephala 4 1 NA9999 Navicula sp 1 NI025A Nitzschia recta 1 NI042A Nitzschia acicularis 1 NI091A Nitzschia dissipata 169 24 51 NI009A Nitzschia palea 21 1 4 PI022A Pinnularia subcapitata 1 ZZZ897 Planothidium lanceolata 10 2 13

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Site ID LIC1 LIC2 LIC3 Sample Date 08/06/2009 08/06/2009 08/06/2009 Site name N of Reanagullee At Toor Licky Bridge Species code Species name Count Count Count ZZZ852 Psammothidium helvetica 8 RE001A Reimeria sinuata 2 3 RC002A Rhoicosphenia abbreviata 1 SU001A Surirella angusta 1 SU073A Surirella brebisonii 25 1 5 SU003A Surirella ovalis SY001A Synedra ulna 4 1 2 TA001A Tabellaria flocculosa 7 1 Total Count 506 510 517

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Table 7 Results from DARLEQ SampleID SiteID SampleDate Alkalinity

mg/l CaCO3

River Site Sample sum

Sum TDI

TDI eTDI EQR Class % Planktic

% Motile

% Organic tolerant

NS2_FPM_056 LIC1 08-Jun-2009 21 Licky N of Reanagullee

506 506 41.9 27.12 0.8 Good 0 72.92 30.83

NS2_FPM_057 LIC2 08-Jun-2009 21 Licky Toor 510 510 27.06 27.12 1 High 0 7.84 3.73 NS2_FPM_058 LIC3 08-Jun-2009 21 Licky Licky

Bridge 517 517 42.02 27.12 0.8 Good 0 26.11 15.28

Notes: Alkalinity data was sourced from the Aquatic Services Unit (UCC) as part of their assessment of the Licky catchment on behalf of NPWS/Coillte and

was calculated based on the annual average alkalinity in mg/l CaCO3. Explanation of terms

o Sample ID – RPS internal identification o Site ID – RPS internal identification o Sample Date – as stated o Alkalinity – as stated o River – as stated o Site – location from which sample was taken o Sample sum – the number of diatom valves or species counted during analysis o Sum TDI – the sum of diatom valves or species used in the calculation of the Trophic Diatom Index o TDI – Trophic Diatom Index score o eTDI – expected Trophic Diatom Index score based on predicted TDI for observed alkalinity and season o EQR – Environmental Quality Ratio for each sampled based on predicted TDI for observed alkalinity and season o Class – WFD status class o % Plantic- % of taxa identified which were plantonic. These are excluded from status calculations. o % Motile - % of taxa counted which were motile o % Organic tolerant - % of taxa which are organic tolerant

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Table 8 Confidence in classification Site code

River Site No. Samples

Mean EQR

Class CoC High

CoC Good

CoC Mod

CoC Poor

CoC Bad

RoM CoC HG CoC MPB

RoM-G/M

LIC1 Licky N of Reanagullee

1 0.797285 Good 6.251236 48.94972 39.58953 5.092745 0.116776 51.05028 55.20095 44.79905 44.79905

LIC2 Licky Toor 1 1 High 99.99922 0.000779 8.44E-07 4.34E-10 9.12E-14 0.00078 100 8.45E-07 8.45E-07 LIC3 Licky Licky

Bridge 1 0.795583 Good 6.006369 48.69184 40.02854 5.156647 0.116599 51.30816 54.69821 45.30179 45.30179

Notes: Note particularly that the result for North of Reanagullee straddles the Good/Moderate boundary (i.e although the site achieved good status there is a

high risk of misclassification at 45% probability). Explanation of terms used in Table

o Site code – RPS internal identification o River – River sampled o Site – site sampled o Number of samples – number of samples per site o Mean EQR – Mean Environmental Quality ratio for each site o Class - WFD status class o CoC – Confidence that the site belongs to the status class high o CoC – Confidence that the site belongs to the status class good o CoC – Confidence that the site belongs to the status class moderate o CoC – Confidence that the site belongs to the status class poor o CoC – Confidence that the site belongs to the status class bad o RoM – Risk of misclassification for predicted class o CoC HG – Confidence that the site is better than moderate class o CoC MPB – Confidence that the site is moderate or worse class o RoM G/M – Risk of misclassification above/below good/ moderate boundary

As a result of low confidence and high risk of misclassification in the results for the site North of Reanagullee, this sample was reanalyzed by an independent diatom expert – Dr Martyn Kelly, Bowburn Consultancy, Durham, UK. Results are detailed in Table 9 below and discussed in Section 4.

