Progress Report for May 2011 to Nov 2011

Assessment of the Impacts of Forest Operations on the Ecological Quality of Water

2

ACRONYM and PROJECT TITLE HYDROFOR Assessment of the Impacts of Forest Operations on the Ecological Quality of Water REPORTING PERIOD May 2011 to November 2011

PROJECT TEAM Principal Investigators: Professor Michael Bruen (UCD) Dr. Mary Kelly-Quinn (UCD) Co-Investigators: Mr. John Clarke (UCD) Mr. Tom Drinan (UCC) Mr. Hugh Feeley (UCD) Ms. Joanne Finnegan (NUIG) Dr. Conor Graham (UCC) Dr. Simon Harrison (UCC) Dr. Mark Healy (NUIG) Professor John O’Halloran (UCC) Mr. John Regan (NUIG) Dr. Michael Rodgers (NUIG) Project Manager: Mr. Sean Blacklocke (UCD) COMPLETION DATE August 2013

OBJECTIVES

Undertake a review of international and national literature on potential impacts of forestry on surface water quality with respect to acidification, eutrophication and sedimentation at the various stages in the forest life cycle.

Compile a database of relevant data from previous projects dealing with forest-surface water interactions and explore the data for relationships between factors.

Undertake temporal and spatial assessment of the inputs from forest activities and impacts (acidification, eutrophication, sedimentation) from planting to felling, on the hydrochemical and ecological quality of water taking into account mitigation measures.

Quantify nutrient and sediment losses to water in relation to the nature, scale and duration of forestry activities in a sub-set of instrumented catchments.

Test the effectiveness of buffer strips in ameliorating inputs of nutrients and sediments from forest operations and consider design guidelines for the planning, construction and maintenance of buffer strips.

Evaluate the likely impact of expansion of forest cover in Ireland on hydro-ecology.

3

PROGRESS AGAINST OBJECTIVES AND DELIVERABLES Highlights of progress on HYDROFOR work packages (WP) for the period May 2011 through to November 2011 and work planned for the next reporting period are detailed below.

WP1 ADMINISTRATION & PUBLIC DISSEMINATION Table 1.1 lists the project’s peer-reviewed journal articles completed this reporting period. Table 1.1 HYDROFOR journal articles accepted for publication: May 2011-November 2011

Authors Year Title Journal,

Periodical Number

Relevant pages

Hugh B. Feeley, Martina Woods, Jan-Robert Baars & Mary Kelly-Quinn

2012 Refining a kick sampling strategy for the bioassessment of benthic macroinvertebrates in headwater streams

Hydrobiologia, Volume TBC

TBC (DOI: 10.1007/s10750-011-0940-9)

Table 1.2 lists the intended journal articles scheduled for completion before May 2012. Table 1.2 HYDROFOR journal articles scheduled for submission before May 2012

Lead Author Year Title

John Clarke 2012 Review of the impacts of forest operations on the ecological quality of water: 2 Hydrology

and water quality impacts from forest harvesting operations

John Clarke 2012 Review of the impacts of forest operations on the ecological quality of water: 3 Hydrology

and water quality impacts from forest planting operations

Tom Drinan 2012 Reference conditions of small blanket bog lakes in Ireland, with reference to abiotic and

biotic baselines

Tom Drinan 2012 Impacts of plantation forestry on the hydrochemical status of upland moorland lakes in

Ireland

Tom Drinan 2012 The impact of plantation forestry on the conservation value of blanket bog lakes: with

special reference to aquatic Coleoptera, Hemiptera and Odonata

Hugh Feeley 2012 Review of the impacts of forest operations on the ecological quality of water: 1 Closed

canopy forest and surface water acidification

Joanne Finnegan 2012 The impact of brash mats on phosphorus release in surface runoff (field study)

Conor Graham 2012 Impact of plantation forestry on the diet of salmonids in peatland lakes

Conor Graham 2012 Impact of plantation forestry on the density, population structure, growth and energetics of

salmonids in peatland lakes

4

Table 1.3 lists HYDROFOR’s other public dissemination activities for the period May 2011 to November2011. Table 1.3 HYDROFOR public dissemination activities: May 2011 to November 2011

Activities Leader Title Date Place Audience

Podium Presentation

Sean Blacklocke (self-funded)

Development of empirical models to predict the effects of common forestry operations on Irish surface water quality

August 2011 Meeting of the Jönköping County Administrators, Jönköping, Sweden

Public Officials

Conference Podium Presentation

Joanne Finnegan

Assessment of impacts of forest operations on the environment

September 2011

12th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology (Cest2011) Rhodes Island, Dodecanese, Greece

Researchers, Academics.

Article Joanne Finnegan

Research in Focus: Change

September 2011

Research Matters, NUIG, Autumn 2011 Issue

Researchers, Academics, Public Officials

Article Joanne Finnegan

Best Forestry Oral Presentation: Assessment of impacts of forest operations on the environment

September 2011

Environews, ESAI, Summer 2011 issue no.22

Researchers, Academics, Public Officials

Conference Podium Presentation

Sean Blacklocke Defining spatial relationships between forestry operations and surface water quality in Ireland

September 2011

15th International Water Association Diffuse Pollution Specialist Group Conference (DIPCON 2011) Rotorua, New Zealand

Researchers, Academics, Public Official, Consultants

Podium Presentation

Sean Blacklocke Predicting the effects of common forestry operations on Irish surface water quality

September 2011

Meeting of the Eastern River Basin District Liaison Officers, Dublin

Public Officials

Conference Poster Presentation

Sean Blacklocke Refining variables via GIS techniques to predict surface water quality impacted by common forestry operations in Ireland

November 2011

9th Annual EPA Postgraduate Seminar, Dublin

Researchers, Academics, Public Officials

Conference Poster Presentation

John Clarke Assessing surface water models for predicting the effects of different forestry operations and mitigation measures on Irish stream water quality

November 2011

9th Annual EPA Postgraduate Seminar, Dublin

Researchers, Academics, Public Officials

5

WP2 PLANTING WP2A1 Assessment of impacts and measures at afforested planting sites Throughout the period between May 2011 and November 2011, the HYDROFOR Project liaised with the Forestry Service’s permitting division in an effort to identify subcatchments in the east and southeast of Ireland in which afforestation of land might be a possibility in 2011 and/or 2012. Two years of repeated failures in attempts to identify suitable study sites under this work package via cooperative efforts with the private forestry enterprise Greenbelt gave rise to this collaborative effort between the project and the Forestry Service. It was resolved at the HYDROFOR Steering Committee meeting in January 2011 that chances to identify upcoming afforestation sites within a workday’s roundtrip of Dublin would be maximised by screening sites for suitability based on the status of its permit to plant, which could be communicated to the project by the Forest Service. Pursuant to this approach, letters requesting cooperation in the identification of sites with four private foresters and their respective landowners were drafted by the project and sent to the foresters and on to their client landowners via the Forest Service. All of the parties solicited for assistance agreed to cooperate with the project in this manner. Several sites were identified initially as potential candidates after a thorough screening of afforest site permit applications was undertaken by the Forest Service. This list of candidate sites was then further screened by the project. All but three sites from this original candidate list were eliminated due to either subcatchment, plantation site or water body characteristics not being consistent with those specified in the scope of work for this work package. For instance, many sites were located along greater-than-third-order streams. Results of tests of runoff constituents from such sites located downstream of the uppermost portion of the river system are inherently confounded by other dynamic upstream sources such as agricultural runoff, inevitably rendering inconclusive monitoring results indicative of impacts attributable exclusively to the afforest sites themselves. All three of these initial sites were visited. Both the planting plots themselves, as well as the proximal stream networks in these subcatchments, were mapped via global positioning system tracking. The maps were circulated to the project principals, and after a series of group discussions about the complications associated with instrumenting these sites and making interpretations of the data that would be generated from them, it was mutually agreed among the project team and Forest Service that all three sites were unsuitable. More specifically, one stream lacked the stream channel depth to be instrumented and its eutrophication impacts would have been heavily confounded by a piggery wash water basin effluent upstream of the planting site. The second site’s appropriate downstream instrumentation location was physically inaccessible, and an artificial channel ran parallel to the natural stream, which itself was clearly serving as a receiving water for the afforest plant site’s runoff (but to an indeterminable varying degree). Upon visiting and meeting with the landowner of the last of these initial candidate sites, it was discovered that the natural stream channel had recently been re-diverted, which not only made an accurate catchment delineation via the digital elevation model infeasible, it also eliminated the only accessible downstream instrumentation location for the system.

6

Following on from this, two additional afforest site candidates under review for Forest Service permits were identified and visited. The same on-site assessments, mapping and group discussions were conducted to determine the suitability of these sites, but both were also mutually determined to be unsuitable for this experiment. In the case of these candidate study catchments, row crop and grazing agricultural land uses dominated the upstream portions of these relatively large subcatchments, both of which had relatively small planting areas in comparison. As with previous candidate sites, it was agreed that both eutrophication and sedimentation impacts due to the afforest sites would be indistinguishable from those attributable to upstream agricultural operations. Although the cooperative effort between the project team and the Forest Service to identify suitable afforest sites (or even one suitable site) will continue throughout 2012, and the search has been extended now to areas that will require overnight accommodations for field crews to efficiently maintain, the project team and a number of its advisors are now discussing the inevitability of having to instrument a third reforest site (in lieu of afforest site(s)) in order to achieve the objective of a minimum of three instrumented sites across the broader planting work package (i.e., WP2 – Planting). So a search is being conducted in conjunction with Coillte in tandem with the afforest site search in an effort to identify another suitable reforest site to be planted in 2012 or at the latest by January 2013. Failing identification of suitable planting sites, one other contingency plan is also being considered: A windrowing operation would be instrumented at various drainage points, upstream of which a selection of physical mitigation measures (e.g., silt traps) would be installed. WP2B1 Assessment of impacts and measures at reforested planting sites Annalecka Brook Site Windrowing commenced at the Annalecka Brook reforest site (Figure 2.1) in August 2012. subcatchment reforest plot

first-order stream

Figure 2.1 Google Earth orthophotos of Annalecka Brook Site subcatchment

7

Figure 2.2 shows (in green) the area that has been windrowed and that is scheduled for replanting in January 2012. The site has been instrumented at the subcatchment’s pour point (marked PP in Figure 2.2) with a rectangular weir and an automatic sampler and flow meter just below the confluence of the subcatchment’s two first order streams (thicker blue lines to the far left and right in Figure 2.2). The other five blue lines and corresponding marked areas in Figure 2.2 (5, RD, 3, 1B, and 1A going left to right) show the runoff channels in the planting area of the subcatchment and the grab sample points along each of these channels, respectively. An additional grab sample point was established upstream of the runoff channels along the uppermost potion of the first-order stream to the right (marked US). The runoff channels were mapped via tracking (i.e., walked off with a global positioning system device recording the path). The precise meanders of the first-order streams were mapped this way as well.