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Table 9 Audit of sample from North of Reanegullee

Analyst Bernadette Ní Chatháin

Martyn Kelly*

SampleID NS2_FPM_056 NS2_FPM_056 SiteID LIC1 LIC1 SampleDate 08/06/2009 08/06/2009 Alkalinity mg/l CaCO3 21 21 Stream Licky Licky Reach N of

Reanagullee N of

Reanagullee Species Code Species Count Count AC143A Achnanthes oblongella 9 2 ZZZ835 Achnanthidium minutissima 29 28 CA002A Caloneis bacillum 1

EY011A Cymbella minuta 1 EY016A Cymbella silesiaca 9 EY016A Encyonema silesiacum 3 EU10002 Eunotia sp 2 EU013A Eunotia arcus 1 FR009H Fragilaria capucina var.

gracilis 17 20

FR007A Fragilaria vaucheriae 18 21 ZZZ842 Fragiliaria perminuta 2 FU002A Frustulia rhomboides 2 FU001A Frustulia vulgaris 7 1 GO006A Gomphonema acuminatum 1 GO024C Gomphonema clevei 2 GO050A Gomphonema minutum 1 GO013A Gomphonema parvulum 8 8 ZZZ836 Gomphonema pumilum 1 GO10004 Gomphonema sp 1 MR001A Meridion circulare 10 3

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Analyst Bernadette Ní Chatháin

Martyn Kelly*

SampleID NS2_FPM_056 NS2_FPM_056 SiteID LIC1 LIC1 SampleDate 08/06/2009 08/06/2009 Alkalinity mg/l CaCO3 21 21 Stream Licky Licky Reach N of

Reanagullee N of

Reanagullee Species Code Species Count Count NA066A Navicula capitata var capitata 3 1 NA007A Navicula cryptocephala 1 1 NA023A Navicula gregaria 55 34 NA009A Navicula lanceolata 72 34 NA030A Navicula menisculus 1 NA042A Navicula minima 4 NA003A Navicula radiosa 6 NA008A Navicula rhynchocephala 4 1 NI065A Nitzschia archibaldii 1 NI042A Nitzschia acicularis 1 NI091A Nitzschia dissipata 169 109 NI009A Nitzschia palea 21 5 NI009C Nitzschia palea var. debilis 3 NI031A Nitzschia linearis 1 NI166A Nitzschia sociabilis 2 NI9999 Nitzschia sp 3 PI022A Pinnularia subcapitata 1 ZZZ897 Planothidium lanceolata 10 1 ZZZ852 Psammothidium helvetica 8 RE001A Reimeria sinuata 2 3 SA001A Stauroneis ancsps 1 SU001A Surirella angusta 1 SU073A Surirella brebisonii 25 5

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Analyst Bernadette Ní Chatháin

Martyn Kelly*

SampleID NS2_FPM_056 NS2_FPM_056 SiteID LIC1 LIC1 SampleDate 08/06/2009 08/06/2009 Alkalinity mg/l CaCO3 21 21 Stream Licky Licky Reach N of

Reanagullee N of

Reanagullee Species Code Species Count Count SY001A Synedra ulna 4 TA001A Tabellaria flocculosa 7

Results Count 506 302 No of taxa 32 30 Class Good Moderate Sample sum 506 303 Sum TDI 506 300 TDI 41.9 47.83 eTDI 27.12 27.12 EQR 0.8 0.72 Class Good Moderate % Planktic 0 0 % Motile 72.92 68.65 % Organic tolerant 30.83 30.36

Table 10 Confidence in classification – results for audited sampled (explanation of terms are provided under Table 8) Site code

No. Samples

No. missing

Mean EQR

Class CoC High

CoC Good

CoC Mod

CoC Poor

CoC Bad

RoM CoC HG CoC MPB

RoM-G/M

LIC1* 1 0 0.71583 Moderate 0.566909 29.56958 59.92318 9.805171 0.135158 40.07682 30.13649 69.86351 30.13649

* Note particularly that the result straddles the Good/Moderate boundary (i.e although the site achieved moderate status there is a high risk of misclassification at 30%).