Figure 2.2 Annalecka Brook Site subcatchment drainage network and sampling sites

Three storms were grab sampled before windrowing commenced at all locations along the runoff channels shown in Figure 2.2, and three storms were also sampled throughout the respective rain events via automatic sampling at the subcatchment’s pour point (i.e., outlet of the subcatchment) prior to windrowing. Three additional storm events during windrowing and one event after windrowing were sampled in the same manner at each of these locations. In Figure 2.3, results of suspended solids analysis of the three pre-windrowing storms that were sampled suggest that significant sedimentation as far downstream of the operations area as the pour point only occurs during relatively high flows. Also apparent in Figure 2.3 is a clear indication that windrowing of the planting site has elevated suspended solids levels at the instrumented sample point somewhat in proportion to the magnitudes of the storms.

8

Figure 2.3 Suspended solids results from Annalecka Brook Site Figure 2.4 is a rescaling of the results shown in Figure 2.3 allowing a more detailed comparison to be made between the relationships of stream flow to suspended solids for the before, during and after-windrowing periods that were sampled. Figure 2.4 Comparison of suspended solids results from Annalecka Brook Site

9

Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6 show a pattern of storm-induced total phosphorus elevation in the stream that is generally consistent with that of the results for suspended solids. Flashy stream flows seem to elevate levels somewhat disproportionately to more gradual rises in water levels, and total phosphorus concentrations in general increase as a percentage of flow with increased land coverage of upstream windrowing. Like with the suspended solids results, it is to be expected that flushing of these particulates through the pour point continues to increase immediately after windrowing is completed, when the maximum amount of land has been disturbed and after some upstream transport of the constituents has been in progress. Figure 2.5 Total phosphorus results from Annalecka Brook Site

Figure 2.6 Comparison of total phosphorus results from Annalecka Brook Site

10

Figure 2.7 shows the extent to which pH levels at this sample site fall and then begin to recover during storm events across the three sampled reforesting operation stages (i.e., before windrowing, during windrowing and after windrowing).

Figure 2.7 pH results from Annalecka Brook Site These results, which only pertain to the pour point instrumented sampling location, are preliminary and have not yet been subjected to rigorous interpretations or examined in conjunction with detailed field logs of operations at the site. It should also be noted that data on other important water quality parameters continue to be collected. Final collation and an initial interpretation of the data collected at the sampling points of the five runoff channels and the uppermost portion of the first-order stream shown in Figure 2.2 is still in progress. Results and interpretations of these data will follow in the technical report to be published at the end of the next reporting period. Oakwood Forest Site Windrowing at the Oakwood Forest replanting site (Figure 2.8) began in October 2011.

Figure 2.8 Google Earth orthophotos of Oakwood Forest Site subcatchment

11

Figure 2.9 shows (in green) the area that has been windrowed and that is scheduled for replanting in February 2012. The site has been instrumented at the subcatchment’s pour point (marked PP in Figure 2.9) with a rectangular weir and an automatic sampler and flow meter immediately downstream of an under-road conduit. Although the extent of the first-order stream, as designated by the Environmental Protection Agency, reaches only a few metres into the subcatchment (thicker blue line in the upper right corner of Figure 2.9), the stream actually extends to the top of the area that is to be replanted (longest of the thinner blue lines in Figure 2.9). Figure 2.9 also shows the three runoff channels in the planting area of the subcatchment and the grab sample points along each of these channels, respectively (labelled BD, MD and TD). As was done in the Annalecka Brook subcatchment, the runoff channels were mapped via tracking (i.e., walked off with a global positioning system device recording the path). Of particular interest in this study subcatchment is the strip of recently planted trees that lies between the extended portion of the first-order stream (that ultimately drains the plot to be replanted) and the replant plot itself. In addition to this area serving as a buffer to mitigate some of the sheet runoff that could potentially come from the reforest plot, a series of evenly spaced drains are to be installed within the planting area that will drain excess storm water directly to this buffer area.

Figure 2.9 Oakwood Forest Site subcatchment drainage network and sampling sites Prior to the initiation of the windrowing operation at this site, four storms were sampled at the pour point as well as at the confluences of the three runoff channels and the main stream. Three storms that occurred during the windrowing operation were also sampled at each of these sample points. Analysis of the results of the water quality tests of the instrumented samples from this site is only just beginning, but the graphical summaries of

12

the results for suspended solids (Figure 2.10) and total phosphorus (Figure 2.11) for the storms sampled to date are not much unlike those of the Annalecka Brook reforest site. Suspended solids and total phosphorus levels flushing through the subcatchment’s pour point seem to generally be increasing with increasing areas of windrowing completion.

Figure 2.10 Suspended solids results for Oakwood Forest Site

Figure 2.11 Total phosphorus results for Oakwood Forest Site One seeming outlier in the suspended solids and total phosphorus data for the series of Oakwood Site storms is the first sample drawn via automatic sampler at the beginning of the first storm during windrowing. The concentration of suspended solids was nearly .35 mg/l and total phosphorus for that sample was in excess of .07 mg/l, with a corresponding flow less than half of the peak flow relative to the base flow. The likely explanation for this is not sampling or analysis error. This aliquot was taken by the automatic sampler at a time in which the windrowing equipment was operating in a predominant drainway within the subcatchment. As such, a preliminary determination has been made that these data are not erroneous and that this loading event did in fact occur as it is depicted in the two graphs. As is the case with the Annalecka Brook Site data, the results presented here for the water quality monitoring of the Oakwood Forest Site are preliminary and have yet to be subjected to thorough interpretation. Similarly, final collation and inspection of the data detailing the results of the water quality testing that was done at the confluence points of the three runoff channels is still in progress. Results and initial interpretations of these data will follow in the technical report that will coincide with the next reporting period. At both the Annalecka and Oakwood sites, an additional round of sampling (i.e., instrumented sampling

13

at the pour point and grab sampling at the runoff channel confluences) will be done during the actual tree-planting operations, which are expected to commence in January and February 2012, respectively, and be completed two to three weeks thereafter. This extra round of sampling is an expansion to the original scope of work, which calls for three rounds of samples before, during and after the planting operation as a whole. What became apparent as the project team observed the operations at these two sites on the ground was that reforestation has two distinct phases – windrowing and actual tree planting, albeit the former of which is the only one expected to exhibit impacts as long as fertiliser is not being used in the tree planting process. But because the two phases are both generally marked by discrete beginnings and endings with a period of no activity between them, and to ensure no marginal impacts arise from the hand planting process, the project team agreed that this expansion of scope was necessary. As originally planned, three final rounds of post-planting sampling will still be undertaken at both sites. The first storm event immediately after tree planting will be sampled, followed by two additional storm events spaced approximately six months apart. It is expected that only two rounds of sampling at both sites will remain to be done at the end of the next reporting period.

WP3 MATURE FOREST WP3A1 Examination of Influences of atmospheric variables on a mature forest site The HYDROFOR Project’s FutMon site was instrumented in 2010 and has been sampled on four occasions to date under distinctive atmospheric conditions. The data detailing the water quality and flow during these storms is being collated with the site’s atmospheric data, which is being collected at a Coillte weather station located in the same forest within a few kilometres of the HYDROFOR water quality monitoring instruments. A thorough examination of these data has not yet been done, but these data will be analysed over the next reporting period and storms coinciding with atmospheric conditions not yet recorded during water sampling will be targeted for the remaining sampling rounds at this site. In order to both ease the burden of meteorological data collection at this site as well as facilitate the targeting of future storms with outstanding atmospheric conditions under which no water sampling has been done thus far, the project team installed a datalogger at the site’s Coillte weather station in summer 2010. This unit pushes the station’s data to a web site where it can be observed in real time and downloaded from a remote location. WP3A2 Assessment of impacts at mature forest river sites Significant progress was made over the past six months with the laboratory and data analysis of the samples from the three areas selected for sampling under this subtask: West, East and Southwest (see Figure 3.1 and also Table A.1 in Appendix 1). In terms of the hydrochemical analysis, water was collected by grab sampling and/or using passive samplers from July 2009 to November 2011, capturing both low and high-flow events at all sites. The fieldwork for this work package is complete. A summary of the results from the analysis of these samples’ chemical parameters is included in Tables A.2 and A.3 in Appendix 1.

14

Figure 3.1 WP 3A2 sampling site subcatchments (red delineations) and associated mature forest plots (green-shaded areas) in the west (A), east (B) and southwest (C) of Ireland

15

Further in situ water chemistry analysis is being undertaken in the Wicklow Mountains (granite & peaty soils). The pH and flow of two forested (WM01 and WM10) sites and two non-forested (control) (WM02 and WM11) sites is being continuously monitored and logged every five minutes to determine the frequency and duration of acid pulses in these Wicklow Mountain streams. This work was initiated in August 2011 and should be complete in early 2012. It too is an expansion of the original scope of work. Preliminary examination of acid‐sensitive Ephemeroptera shows richness and abundances to be consistently low at all moorland sites and several forested sites with the exception of July, when abundances, and on occasion richness, increases, possibly indicating recruitment. Even WM09 (a high-%-forested, high-slope site) which had no Baetis species present from October 2009 to April 2010 recorded Baetis sp. in July 2010. They were again absent in September 2010. This suggests temporary ecological recovery, which was also seen in the longitudinal work (see summary of findings from WP 3A3 below), likely related to adaptive life cycles. Kelly‐Quinn and others previously noted that the drop in pH in many forested streams in the east is rapid followed by a slow steady increase over a period of hours and sometimes days. This is a result of anthropogenic sources of acidity (e.g. SO4

2 and NO3) and high catchment run‐off. Although since the 1990’s there has been a marked decrease in anthropogenic atmospheric acidity, the project team, its advisors and Steering Committee members agree there remains a need to further characterise acidic episodes in forested and moorland streams with respect to the rate of change in pH and the duration of any decline. WP3A3 Assessment of impacts downstream of mature forest river sites The findings from this work package were published in Hydrobiologia in 2011. In summary, it was concluded that plantation conifer forests can increase the risk of acidification in acid-sensitive catchments with consequences for macroinvertebrates and ecosystem functioning. This study compared headwater streams in forested and non-forested catchments to appraise the distance required for the acid effect on macroinvertebrates to diminish downstream. Strict criteria were followed in the selection of paired streams, including similarities in elevation, aspect, stream order, geographical proximity, geology and soil type, with no inflowing tributaries in the first 2.5 km and no major land use other than plantation forest and moorland. Selected for study were two headwater streams (one forested, one non-forested) draining Ordovician sedimentary geology and two headwater streams (one forested, one non-forested) draining Old Red Sandstone (ORS) geology. All streams drained peaty soils. Up to six sites at 500m intervals were sampled in triplicate by multi-habitat kick sampling. Ecological impact and recovery from acid effects involved the entire macroinvertebrate community, but varied between seasons. Acid-sensitive Ephemeroptera revealed marked effects of episodic acidification, with Baetis rhodani and Rhithrogena semicolorata found to be transient between seasons. The increase in acid-sensitive ephemeropteran species with increasing distance downstream indicates the finite effects of forest-mediated acidification on soft water streams in Ireland. Ecological impact appears, therefore, to be localised within the catchment, with ecological recovery occurring a relatively short distance downstream. To the project team’s knowledge, this is the first study to have reported such results.