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Map 4 TDI Results from DARLEQ – diatom index

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

4.0 Discussion of results The abundance and composition of the macroalgal component of the phytobenthos varied considerably between the top site on this catchment (North of Reanagullee) and the bottom site (Licky Bridge). At North of Reanagulle, lack of light and suitable hard substrata at the site meant that no macroscopic algae could truly thrive in such conditions and instead were replaced by a brown biofilm layer which covered the limited available hard substrata on the heavily silted river bed. It should be noted that lack of suitable cobble/pebble/boulder type substrate, creates poor conditions for diatom sampling, and therefore results from assessments of such sites need to be treated with caution. This biofilm was composed of blue green algae, but predominately of diatoms which were highly motile (73% of the diatoms enumerated were motile species) and tolerate of organic pollution (31% of species enumerated were tolerate of organic pollution). Some diatoms possess the ability to move which is made possible by the means of a ‘raphe’ which is a long slit on the diatom’s valve surface, through which mucilage is secreted through the raphe fissure. The ability of diatoms to move means they have a competitive advantage in times of stress, for example, in low light situations, or in an environment suffering from heavy siltation, and can move to areas where they can maximize light availability and photosynthesize. The significance of such a high proportion of motile species in the diatom sample indicates a community under stress. Although the TDI indicated a ‘good status’ site, the risk of misclassification was high at 45%, thus indicating a strong possibility that the site is at moderate status. The diatoms species identified, further support the likelihood of misclassification. In particular, the percentage of the diatom sample made up of Achnanthidium minutissimum is low, while the percentage of Navicula lanceolata, Navicula gregaria and Nitzschia dissipata is high. Evidence from the literature would suggest that high abundances of Achnanthidium minutissimum in a sample, indicate higher quality sites as the taxon is sensitive to pollution (Kelly-Quinn et al., 2005; Kelly et al., 2008), while Navicula lanceolata, Navicula gregaria and Nitzschia dissipata show preferences for poorer quality sites and are nutrient tolerate and motile (Kelly et al., 2008). The diatom sample for North of Reanagulle was audited by an independent expert in the area of diatom taxonomy and ecology – Dr Martyn Kelly, as Dr Kelly had previously analysed samples from this location as part of another project. Results of this audit classified the site as at moderate status, albeit again with a high risk of misclassification at 30%. Diatom taxonomists usually work on an expected difference in TDI of up to 7 TDI units (based on studies of within-site variability) and therefore the difference between the two results for this site are therefore within expected variability limits. The site straddles the Good/Moderate status boundary and this was taken into account when the uncertainty estimates were examined (i.e. Dr Kelly’s analysis concluded moderate status with a high risk of misclassification, while my examination concluded good status with a high risk of misclassification). Although the count sizes were different, this is not important; the proportions of the major taxa were reasonably similar. It is suspected by the developer of DARLEQ (Dr Martyn Kelly) that there is a fairly narrow good status band at low alkalinities. The transition between the two states of good and moderate is,

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

not sharp (Kelly et al., 2008). Further iterations of DARLEQ/TDI would be required to resolve this issue. Therefore on the balance of evidence, and using the precautionary principle, this site will be classified as at moderate status, with a recommendation for further sampling, preferably on a multi-season basis e.g. two samples per year. The site at Toor was characterized by shaded, moss covered boulder and cobble substrata. The results from the diatom survey showed the site to be a high status and the macroalgal abundance was less than 5%. Finally, Licky bridge shows a significant issue with macroalgal abundance, and when surveyed in June, was dominated by Cladophora glomerata which was heavily branched and also extensively covered in diatom epiphytes. Diatom epiphytes such as Rhoicosphenia abbreviata and Cocconeis placentula show a change in the functionality of the diatom community at a site, showing a shift to a nutrient tolerate assemblage. The abundance of macroscopic algae decreased to below 5% in late July when surveyed, and this was in response to the extensive rainfall which was experience during this month which washed out the assemblage. Cladophora has been given the common name of ‘blanket weed’ and as an opportunistic competitor, it can become a nuisance, quickly occupying and exploiting favourable environments. An increase in the abundance of Cladophora often signals eutrophication in a water body (Bolas and Lund, 1974; Whitton, 1970), although at lower population densities, it is a natural component of many water systems (Whitton, 1970). Investigation into the reasons for the high abundance of this species in the Licky is required, and particular between Toor and Licky Bridge.