16

WP3B1-2 Assessment of impacts of mature and felled forests on small lakes Work on the 26 study lakes in work package 3B1 and 3B2 was completed in 2010, albeit additional work beyond the original project scope related to all 3B work packages continues to this day. This work is on the relative impacts of fish predation versus forestry on selected lake biology. An update on progress with this endeavour follows the update on work package 3B3.

To summarize the work completed pursuant to work packages 3B1 and 3B2, the data show that the impact of forestry, and in particular felling, is significant on small peatland lakes. In particular, lakes in clearfelled sandstone subcatchments were generally marked by higher values of a suite of relevant parameters, including TN, TP, SRP, total ammonia, TDOC, iron, colour, aluminium and calcium. Notably, dissolved oxygen levels were greatly reduced in lakes subject to catchment felling. There was one lake with mature forest, but no clearfelling, that had similar water chemistry as lakes with clearfelling. However the gradient surrounding this lake was comparatively steeper than that of the other lakes investigated and thus may explain the paradoxical nature of these findings.

For lakes on granitic geology, there was a similar pattern of elevated metals, nutrients and TDOC and lower dissolved oxygen in some (but not all) lakes subjected to felling. One lake was subject to recent clear-felling (from mid-2009) and had a relatively high-gradient subcatchment, whereas tree felling in another lake’s proximity was at the top of the subcatchment in a very low gradient area. Mature forest lakes on granitic geology also had somewhat elevated levels of the relevant parameters as compared to controls.

The results demonstrate the potential effect that conifer forests and felling can have on the water chemistry of small peatland lakes. Characteristically, forestry operations potentially resulted in elevated levels of plant nutrients (both N and P), metals (iron, manganese and aluminium) dissolved organic carbon and chlorophyll a. Also associated with these high constituent levels was low dissolved oxygen. Several lakes subject to catchment forestry without clearfelling also showed this pattern of water chemistry. This suggests that clearfelling exacerbates an existing pattern of water chemistry runoff from pre-felled plantations, rather than acting as a very different potential source of materials to receiving waters. Interestingly, not all lakes had a similar response to clearfelling or forests. The greatest effects were seen for the steepest catchments where, presumably, run-off from forests or felling areas was greatest.

Under work package 3B2, littoral macroinvertebrate assemblages appeared to respond to changes in water chemistry. Littoral macroinvertebrate data were analysed using non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMS) as an ordination method. For this dataset, the correlation coefficient for NMS 1st scores and PCA axis 1 scores was 0.751. Control lakes contained more trichopteran taxa and algivorous beetles, whereas the mature and clearfelling lakes contained more Odonata, and Heteroptera taxa.

These data also indicated that aquatic Coleoptera richness is higher in lakes surrounded by clearfelling (on both sandstone and granitic geologies) and mature forest (on granite), as compared with aquatic Coleoptera richness in the control lakes. Alternatively, Trichoptera was shown to have reduced taxon richness in forest-impacted lakes across both geologies, albeit this was most pronounced in the granite-geology lakes.

17

Odonate richness was higher in sandstone clearfelling lakes with respect to sandstone control lakes, whereas lakes surrounded by mature forests on granitic geologies had higher taxon richness than control lakes on similar geology. Aquatic Heteroptera taxon richness was found to be higher in lakes impacted by clearfelling on both geologies. In general, beetles, bugs and odonates appear to be the main taxa which vary markedly in lakes of varying forestry operations.

BIO-ENV analysis revealed that variations in temperature, TDOC, TON, calcium and potassium accounted for 59.4% of the variation in the Chydoridae assemblages on granite geologies. For the granite lakes, the variables pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, TP and TON explained 48.0% of the variation.

WP3B3 Assessment of impacts of forestry on selected biological functions in lakes

Work under work package 3B3 is aimed at improving an understanding of:

Effects of forestry on lentic salmonids via assessment of energetics and diet;

How forestry impacts on energy flow to tertiary consumers in lakes via stable isotope analyses of δ13Carbon, δ15Nitrogen, δ34Sulphur;

Effects of forestry on life history choice of trout via stable isotope analyses of alevins/ova & putative prey from lotic, lenthic & marine feeding locations; and

Relative impacts of fish predation versus forestry on lake pelagic and littoral zooplankton and macroinvertebrates

Effects of forestry on lenthic salmonids Energetics Of the 18 candidate study lakes investigated for suitability under work package 3B3, six lakes were chosen for further study. These included two high-impacted (by forestry operations) lakes, two medium-impacted lakes, and two control lakes. Figure 3.2 shows results for a selection of key water quality parameters for each of the lakes labelled by name and category.

18

Figure 3.2 Results of water quality analysis of six study lakes

Some of the key results of the gill net sampling of these six lakes with respect to salmonid densities are shown in Figure 3.3. Estimates of growth and relative production of trout by year class were also derived from these samples and appear in Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5, respectively.

Figure 3.3 Trout densities (estimated via catch per unit effort) in six study lakes

19

Figure 3.4 Growth of trout by year class for six study lakes

Figure 3.5 Relative production of trout by year class for six study lakes

20

High temperature regimes for the six study lakes are shown in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6 High temperature regime for six study lakes

With respect to the effects of forests and forestry operations on the energetics of lenthic salmonids, the following preliminary conclusions about these study lakes are being drawn from these and the other results generated in this experiment:

• There is no observable impact from forestry on brown trout density.

• There is a difference in community structure between control and forested lakes.

• There was no observable impact on the growth achieved by trout over the study period.

The fish were consistently larger in the lakes associated with high levels of forestry. Issues for further investigation include the extent to which high temperature regimes are associated with metabolic stress and whether the presence of the forests themselves is elevating lake temperatures.

Diet

The dietary analyses conducted to better understand the effects of forests and forestry operations on the diets of lenthic salmonids included analysis of salmonids’ gut contents and putative prey. A summary of the results for both broken out for each study lake is presented in Figure 3.7 and Figure 3.8, respectively.

21

Figure 3.7 SIMPER Analysis of study species’ diet compositions for six study lakes

Figure 3.8 Benthic putative prey of trout for four study lakes

22

Some preliminary conclusions are being drawn from interpretations of the analyses that have been conducted to date:

Neither the habitat where captured nor the age of the fish had a significant impact on their diet composition.

Significant differences in the diets of the fish captured in the various study lakes were observed. However, there was as much variation within the treatments as there was between treatments.

Reduced benthic putative prey appears to coincide with increased forestry presence. Impact of forestry on lake food webs via stable isotope analysis

Figure 3.9 below is a summary of results for some of the key water quality parameters for which sampling was undertaken in an effort to better understand the impacts of forestry and forest operations on lake food webs via stable isotope analysis. In this experiment, three sites populated with fish and three sites with no fish populations were sampled across the three categories of lakes – moorland (no impact from forestry); low forestry-impacted areas; and high-forestry impacted areas.

Figure 3.9 Results of water chemistry for study lakes and controls

23

Effects of forestry on life history choice of trout

Life histories for brown trout in Ireland can vary significantly. Some have been shown to remain in natal streams their entire lives. Alternatively, they sometimes migrate to downstream lakes or even out to the sea (as sea trout). Because a brown trout fry has a detectable isotopic signal that indicates the location from which its mother obtained her energy, fry sampling as conducted in this experiment allows determinations to be made about the sample populations’ mothers’ life histories. Graphical displays of preliminary results of the stable isotope analysis done for each of the study lakes (Lough Nuala, Seecon Lough and Lough Na nArd Doiriu) are presented in Figures 3.10 to 3.12. In short, no association between forestry and the rate of anadromy of brown trout was evident in the results of these analyses.

Figure 3.10 Results of stable isotope analysis for Lough Nuala

24

Figure 3.11 Results of stable isotope analysis for Seecon Lough

Figure 3.12 Results of stable isotope analysis for Lough Na nArd Doiriu

25

Relative impacts of fish predation versus forestry on selected lake biology

Observations of associations between forestry operations and diminished biotic assemblages of small fishless lakes that were made during the completion of the originally scoped tasks under work package 3B led the project team to expand the original scope of work to include examination of larger fish-populated lakes in this respect. This extension to work package 3B is an investigation of the relative roles of bottom-up, forestry-mediated impacts versus top-down (predatory fish) impacts on lake pelagic and littoral zooplankton and macroinvertebrates. Figure 3.13 is a schematic of the study design.

Figure 3.13 Study design for assessing impacts of fish predation versus forestry on lake biology

Six study lakes in County Galway – three with fish and three without – were sampled in this endeavour. They are a subset of study lakes already sampled pursuant to work package 3B. All are on igneous geology. Pelagic zooplankton was sampled in September 2011 via hauls and benthic grabs. Fish gut content samples were also collected in September 2011 using gill and fyke nets. Littoral macroinvertebrates were sampled twice throughout summer and fall 2011 using semi-quantitative sweeps of each mesohabitat present in each lake. Water chemistry samples were taken for key parameters in July and September 2011. Results of these tests for water quality are presented in a graphical display of a principal component analysis on mean values for each of the parameters tested in Figure 3.14.

26

Figure 3.14 Principal component analysis of means of water chemistry variables for six study lakes

These results are comparable with those of the water chemistry tests done under the original scope of work for work package 3B1. Forestry operations, and in particular felling, appear to be yielding higher concentrations of plant nutrients, TDOC, major ions and heavy metals and reducing dissolved oxygen. Elevated pH levels were also observed and are likely attributable to the increased calcium loading sometimes associated with forestry-impacted waters. It is assumed this elevated pH facilitates a higher level of nitrification of incoming ammonia, which is also common in forestry runoff. These hydrochemical changes can be expected to alter the trophic state of these lakes.

27

Figure 3.15 (left) shows that results indicated that littoral macroinvertebrate community structure did not appear to be influenced by the lakes’ respective mesohabitat availabilities. Alternatively, Figure 3.15 (right) illustrates the finding that fish predation (confounded by lake size differences) appears to be having a strong influence on littoral macroinvertebrate community structure.

Figure 3.15 Non-metric multi-dimensional scaling plot of littoral macroinvertebrate communities with respect to mesohabitat availability (left) and fish presence/absence (right) for six study lakes

Figure 3.16 shows the total species richness (as estimated from analysing both sweeps and trap samples) for the six study lakes.

Figure 3.16 Total species richness (sweeps and traps) for six study lakes

28

WP4 FELLING WP4A1 Instrumented assessment of impacts and measures at harvesting sites Glennamong Site A number of baseline and storm events have been monitored in the Glennamong study and control site (Figure 4.1). Both sites are approximately eight hectares in area and are fully instrumented with an H‐Flume for measuring the flow and a data‐sonde for measuring pH, temperature, conductivity and dissolved oxygen. A weather station is in place at the study site as well. Pre‐felling data collection commenced in March 2010 and continued until February 2011.

Figure 4.1 Orthophoto of Glennamong River study site Pre-clearfell results indicated that the control and study stream were draining areas of the same size and that the response to heavy rainfall was similar in both streams. Both streams displayed similar concentrations of suspended sediment (SS), soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP), nitrate-N (NO3‐N) and ammonium-N (NH4‐N) during storm events. pH in both streams was low and normally was about 3.8. The study site was clearfelled in a two-month period from early February to late March 2011. A number of storms were collected during and after clearfelling. Results from these storms showed that there is an increase in SS, as expected, during clearfelling. However, little change was noted in the concentration of SRP, NO3‐N and NH4‐N during storm events. Data collected before and after clearfelling for the two sites are shown in Figures 4.2 – 4.8.

29

F low from s tudy and c ontrol s ite

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

01/02/2010 12/05/2010 20/08/2010 28/11/2010 08/03/2011 16/06/2011

Flo

w (

lit/

se

c)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Ra

infa

ll (

mm

/hr)

S tudy S ite flow

C ontrol s ite flow

F lume limit

C learfelling

R ainfall

Figure 4.2 Flow from Glennamong River study and control site ‐ January 2010 to July 2011

Figure 4.3 Average daily flow‐weighted mean concentrations of suspended sediment (SS) measured in the control and study streams - January 2010 to July 2011 The SS was also broken down into organic and mineral components to show disturbance of the stream bed or peat particles being carried from the catchment (Figures 4.4 and 4.5).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

02/01/2010 12/04/2010 21/07/2010 29/10/2010 06/02/2011 17/05/2011

SS

co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (

mg

/l)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Flo

w (

l/s

)

Average daily S S concentration in control s ite

Average daily S S concentration in s tudy s ite

C learfelling

C ontrol S ite F low

S tudy S ite F low

30

Figure 4.4 Average daily flow‐weighted mean concentrations of organic SS measured in the control and study streams - January 2010 to July 2011

Figure 4.5 Average daily flow‐weighted mean concentrations of mineral SS measured in the control and study streams - January 2010 to July 2011

0.000

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

23/12/2009 02/04/2010 11/07/2010 19/10/2010 27/01/2011 07/05/2011

Org

an

ic S

S c

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(m

g/l)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Flo

w (

lit/s

ec

)

Average daily organic S S concentration in control s ite

Average daily organic S S concentration in s tudy s ite

C learfelling

F low in control s ite

F low in s tudy s ite

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

90.000

100.000

23/12/2009 02/04/2010 11/07/2010 19/10/2010 27/01/2011 07/05/2011

Min

era

l S

S c

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(m

g/l

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Flo

w (

lit/

se

c)

Average daily mineral S S concentration in control s ite

Average daily mineral S S concentration in s tudy s ite

C learfelling

F low in control s ite

F low in s tudy s ite

31

Figure 4.6 Average daily flow‐weighted mean concentrations of soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) measured in the control and study streams - January 2010 to July 2011

Figure 4.7 Average daily flow‐weighted mean concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) measured in the control and study streams - January 2010 to July 2011

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0.045

0.050

23/12/2009 02/04/2010 11/07/2010 19/10/2010 27/01/2011 07/05/2011 15/08/2011

So

lub

le R

ea

cti

ve

Ph

os

ph

oru

s (

mg

/l)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Flo

w (

lit/

se

c)

Average daily S R P concentration in control s ite

Average daily S R P concentration in s tudy s ite

C learfelling

F low in control s ite

F low in s tudy s ite

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

0.400

0.450

0.500

23/12/2009 02/04/2010 11/07/2010 19/10/2010 27/01/2011 07/05/2011 15/08/2011

So

lub

le R

ea

cti

ve

Ph

os

ph

oru

s (

mg

/l)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Flo

w (

lit/

se

c)

Average daily T P concentration in control s ite

Average daily T P concentration in s tudy s ite

C learfelling

F low in control s ite

F low in s tudy s ite

32

Figure 4.8 Average daily flow‐weighted mean concentrations of ammonium‐nitrogen (NH4‐N) measured in the control and study streams - January 2010 to July 2011 River Ow Sites Two other sites instrumented for observing the effects of felling on surface water quality are located on respective tributaries of the River Ow in the Wicklow Mountains (Figure 4.9). 2 Figure 4.9 Google Earth orthophotos of River Ow Site 1 (left) and 2 (right) subcatchments

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

23/12/2009 02/04/2010 11/07/2010 19/10/2010 27/01/2011 07/05/2011

NH

4-N

(mg

/l)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Flo

w (l

it/se

c)

Average daily NH4-N concentration in control s ite

Average daily NH4-N concentration in s tudy s ite

F low in control s ite

F low in s tudy s ite

C learfelling

Ow Site 1 Ow Site 2

33

River Ow Site 1 The forested area within River Ow Site 1’s catchment (delineated in red in Figure 4.9 (left)) is now scheduled to be felled in April 2012. As this site was originally scheduled to be felled in summer 2010 and again in summer 2011, a brief recant of the history of the challenges associated with both the forestry operation schedule as well as the instrumentation of this site itself is warranted. In 2009, it was agreed by the project team, its advisors and its Steering Committee that two subcatchments in which clearfelling was scheduled for 2010 would be instrumented. These two subcatchments, Ow Sites 1 and 2, were chosen primarily because they were both:

on peaty soils and igneous geology;

of a similar total subcatchment size;

of similar slope and stream flow;

absent of potentially confounding upstream land uses; and

of a similar forest-as-percent-of-subcatchment size. All but the latter of these characteristics was true of the nearby mooreland-only control site that was instrumented as well. In the spring and early summer of 2010, and in anticipation of the original summer 2010 felling schedule which included cutting a plot inclusive of the neighbouring Ow Sites 1 and 2 subcatchments, three pre-fell storms were sampled for the relevant suite of water quality parameters at the two felling sites and at the control site. However, in late summer 2010, the felling operation on this plot was aborted before cutting got underway in either of the subcatchments after a sawmill fire affectuated the termination of this timber’s contract. At that time, Coillte projected that felling would resume in relatively short order, as soon as a new recipient of the timber could be identified. In the late fall / early winter of 2011, an epic winter storm demolished the control site’s instrumentation station and re-channelled the stream at the Ow Site 1 pour point such that the original sampling site could no longer be used. The project team deemed the control site too risky for reinstrumentation given the presumed potential for flash flooding there, but Site 1 instrumentation was re-established upstream of where the channel split in the subcatchment. This did, however, require instrumentation of two pour points rather than only one at this site. This was done in an effort to attempt to cature all of the runoff draining from the original subcatchment area. But by early 2011, no felling commencement date had materialised, and best projections from Coillte were that the site would not be felled until perhaps 2012 or 2013 or later. In an effort to salvage what by this time was a significant investment in these sites, returns on which were all contingent on its felling, the project team made a formal petition to Coillte management to fell the trees in the two study subcatchments as soon as possible, even if only for the purposes of allowing HYDROFOR to complete its experiments. Coillte ultimatley agreed and felling at the site re-commenced in summer 2011. As such, another round of three pre-fell storms were sampled at the three instrumentation sites (one setup at Ow 2 and two setups upstream of the original Ow 1 site) in summer 2011. The trees in Ow 2 subcatchment were felled as scheduled. The trees in Ow

34

1 subcatchment were not due to adverse weather conditions, and they are not scheduled to be felled now until April 2012 at the earliest. Further complicating matters, throughout the 2011 summer/fall pre-fell sampling at Ow Site 1’s two instrumentation sites, it became evident that the hydrology on the west side of the subcatchment, parallel to the main stream channel, was too unstable for sampling at any single point. The decision was thus made by the project team to retain the instrument setup on the main stream in the subcatchment, which is to the east, and abandon the more dendritic and dynamic network on the west side of the subcatchment. This decision was made after a subcatchment-wide survey was completed via tracking (i.e., global position system mapping) of essentially the entire drainage network in this subcatchment. The consequences of this decision with respect to using and interpreting all of the data collected to date at Ow Site 1 are minimal due to the fact that the variable drainage area to the west of the subcatchment that is no longer being sampled is a relatively small portion of the original subcatchment. Figure 4.10 shows the the location of the three River Ow sites and the evolution of instrumented sampling within the Ow Site 1 subcatchment(s).

Figure 4.10 River Ow Sites and evolution of instrumented sampling at Ow Site 1

Ow Sites 1 & 2 and control – Summer 2010

Ow Sites 1-east and 1-west – Summer 2011

Ow Site 1 (formerly Ow Site 1-east) – Fall 2011

35

River Ow Site 2 The forested plot within the yellow delineation in Ow Site 2’s catchment (delineated in red), pictured in Figure 4.9 (right) was finally felled in August 2011. In addition to the pre-felling instrumented samples that were collected in 2010 in anticipation of that summer’s felling (which again was subsequently cancelled), four pre-felling storms were sampled during the summer of 2011, and five during-felling storms have now been sampled at this site. Also, the first of three intended post-felling storms has also been sampled. Results of suspended solids concentrations for each of these storms are shown in Figure 4.11. The project team is still in the process of analysing and interpreting the results of the samples taken to date at Ow 2, but preliminary analysis and on-site observations suggest that acute impacts associated with near-stream equipment operation may be more prevalent at this site than more constant and chronic ones.