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

References Bolas, P.M and Lund J.W.G. 1974 Some factors affecting the growth of Cladophora glomerata in the Kentish Stour. J. Soc. Wat. Treat. Exam. 23, 25-51. CEN (2003). Water quality - Guidance standard for the routine sampling and pretreatment of benthic diatoms from rivers. EN 13946: 2003. Comité European de Normalisation, Geneva. CEN (2004). Water quality - Guidance standard for the identification, enumeration and interpretation of benthic diatom samples from running waters. EN 14407:2004. Comité European de Normalisation, Geneva. CEN standard (draft). Water quality – Guidance standard for the surveying, sampling and laboratory analysis of phytobenthos in shallow running water. John, D.M., Whitton, B.A. and Brook, A.J. (eds.) 2002 The freshwater algal flora of the British Isles. An identification guide to freshwater and terrestrial algal. Cambridge University Press. Kelly-Quinn, M., Harrington, T.J., Rippey, B., Bradley, C., Ní Chatháin, B., Dodkins, I., Trigg, D. (2005). Characterisation of Reference Conditions and Testing of Typology of Rivers. Report to Environment Protection Agency, Dublin, Ireland Kelly, M.G., Juggins, S., Bennion, H., Burgess, A., Yallop, M., Hirst, H., King, L., Jamieson, J., Guthrie, R., Rippey, B. 2006. Use of diatoms for evaluating ecological status in UK freshwaters. Science Report – SC030103/SR4. Kelly. M.G., Juggins, S., Guthrie, R., Pritchard, S., Jamieson, J., Rippey, B., Hirst, H., and Yallop, M. 2008. Assessment of ecological status in U.K. rivers using diatoms. Freshwater Biology, 53, 403-422. Krammer, K. and Lange-Bertalot, H. 1986 Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bacillariophyceae 2/1 Naviculaceae. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart. Krammer, K. and Lange-Bertalot, H. 1988 Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bacillariophyceae 2/2 Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart. Krammer, K. and Lange-Bertalot, H. 1991a Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bacillariophyceae 2/3 Centrales, Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart. Krammer, K. and Lange-Bertalot, H. 1991b Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bacillariophyceae 2/4 Achnanthaceae und Gomphonema. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart.

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Wehr, John D., and Sheath, Robert G. 2003. Freshwater Algae of North America – Ecology and Classification. Academic Press. Whitton, B.A. 1970 Biology of Cladophora in freshwaters. Water Research 4, 457-476. Whitton, B.A., Balbi, D.M., Gemmell, J.J., and Robinson, P.J. 2000 Blue-green algae of the British Isles interactive key to the species. (CD ROM). Department of Biological Sciences, University of Durham, Durham.

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Appendix I – Site survey condition assessments

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Site Survey Condition Assessment Results Site Code LIC1 LIC2 LIC3 Catchment Name Licky Licky Licky River Name Licky Licky Licky Site Name N. of Reanagullee Site at Toor Licky Bridge Date Sampled 08/06/2009 08/06/2009 08/06/2009 X co-ordinate 222154 218574 213153 Y co-ordinate 86776 84594 82751 Main purpose of Visit Diatom/

Macroscopic algae Diatom/ Macroscopic algae

Diatom/ Macroscopic algae

Bankside Vegetation Forestry (cattle) Trees & grass Trees & grass Surveyors B. Ní Cháthain,

D. Aherne B. Ní Cháthain, D. Aherne

B. Ní Cháthain, D. Aherne

Weather Overcast Overcast Overcast % Shading 80 70 40 Bank Width 2 meters 5 meters 10 meters Wet Width (m) 2 meters 5 meters 10 meters Average Depth 50cm 30cm 40cm Average length survey Area (m)

10 10 10

Velocity Slow Moderate Moderate Area of Survey Pool Riffle Riffle % Silt <10 <10 % Sand <5 % Gravel <10 % Pebble <50 % Cobble <5 <25 <50 % Boulders <5 <25 <10 % Bedrock % Filamentous Algae <75 <5 75--100 % Rannunculus % Myriophyllum % Potamogeton % Callitiche % Fontinalis <10 Others - Umbelliferae On banks of rivers

and in island in centre of channel

Plume of Silt? Yes significant - Heavy

Moderate to significant Yes significant - Heavy

Other Observations Biofilm v thick & may includes blue greens. Slippery to the touch

No mussels No mussels

IBE5670/DC004 Rev 0

Appendix II – Site photographs and macroalgal photographs