Figure 4.11 Results for suspended solids (SS) concentrations from Ow Site 2 storm samples WP4A2 Assessment of impacts and measures at harvesting sites via grab sampling At the time of drafting the scope of work for work package 4A2, it was envisaged that a suitable series of plots scheduled for potential felling in the Wicklow Mountains - ones with similar key subcatchment characteristics (e.g., geology, soil, slope, size) - could be identified over the course of the project’s five-year duration so that downstream impacts from these fell plots could be assessed. The only characteristic that was to be dissimilar between these subcatchments was the area of forest to be felled in proportion to the total area of its associated subcatchment. Such a series of water quality samples taken at points along streams draining varying per cent-of-subcatchment-felled areas would enable the project team to gain a better understanding of the extent to which increasing relative fell plot sizes cause increases in negative impacts on downstream water quality. A comprehensive assessment of each of these potential fell plots for the calendar years 2009 and 2010 was done by way of delineating the subcatchments associated with Coillte’s ‘sales proposal’ geographic information system (GIS) data for these two years. The forested plots in this database for a given year are those that could potentially be felled, as they are

36

the ones with timber that is scheduled to go on auction that year. Although approximately 100 of these potential fell plots were mapped and assessed by the project team over these two years, groups of suitable fell plots with varying proportions of fell areas could not be identified as originally envisaged. Although some fell plots’ subcatchments did have some matching key characteristics (e.g., similar size, same geology), none of these groups of subcatchments had significantly varying per cent-of-subcatchment-felled areas. Unfortunately the realisation that it was not going to be possible to complete this work package in the manner originally envisaged only came about after a series of thorough and very labour-intensive GIS mapping exercises. Nevertheless, the project team continued rigorous mapping exercises in its efforts to amend the scope for this work package through to late 2011. Throughout 2010, the project team, in accordance with instructions agreed upon with its advisors and Steering Committee members, initiated efforts to identify a plot or plots to be felled that constituted a relatively large portion of its associated subcatchment. Theoretically, if a single plot to be felled representing a relatively large proportion of its subcatchment’s total area could be identified, and if the downstream geology, soil and slope were generally the same as that of the subcatchment, a series of spatially expanding subcatchments could be delineated from pour points downstream of the original subcatchment’s pour point. This would have the effect of making the static fell plot size smaller in proportion to its expanding subcatchment’s total areas. With this scope revision, water quality sampling would therefore be done before, during and after felling at:

the pour point farthest downstream of the fell area (i.e., the pour point for the largest subcatchment in which the proportion of felled area is the smallest);

a pour point or series of pour points upstream of this outermost one for progressively smaller subcatchments with progressively larger per cent-of-subcatchment-felled areas; and finally

the pour point for the smallest subcatchment in which the fell plot accounts for the largest per cent area of the total subcatchment area.

Figure 4.12 is an illustration of a theoretical series of ‘nested’ subcatchments as described above. Each has a significantly different ratio of felled area to total subcatchment area.

37

Figure 4.12 Contiguous subcatchment delineations for varying fell area proportions A number of additional in-person meetings were held throughout 2010 and 2011 with the Coillte forest managers who oversee felling operations in the Wicklow Mountain region. Potential candidate felling sites of the nature described above (i.e., within nested subcatchments) for the latter half of 2010 and all of 2011 were investigated during these meetings. The series of exchanges drew upon each of the forester’s ground knowledge of the potential felling sites and the project team’s GIS maps, some of which were generated during the meetings themselves and included critical hydrologic and other physical subcatchment characteristics. Much to the project team’s surprise, only one suitable felling site within an appropriate nested subcatchment was identified during this process, and much to the team’s disappointment, this site was felled before a round of pre-felling samples could be collected. In the fall of 2011, the 2012 Coillte sales proposal GIS dataset for the entire country was acquired by the project team for the exclusive purpose of making a final attempt at identifying potential work package 4A2 study site candidates. The dataset consists of the plots with timber scheduled to go on auction during 2012. It is the best representation of potential candidate felling sites for which subcatchment delineations can be made in order to assess their suitability for sampling pursuant to the objectives of work package 4A2. Upon completion of this mapping exercise, which extended west and south of the originally targeted Wicklow Mountain region, three series of nested subcatchments and five stand-alone subcatchments with somewhat variable proportions of intended fell areas were identified as potentially suitable for study. These subcatchments do not, however, have closely matching physical characteristics as originally envisaged for these study sites.

38

The project team is currently in communications with the respective Coillte foresters overseeing these potential felling operations to ensure notification of a sale of timber from any of these subcatchments’ fell plots will be prompt enough to allow for up to three rounds of pre-fell sampling by the project team. The project team is optimistic that sampling pursuant to the objectives in work package 4A2 will be undertaken in 2012 and that the results yielded from these efforts will be useful in drawing conclusions about the extent to which increases in fell area proportions increase downstream water quality impacts, however the actual number of subcatchments and thus the number of samples that will be examined is still indeterminable at this time. It should be noted that maps showing the locations of these potential candidate subcatchments cannot be shown here due to the terms of the confidentiality agreement made between Coillte and HYDROFOR during the acquisition of the 2012 sales proposal dataset. WP4B1-6 Assessment of buffer strip effectiveness in mitigating harvesting impacts To date, a number of yearly vegetation surveys have been carried out on site to quantify the composition and change in vegetation cover on site. The phosphorus (P) content of various plant species was determined in August 2010 to highlight species with a greater ability to uptake phosphorus (Figure 4.13). Work is ongoing linking vegetation cover to composition of runoff (see WP4B2, 4B3).

Figure 4.13 Phosphorus content of various buffer strip species Results from the collection of subsurface flows since July 2009 from the standpipes show that there is an increase in P release in the regenerated area. This can be attributed to the brash mat degradation in this area. The layout of brash mats in the regenerated area is shown in Figure 4.14.

39

Figure 4.14 Location of brash mats at Altaconey Felling Site Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) analysis was carried out twice on the area using ArcGIS to show the high concentrations of SRP under the decaying brash mats. The following set of figures (Figures 4.15, 4.16 and 4.17) depicts the SRP concentrations before clearfelling at the three monitored depths.

Figure 4.15 SRP concentration before clearfelling in μg/l at 20 cm depth

40

Figure 4.16 SRP concentration before clearfelling in μg/l at 50 cm depth

Figure 4.17 SRP concentration before clearfelling in μg/l at 100 cm depth The next set of figures (4.18, 4.19 and 4.20) shows the concentration in the buffer and the newly clearfelled area from February 2011 onwards at the three monitored depths.

41

Figure 4.18 SRP concentration after clearfelling in μg/l at 20 cm depth

Figure 4.19 SRP concentration after clearfelling in μg/l at 50 cm depth

42

Figure 4.20 SRP concentration after clearfelling in μg/l at 100 cm depth These results from the standpipes also show that SRP concentrations decline as they move from the forested area to the river’s edge. Figure 4.21 shows a cross section of the regenerated area. The first brash mat coincides with the peak in the SRP concentration in the graph below it.

Figure 4.21 Cross section of SRP concentration (indicated as DRP – dissolved reactive P in the graph) in μg/l at the 50 cm depth from the forest edge to river

43

A number of soil tests have also been carried out on the site. These data are being analysed in conjunction with those already collected, and include: • Water Extractable Phosphorus (WEP) • Isotherms for adsorption capacity • Moisture content to determine the impact of the brash mat during clearfelling • Carbon and nitrogen content of the soil • KCL extraction for organic nitrogen content Pre‐clearfell results obtained at Altaconey show there is an increase in SRP concentration moving from the forest edge to under the brash mat. This reduces again closer to the river. These initial indications show that a regenerated buffer is successful in reducing P concentrations from the forest to the river bank. As detailed in Table 4.1, sampling under WP 4B1-5 is nearing completion and projected to be complete before the end of the next reporting period. Table 4.1 Sampling progress for Work Package 4B1-5

44

Appendix A: Data for WP3A2 Table A.1 Rivers sampled (October 2009 to November 2010) and site characteristics Table A.2. The meana, rangeb and medianc for selected chemical parameters and ionic values recorded for each site sampled between October 2009 and November 2010 Table A.3 The meana, rangeb and medianc of non-marine ions at all sites sampled (October 2009 to November 2010). NM = non-marine, NMHA = non-marine hardness (CaCO3)

45

Table A.1 Rivers sampled (October 2009 to November 2010) and site characteristics – WP3A2

Region Stream name Site code

Longitude Latitude Order Elevation (m.a.s.l.)

Catchment size (km2)

Slope Soil Geology %Mature Forest*

West Croaghaun Stream MM1 084404 319228 3 20 4.93 0.017 BktPt S/Gn 44.9 West Srahnamanragh Stream MM2 080667 314639 2 15 5.43 0.021 BktPt S/Gn 0.0 West Trib of Glenturk Beg MM3 088014 327963 2 30 1.27 0.120 BktPt Quartz 23.2 West Glenturk More MM4 086780 329503 2 29 2.56 0.052 BktPt Quartz 53.1 West Trib of Glenamoy River MM5 090970 333105 2 10 3.16 0.093 BktPt S/Gn 0.0 West Fiddaunuganass Stream MM6 097911 332879 2 116 2.28 0.022 BktPt S/Gn 68.1 West Fiddauntuckletaun Stream MM7 097450 332870 2 102 1.72 0.058 BktPt S/Gn 47.6 West Headwaters of Skerdagh Rv MM8 100760 303156 3 152 2.03 0.211 AminSRPT S/Gn 0.0 West Headwaters of Bar Deela Rv MM9 096511 311629 2 100 1.52 0.034 BktPt Quartz 69.1 West Headwaters of Oweniny Rv MM10 094947 312721 2 128 6.35 0.167 BktPt Quartz 18.5 West Trib of Goulan Rv MM11 098603 307953 2 109 1.51 0.073 BktPt S/Gn 21.3 West Trib of Castlehill Rv MM12 109426 310453 2 85 1.57 0.025 AminSRPT S/Gn 0.0 East Cransilliagh Brook WM1 308923 214276 2 339 0.41 0.171 BktPt Gr/F 31.1 East Trib of River Liffey WM2 311564 212471 3 377 1.93 0.085 BktPt Gr/F 0.0 East Trib of Cloghoge Rv WM3 314367 209960 2 411 2.94 0.020 BktPt Gr/F 0.0 East Inchavore River 1 WM7 313163 204925 2 233 1.99 0.044 BktPt Gr/F 23.6 East Inchavore River 2 WM8 311775 205004 2 299 0.95 0.036 BktPt Gr/F 38.1 East Clohernagh Brook WM9 309990 190100 2 312 3.67 0.100 AminSRPT Gr/F 61.2 East Ballyknocken Brook WM10 300232 206260 2 221 1.13 0.191 AminSRPT Gr/F 36.1 East Fraughan Brook WM11 301885 208255 2 227 0.84 0.202 AminSRPT Gr/F 0.0 East Toor Brook WM12 295454 202384 2 277 1.87 0.093 BktPt Gr/F 33.0 Southwest Foherish Rv KM1 124422 080691 2 246 5.49 0.123 AminSRPT ORS 65.8 Southwest Boohill Rv KM2 119354 080241 2 219 2.37 0.130 AminSRPT ORS 0.0 Southwest Cummeenabuddoge Stm KM3 120412 084237 2 343 3.77 0.082 BktPt ORS 53.9 Southwest Trib of Clydagh 2 KM4 119565 083634 2 259 0.56 0.085 BktPt ORS 85.6 Southwest Trib of Clydagh 3 KM5 119388 083585 2 333 1.17 0.079 BktPt ORS 22.8 Southwest Clydaghroe Stream KM6 118244 083473 2 307 1.32 0.104 BktPt ORS 83.6 Southwest Trib of Clydagh 5 KM7 117767 083232 2 298 0.77 0.106 BktPt ORS 89.1 Southwest Trib of Clydagh 6 KM8 116242 083230 2 264 3.03 0.052 BktPt ORS 80.0 Southwest Glashacormick Stream KM9 115894 083248 2 256 3.70 0.044 BktPt ORS 0.0 Southwest Glashnasharragh Stream KM10 117661 084385 2 332 1.51 0.101 BktPt ORS 0.0 Southwest Knocknagowen Stream KM11 120293 084354 2 342 6.99 0.075 AminSRPT ORS 34.0 Southwest Glanlee Rv KM12 107862 074937 3 210 1.73 0.098 BktPt ORS 0.0 Southwest Knocknabro Stream KM13 116550 084250 2 330 1.41 0.070 BktPt ORS 44.7

*plantation conifer forest only, 0.0% = moorland, BktPt = blanket peat, AminSRPT = peaty lithosolic-podzolic soils, S/Gn = Schist/Gneiss, Quartz = Quartzite, Gr/F = Granite/Felsite.

46

Table A.2 The meana, rangeb and medianc for selected chemical parameters and ionic values recorded for each site sampled between October 2009 and November 2010

Region /Site

pH Alkalinity (mg CaCO3/L)

DOC (mg/L)

Total Aluminium

(mg/L)

Na+ (µeq/L)

K+ (µeq/L)

Mg2+ (µeq/L)

Ca2+ (µeq/L)

Cl-

(µeq/L) SO4

2- (µeq/L)

NO3-

(µeq/L)

West

MM1 5.82a (4.8 to 6.9)b

5.90c

5.31 (0.2 to 15.2)

4.15

19.35 (9.7 to 27.2) 19.29

0.13 (0.07 to 0.31)

0.11

759.1a (618.6 to 865.2)b 756.5c

17.6 (13.0 to

30.2) 16.6

204.4 (162.1 to

250.2) 198.7

137.5 (66.4 to 215.6) 143.0

844.6 (721.0 to

944.5) 857.3

112.5 (70.0 to 172.0) 110.1

8.8 (1.3 to 37.3) 2.4

MM2 6.88 (5.8 to 7.6)

7.03

33.59 (5.6 to 75.3)

32.80

10.81 (5.4 to 16.8) 11.17

0.04 (0.01 to 0.09)

0.04

724.7 (478.5 to

981.4) 688.2

39.2 (25.6 to

69.6) 37.6

372.5 (135.0 to

650.1) 371.1

427.0 (133.7 to

920.2) 376.7

823.6 (551.2 to 1018.9) 799.5

126.8 (76.2 to 278.2) 92.9

5.3 (0.6 to 10.3) 5.8

MM3 6.10 (4.7 to 7.1)

6.12

5.78 (-0.6 to 13.3)

5.50

11.75 (5.3 to 18.0) 11.99

0.16 (0.07 to 0.20)

0.17

565.0 (406.3 to

720.4) 567.7

20.0 (11.8 to

29.7) 18.2

150.8 (98.7 to 200.8) 131.7

113.3 (58.9 to 197.6) 100.8

626.4 (402.6 to

772.4) 675.6

98.4 (73.9 to 142.5) 89.7

4.1 (1.3 to 21.0) 1.9

MM4 6.78 (4.9 to 7.0)

6.99

23.15 (0.5 to 57.4)

10.80

15.91 (5.2 to 28.7) 15.19

0.14 (0.01 to 0.39)

0.14

693.1 (464.1 to

874.8) 658.6

28.0 (18.4 to

38.1) 28.4

250.5 (102.0 to

427.9) 172.0

379.3 (110.8 to

519.0) 234.5

734.5 (430.5 to

886.6) 767.3

124.6 (84.7 to 211.3) 10.7.0

6.8 (0.6 to 28.3) 2.8

MM5 6.95 (6.1 to 7.7)

6.72

24.74 (3.6 to 54.4)

20.20

7.93 (3.5 to 14.4) 7.68

0.03 (0.01 to 0.07)

0.03

538.5 (338.4 to

734.7) 510.7

27.2 (17.4 to

46.6) 26.3

229.1 (88.9 to 395.0) 223.8

341.0 (91.8 to 718.6) 335.3

572.1 (352.6 to

726.7) 558.8

81.0 (49.3 to 143.7) 64.1

10.2 (0.2 to 90.5) 0.4

MM6 7.02 (5.8 to 7.9)

7.02

34.54 (4.2 to 85.6)

21.95

17.84 (9.4 to 24.7) 19.30

0.05 (0.01 to 0.13)

0.05

526.1 (449.4 to

648.6) 502.4

12.6 (9.2 to 17.1) 11.6

200.3 (111.9 to

352.2) 164.2

647.3 (161.7 to 1476.0) 428.1

565.1 (488.3 to

654.5) 573.5

76.6 (48.7 to 148.9) 67.0

5.2 (1.4 to 10.0) 3.8

MM7 6.91 (5.3 to 7.9)

7.07

37.10 (1.7 to 107.5)

22.45

20.18 (9.3 to 30.8) 19.64

0.09 (0.01 to 0.15)

0.11

521.2 (352.8 to

666.0) 508.7

11.9 (6.7 to 19.9) 11.3

154.1 (62.5 to 269.9) 133.7

737.6 (89.8 to 1914.2) 467.6

529.4 (309.5 to

623.7) 554.5

76.8 (45.6 to 152.0) 64.8

5.2 (2.1 to 10.5) 4.9

47

Region /Site

pH Alkalinity (mg CaCO3/L)

DOC (mg/L)

Total Aluminium

(mg/L)

Na+ (µeq/L)

K+ (µeq/L)

Mg2+ (µeq/L)

Ca2+ (µeq/L)

Cl-

(µeq/L) SO4

2- (µeq/L)

NO3-

(µeq/L)

MM8 7.03 (6.1 to 7.7)

7.27

18.18 (2.0 to 47.8)

14.45

6.13 (1.5 to 12.9) 6.02

0.07 (0.01 to 0.21)

0.04

313.6 (183.6 to

483.3) 344.7

15.0 (11.0 to

28.9) 12.7

151.7 (46.1 to 289.7) 148.9

293.0 (63.9 to 708.6) 271.7

317.0 (164.2 to

411.6) 275.7

83.6 (35.4 to 148.0) 80.0

1.7 (0.7 to

3.5) 1.4

MM9 5.23 (4.0 to 6.8)

4.58

2.40 (-3.4 to 10.4)

-0.70

23.46 (8.0 to 33.6) 20.87

0.15 (0.10 to 0.20)

0.16

440.2 (377.1 to

483.3) 461.1

11.3 (6.9 to 15.6) 11.8

121.3 (96.3 to 164.6) 115.2

101.5 (41.4 to 214.6) 84.3

446.4 (403.7 to

533.4) 429.1

86.5 (54.43 to

130.3) 65.4

5.3 (2.8 to 11.5) 3.8

MM10 5.63 (4.5 to 6.8)

5.42

2.48 (-0.4 to 10.4)

1.00

12.27 (4.6 to 19.38) 11.62

0.13 (0.03 to 0.22)

0.12

355.6 (261.0 to

492.9) 336.3

10.6 (6.6 to 13.0) 10.7

100.1 (59.2 to 154.7) 83.1

66.6 (25.9 to 139.7) 63.4

379.8 (256.4 to

610.5) 330.3

64.8 (46.2 to

87.2) 63.1

2.8 (0.4 to

4.4) 1.8

MM11 7.30 (6.5 to 7.7)

7.54

38.43 (14.9 to 84.3)

40.80

9.08 (2.2 to 18.9) 9.48

0.08 (0.02 to 0.19)

0.07

411.0 (265.8 to

512.4) 405.0

23.9 (14.6 to

33.5) 26.3

304.0 (171.2 to

576.0) 306.1

569.7 (297.4 to 1195.6) 562.9

418.1 (200.9 to

547.0) 450.8

118.9 (71.4 to 233.8) 107.4

4.1 (2.4 to

6.9) 3.8

MM12 7.00 (6.1 to 7.8)

6.88

23.39 (3.7 to 65.1)

9.10

8.45 (1.7 to 16.0) 8.96

0.06 (0.01 to 0.20)

0.04

380.0 (227.1 to

488.1) 371.9

22.3 (19.4 to

28.9) 21.5

265.5 (65.8 to 584.3) 173.6

320.0 (83.8 to 772.4) 212.6

370.0 (212.7 to

475.6) 391.0

120.8 (38.7 to 234.8) 86.8

3.0 (0.4 to 12.2) 1.9

48

East

Region /Site

pH Alkalinity (mg CaCO3/L)

DOC (mg/L)

Total Aluminium

(mg/L)

Na+ (µeq/L)

K+ (µeq/L)

Mg2+ (µeq/L)

Ca2+ (µeq/L)

Cl-

(µeq/L) SO4

2- (µeq/L)

NO3-

(µeq/L)

WM1 5.73 (4.6 to 6.8)

5.88

3.28 (-0.7 to 9.5)

2.50

10.21 (2.3 to 21.0)

10.19

0.29 (0.05 to 0.56)

0.27

210.2 (173.1 to

252.7) 200.1

6.0 (4.1 to 11.8)

5.7

65.7 (46.1 to

96.3) 67.1

93.6 (46.9 to 149.2) 89.1

193.1 (127.4 to

242.3) 193.4

60.3 (48.9 to

73.1) 59.3

5.6 (1.2 to 11.6)

5.5

WM2 5.03 (4.1 to 6.4)

4.81

0.27 (-3.2 to 5.2)

-0.30

18.32 (5.3 to 29.6)

16.58

0.18 (0.08 to 0.27)

0.16

156.6 (87.9 to 217.5)

154.6

7.3 (4.3 to 12.0)

6.7

46.2 (21.4 to

71.6) 47.7

45.1 (13.9 to 64.9)

47.6

113.1 (72.2 to 160.8) 111.1

38.5 (25.0 to

55.0) 37.2

2.5 (0.5 to 8.4)

1.5

WM3 5.27 (4.1 to 6.9)

5.06

1.50 (-3.2 to 10.2)

0.15

19.78 (4.8 to 34.3)

18.78

0.21 (0.06 to 0.36)

0.21

148.1 (81.3 to 220.5)

140.1

7.5 (4.1 to 12.0)

7.3

44.5 (17.3 to

75.7) 41.6

55.8 (13.5 to 107.3) 49.4

104.7 (83.8 to 158.8) 96.8

34.7 (21.0 to

47.5) 34.2

1.9 (0.6 to 3.8)

1.8

WM7 5.32 (4.5 to 6.5)

5.09

1.12 (-0.9 to 4.7)

0.55

13.68 (6.3 to 24.7)

11.32

0.19 (0.10 to 0.28)

0.19

155.9 (115.3 to

223.2) 136.6

6.6 (4.9 to 9.2)

6.6

38.3 (29.6 to

57.6) 35.4

46.7 (33.4 to 48.9)

43.2

125.2 (75.8 to 180.0) 126.1

43.1 (38.5 to

46.6) 43.0

4.2 (0.7 to 9.4)

3.8

WM8 5.44 (4.3 to 6.8)

5.37

2.53 (-2.0 to 12.4)

1.50

16.25 (5.12 to 24.0)

17.45

0.17 (0.05 to 0.27)

0.17

173.1 (137.5 to

231.0) 159.0

6.5 (3.6 to 8.4)

6.4

46.5 (27.2 to

76.5) 45.3

84.3 (36.4 to 165.2) 75.3

130.3 (80.4 to 178.0) 141.2

43.0 (36.6 to

51.4) 43.2

2.0 (0.8 to 5.3)

2.1

WM9 4.96 (3.9 to 6.9)

4.87

-0.55 (-4.1 to 5.3)

-0.45

11.14 (3.4 to 25.1)

10.45

0.28 (0.07 to 0.55)

0.29

158.3 (67.9 to 203.1)

160.1

6.0 (3.6 to 8.4)

6.3

35.3 (28.0 to

46.9) 32.5

33.0 (14.5 to 114.7) 26.2

153.3 (88.9 to 195.8) 157.3

44.3 (39.5 to

48.9) 44.7

5.2 (1.9 to 8.7)

5.7

WM10 5.55 (4.7 to 6.3)

5.71

1.59 (-0.4 to 5.0)

0.70

10.82 (2.5 to 22.9)

6.28

0.33 (0.15 to 0.58)

0.18

183.6 (144.9 to

231.0) 193.1

8.9 (5.1 to 15.1)

7.7

49.5 (38.7 to

63.4) 49.4

80.6 (47.4 to 128.7) 71.4

177.9 (112.0 to

242.3) 197.2

70.7 (50.0 to

95.6) 73.9

6.6 (3.1 to 11.1)

7.6

WM11 5.75 (4.8 to 6.5)

5.93

2.10 (-0.3 to 5.0)

2.40

9.81 (3.1 to 19.6)

9.18

0.14 (0.04 to 0.29)

0.15

142.2 (105.7 to

183.6) 135.3

6.0 (2.6 to 10.5)

7.4

48.1 (30.4 to

68.3) 48.6

64.8 (35.4 to 149.2) 71.4

120.5 (92.5 to 158.0) 115.1

47.3 (34.4 to

69.3) 47.0

2.4 (0.6 to 5.4)

1.6

WM12 5.65 (4.3 to 6.7)

6.03

3.04 (-1.8 to 6.5)

3.90

13.86 (1.9 to 30.3)

11.51

0.19 (0.04 to 0.50)

0.16

171.4 (111.4 to

217.9) 150.1

11.3 (5.6 to 18.7)

12.0

55.0 (35.4 to

69.9) 52.7

78.3 (45.9 to 126.7) 69.4

149.2 (92.8 to 200.0) 149.2

38.3 (29.8 to

46.4) 38.7

5.6 (2.5 to 9.8)

5.7

49

Southwest

Region /Site

pH Alkalinity (mg CaCO3/L)

DOC (mg/L)

Total Aluminium

(mg/L)

Na+ (µeq/L)

K+ (µeq/L)

Mg2+ (µeq/L)

Ca2+ (µeq/L)

Cl-

(µeq/L) SO4

2- (µeq/L)

NO3-

(µeq/L)

KM1 6.56 (6.1 to 6.9)

6.67

4.39 (1.9 to 5.9)

4.90

4.98 (2.2 to 10.2) 3.74

0.11 (0.05 to 0.18)

0.07

273.0 (237.9 to

285.4) 277.1

5.1 (2.8 to

6.4) 5.5

75.7 (73.2 to

90.5) 74.9

110.9 (77.8 to 146.7) 10.5.8

264.5 (251.6 to

286.0) 269.0

73.2 (69.1 to

78.2) 75.5

4.1 (2.1 to

8.4) 3.9

KM2 6.87 (6.6 to 7.3)

6.85

9.71 (7.0 to 12.5)

9.30

4.61 (1.9 to 10.7) 2.96

0.04 (0.01 to 0.13)

0.02

211.4 (139.2 to

257.5) 212.1

9.4 (5.6 to 16.4) 8.4

75.5 (56.8 to

99.6) 74.5

204.1 (170.7 to

207.6) 197.1

194.8 (116.2 to

253.9) 202.1

66.2 (49.1 to

80.4) 67.5

9.0 (4.0 to 25.4) 6.0

KM3 6.56 (5.0 to 7.3)

6.76

8.47 (0.4 to 14.1)

10.42

8.88 (2.5 to 17.5) 5.94

0.08 (0.02 to 0.18)

0.07

231.5 (191.0 to

265.8) 227.9

7.4 (5.1 to 13.3) 6.6

94.8 (60.9 to 121.8) 97.5

160.0 (85.8 to 257.5) 164.9

217.1 (140.8 to

260.9) 219.9

56.9 (45.6 to

73.7) 53.6

2.9 (1.1 to

8.7) 2.4

KM4 6.16 (4.4 to 7.2)

6.80

8.45 (-1.0 to 15.1)

10.46

13.46 (4.1 to 24.5) 10.27

0.08 (0.03 to 0.15)

0.07

269.7 (211.8 to

323.6) 280.4

6.4 (2.8 to

9.7) 6.0

99.5 (52.7 to 144.8) 112.7

110.8 (48.9 to 241.0) 111.8

239.0 (163.0 to

272.5) 249.4

50.5 (40.6 to

74.7) 48.6

2.5 (1.1 to 21.6) 2.5

KM5 6.59 (4.8 to 7.3)

6.77

8.34 (-0.1 to 14.5)

8.95

9.03 (3.2 to 18.0) 8.77

0.06 (0.02 to 0.14)

0.05

212.6 (140.1 to

246.6) 224.2

7.1 (4.6 to

6.6) 6.4

87.4 (46.1 to 118.5) 84.3

148.5 (51.9 to 262.0) 148.9

180.6 (96.8 to 233.3) 180.8

56.0 (38.9 to

83.5) 50.5

4.9 (0.2 to 27.0) 1.6

KM6 6.72 (5.2 to 7.7)

6.88

18.25 (1.2 to 39.2)

18.55

13.20 (5.0 to 23.4) 10.87

0.06 (0.01 to 0.10)

0.06

274.4 (207.9 to

362.4) 278.8

7.5 (4.3 to 11.0) 7.8

170.3 (70.8 to 286.4) 156.3

240.7 (83.3 to 432.1) 210.3

223.3 (143.6 to

273.9) 222.1

47.5 (37.5 to

60.8) 45.5

4.2 (0.9 to 16.6) 1.3

KM7 6.11 (4.1 to 7.4)

6.20

8.19 (-3.3 to 21.4)

5.45

15.85 (4.3 to 26.1) 14.00

0.12 (0.04 to 0.22)

0.12

286.6 (217.9 to

336.7) 290.1

5.7 (3.3 to

7.8) 5.8

105.7 (62.5 to 171.2) 99.2

152.9 (32.9 to 289.4) 126.0

253.78 (158.3 to

303.8) 262.9

54.9 (45.4 to

65.4) 54.0

2.6 (0.8 to

9.7) 1.7

KM8 6.46 (4.7 to7.6)

6.78

14.17 (0.1 to 31.6)

12.45

13.82 (3.6 to 25.3) 11.40

0.09 (0.02 to 0.17)

0.07

290.1 (211.0 to

353.7) 289.3

5.3 (3.1 to

7.7) 5.4

128.2 (58.4 to 200.8) 123.8

223.7 (63.4 to 386.2) 196.4

246.8 (139.6 to

298.5) 265.7

52.5 (21.2 to

68.3) 51.7

1.7 (0.1 to

5.0) 1.5

50

Region /Site

pH Alkalinity (mg CaCO3/L)

DOC (mg/L)

Total Aluminium

(mg/L)

Na+ (µeq/L)

K+ (µeq/L)

Mg2+ (µeq/L)

Ca2+ (µeq/L)

Cl-

(µeq/L) SO4

2- (µeq/L)

NO3-

(µeq/L)

KM9 6.87 (5.0 to 7.8)

7.01

16.69 (0.1 to 26.6)

18.63

8.13 (1.3 to 17.4) 8.46

0.04 (0.01 to 0.07)

0.03

211.4 (131.8 to

256.2) 222.3

8.5 (5.9 to 17.6) 6.6

116.8 (39.5 to 167.9) 124.7

275.5 (42.9 to 405.2) 299.6

194.2 (101.0 to

248.2) 193.4

56.2 (32.3 to

97.2) 51.0

1.2 (0.3 to

4.2) 0.8

KM10 6.73 (5.2 to 7.6)

6.87

13.59 (0.3 to 26.1)

12.00

5.85 (1.3 to 14.2) 4.41

0.04 (0.01 to 0.13)

0.03

211.8 (144.8 to

260.6) 216.8

6.5 (4.9 to 10.5) 6.4

116.1 (36.2 to 177.7) 104.9

205.7 (38.9 to 353.8) 184.1

193.6 (114.8 to

226.2) 208.2

51.0 (30.0 to

83.3) 47.0

1.6 (0.2 to

6.4) 0.9

KM11 6.73 (5.9 to 7.5)

6.57

10.90 (3.0 to 18.9)

8.10

12.40 (6.4 to 17.2) 11.70

0.10 (0.03 to 0.20)

0.09

243.4 (171.8 to

290.1) 253.6

10.8 (8.7 to 17.4) 10.2

89.7 (67.5 to 119.3) 88.9

237.5 (132.7 to

345.8) 186.1

225.4 (147.8 to

280.1) 223.1

62.2 (53.5 to

91.4) 56.6

5.6 (0.8 to 13.7) 4.1

KM12 6.84 (6.1 to 7.4)

6.89

10.73 (2.3 to 17.5)

10.63

6.02 (1.8 to 10.9) 6.27

0.05 (0.01 to 0.14)

0.03

213.4 (178.8 to

251.4) 205.8

5.9 (4.1 to

9.5) 5.2

82.1 (51.0 to 111.9) 78.2

205.3 (76.8 to 309.4) 205.8

205.1 (126.4 to

246.2) 208.9

58.4 (39.8 to

90.1) 52.9

1.1 (0.1 to

2.8) 0.8

KM13 6.57 (4.8 to 7.6)

6.90

11.85 (0.3 to 26.3)

16.33

9.68 (3.6 to 17.3) 9.20

0.05 (0.02 to 0.09)

0.04

223.25 (139.6 to

290.1) 237.9

5.9 (3.3 to

7.7) 5.8

104.0 (47.7 to 164.6) 98.3

188.8 (56.4 to 349.3) 227.3

199.1 (102.1 to

262.9) 194.6

45.9 (39.1 to

59.5) 44.9

0.7 (0.1 to

7.2) 0.7

51

Table A.3 The meana, rangeb and medianc of non-marine ions at all sites sampled (October 2009 to November 2010). NM = non-marine, NMHA = non-marine hardness (CaCO3)

Region /Site

%Mature Forest

NMCa2+ (µeq/L)

NMMg2+ (µeq/L)

K+ (µeq/L)

NMHA (µeq/L)

NMNa+ (µeq/L)

SO42-

(µeq/L)

West

MM1 44.9 103.6a (33.7 to 178.3)b 108.7c

27.0 (-9.3 to 54.8) 32.5

1.6 (-7.2 to 16.5) 1.3

262.0 (165.0 to

368.0) 266.3

32.8 (-13.6 to

90.8) 19.2

24.6 (-26.8 to

96.9) 26.5

MM2 0 394.1 (106.8 to

879.4) 345.0

199.5 (-6.6 to 436.1) 203.2

23.6 (10.5 to

59.1) 23.9

654.4 (216.0 to 1317.0) 614.0

16.4 (-101.3 to

105.1) 7.5

41.1 (-29.8 to 195.6) 13.7

MM3 23.2 88.2 (25.4 to 166.7) 80.7

19.2 (-13.6 to

39.0) 23.3

8.1 (2.2 to 22.0) 5.3

205.0 (124.0 to

320.0) 194.0

26.3 (-13.4 to

78.6) 39.8

33.3 (2.7 to 86.1) 18.3

MM4 53.1 349.9 (93.6 to 784.9) 208.2

96.2 (9.2 to 241.7) 38.0

14.0 (5.9 to 21.5) 14.3

532.5 (173.1 to 1082.0) 336.0

61.4 (-1.3 to 112.3) 58.7

48.3 (-6.8 to 145.0) 45.7

MM5 0 318.1 (77.7 to 689.5) 313.0

108.9 (5.7 to 242.4) 108.9

16.4 (9.9 to 22.1) 13.1

481.0 (156.2 to

960.0) 473.5

46.5 (-19.6 to 109.8) 44.7

21.5 (-23.0 to

85.7) 13.9

MM6 68.1 624.7 (142.1 to 1449.9) 405.8

81.6 (9.4 to 216.2) 46.8

1.9 (-0.8 to

6.8) 1.0

770.6 (230.2 to 1694.0) 529.2

40.1 (6.5 to 85.7)

30.8

17.8 (-10.8 to

85.9) 13.2

MM7 47.6 716.4 (77.4 to 1890.3) 446.6

42.9 (-15.2 to 144.6) 23.7

1.9 (-3.9to

9.4) 0.9

832.8 (128.0 to 2082.0) 549.7

66.0 (10.6 to 126.6) 68.7

21.7 (-16.2 to

94.3) 13.5

MM8 0 280.3 (57.3 to 693.1) 258.0

85.1 (11.6 to 208.3) 72.6

9.0 (3.4 to 21.1) 7.3

385.7 (92.0 to 886.0) 360.0

41.0 (-17.3 to

78.3) 40.4

50.7 (18.3 to 112.6) 41.2

MM9 69.1 83.6 (22.5 to 138.3) 68.1

27.6 (-3.2 to 64.6) 25.3

2.8 (-0.8 to

7.4) 3.8

175.6 (100.0 to

278.0) 146.0

56.4 (8.1 to 114.1) 35.6

40.1 (-1.1 to 85.8) 21.3

MM10 18.5 51.4 (9.2 to 122.3) 48.8

20.3 (3.6 to 63.4) 13.6

3.3 (-1.6 to

8.2) 3.5

127.7 (62.0 to 153.3) 108.0

28.9 (-35.1 to

76.0) 40.5

25.3 (-3.3 to 52.9) 23.7

MM11 21.3 553.0 (282.1 to 1174.4) 545.3

216.2 (79.2 to 464.6) 213.8

15.9 (8.3 to 23.1) 17.6

755.8 (402.0 to 1548.0) 750.0

51.5 (-11.0 to 113.0) 26.8

75.4 (31.5 to 186.9) 50.4

MM12 0 305.2 (75.3 to 753.4) 200.2

187.7 (21.2 to 484.4) 106.9

15.2 (10.7 to

24.6) 14.8

482.2 (124.0 to 1129.0) 318.0

61.7 (-5.4 to 153.8) 44.1

82.3 (16.6 to 196.4) 46.2

52

East

Region /Site

%Mature Forest

NMCa2+ (µeq/L)

NMMg2+ (µeq/L)

K+ (µeq/L)

NMHA (µeq/L)

NMNa+ (µeq/L)

SO42-

(µeq/L)

WM1 31.1 85.8 (40.1 to 139.5) 81.3

25.2 (11.5 to

45.4) 23.6

2.3 (-0.5 to

8.1) 2.2

124.5 (62.0 to 208.0) 116.0

44.1 (21.8 to

68.9) 44.1

40.2 (31.2 to

50.5) 39.0

WM2 0 40.6 (11.1 to

60.5) 43.4

22.4 (0.8 to 48.6) 23.0

5.1 (1.3 to 10.4) 4.4

69.3 (28.0 to 108.3) 71.3

59.3 (1.1 to 79.2)

66.3

26.8 (17.5 to

43.6) 24.8

WM3 0 51.6 (10.0 to 100.9) 45.7

22.5 (-1.1 to 42.3) 20.5

5.5 (1.3 to

9.6) 5.4

78.7 (24.0 to 153.5) 76.6

58.1 (6.1 to 84.0)

62.7

23.8 (12.0 to

38.3) 21.6

WM7 23.6 41.6 (28.2 to

63.2) 39.6

12.0 (1.0 to 21.9) 13.5

4.3 (1.7 to

5.8) 4.4

70.0 (62.5 to 105.5) 65.1

48.2 (27.5 to

68.4) 53.5

30.0 (22.9 to

35.4) 30.8

WM8 38.1 79.1 (32.2 to 158.0) 69.7

19.1 (4.8 to 39.1) 15.6

4.1 (1.7 to

6.3) 3.4

113.0 (54.0 to 107.2) 103.1

61.0 (31.0 to

86.0) 65.2

29.4 (25.0 to

41.2) 29.1

WM9 61.2 26.8 (9.1 to 36.28 20.1

3.1 (-8.2 to 26.7) -0.8

3.1 (1.2 to

6.6) 3.1

52.4 (16.0 to

69.5) 44.7

26.5 (-39.1 to 101.1) 30.1

28.4 (23.2 to

36.7) 28.6

WM10 36.1 73.5 (41.4 to 120.7) 62.3

12.1 (4.1 to 26.7) 9.8

5.5 (1.3 to 13.0) 4.4

99.5 (62.0 to 162.0) 98.0

30.6 (1.0 to 52.5)

29.6

52.2 (34.3 to

72.3) 56.6

WM11 0 59.9 (30.9 to 144.9) 65.7

22.7 (9.1 to 45.5) 24.4

3.7 (-0.1 to

8.7) 4.9

89.0 (32.0 to 191.0) 100.0

38.6 (18.4 to

53.4) 39.9

34.8 (23.8 to

59.7) 33.8

WM12 33.0 72.4 (40.9 to 122.0) 65.2

23.7 (8.9 to 32.8) 22.8

8.4 (2.0 to 16.7) 10.3

105.3 (40.0 to 145.5) 101.1

43.1 (10.9 to

66.6) 45.5

22.8 (16.5 to

35.6) 21.3

53

Southwest

Region /Site

%Mature Forest

NMCa2+ (µeq/L)

NMMg2+ (µeq/L)

K+ (µeq/L)

NMHA (µeq/L)

NMNa+ (µeq/L)

SO42-

(µeq/L) KM1 65.8 100.4

(67.8 to 136.4) 94.7

20.2 (8.9 to 36.5) 17.6

0.1 (-2.2 to 3.2)

0.2

157.1 (115.5 to

202.0) 152.0

45.5 (19.8 to 58.9)

41.9

45.7 (41.9 to

49.9) 47.2

KM2 0 196.3 (162.6 to

313.1) 189.1

34.6 (24.1 to

56.8) 31.0

5.7 (1.8 to 12.5) 5.4

245.4 (211.5 to

372.0) 238.5

43.9 (18.3 to 69.7)

43.2

46.0 (30.2 to

65.3) 45.4

KM3 53.9 151.3 (77.1 to 250.5) 156.0

49.2 (15.3 to

75.0) 53.6

3.2 (0.4 to 9.2)

2.9

217.5 (123.0 to

324.0) 220.5

44.7 (24.7 to 72.2)

42.6

34.3 (23.0 to

54.2) 27.6

KM4 85.6 101.2 (40.7 to 231.9) 102.2

49.3 (9.6 to 87.6) 61.1

1.9 (-0.4 to 5.4)

1.6

171.6 (81.0 to 320.0) 180.7

64.2 (35.5 to 108.2) 67.1

25.6 (14.5 to

57.8) 22.3

KM5 22.8 141.3 (44.8 to 256.2) 142.2

49.5 (9.1 to 88.3) 49.6

3.7 (0.7 to 5.8)

3.1

202.0 (80.0 to 334.0) 200.2

57.3 (27.1 to 122.3) 49.0

37.2 (20.6 to

68.0) 30.5

KM6 83.6 231.8 (75.0 to 422.1) 202.8

123.4 (22.4 to 228.8) 115.6

3.3 (-0.6 to 7.0)

3.4

334.9 (130.0 to

600.0) 311.0

82.3 (29.6 to 134.6) 84.5

24.3 (9.0 to 44.6) 22.6

KM7 89.1 142.7 (22.7 to 277.3) 118.1

52.4 (8.7 to 107.4) 44.0

0.9 (-2.4 to 3.0)

1.2

217.7 (71.0 to 394.0) 178.2

68.4 (38.5 to 122.0) 71.7

28.5 (17.3 to

48.7) 23.6

KM8 80.0 213.8 (57.8 to 400.7) 185.8

76.4 (23.4 to 138.1) 68.4

0.6 (-1.2 to 2.5)

0.6

302.1 (102.0 to

530.0) 272.0

77.8 (53.8 to 106.9) 76.5

26.8 (-7.8 to 53.8) 22.8

KM9 0 267.7 (37.1 to 371.3) 293.6

76.1 (8.7 to 119.3) 92.9

4.8 (1.2 to 14.1) 2.5

347.0 (67.0 to 498.0) 376.0

44.5 (11.1 to 111.8) 37.2

36.0 (17.0 to

80.5) 28.1

KM10 0 198.0 (33.8 to 345.0) 176.6

75.4 (9.1 to 128.7) 65.3

2.8 (1.4 to 8.0)

2.4

276.8 (61.0 to 458.0) 248.0

45.3 (13.3 to 87.0)

40.0

30.9 (17.3 to

64.5) 26.3

KM11 34.0 228.5 (123.4 to

337.0) 180.2

42.4 (14.9 to

63.3) 39.7

6.6 (4.5 to 13.1) 6.4

292.6 (174.0 to

318.0) 237.0

49.6 (25.8 to 83.0)

44.7

38.7 (29.3 to

70.8) 30.8

KM12 0 197.1 (69.7 to 299.5) 199.2

39.0 (13.5 to

60.2) 43.2

2.0 (0.1 to 5.6)

1.8

255.5 (108.0 to

378.0) 254.0

37.0 (9.4 to 87.9)

30.2

37.1 (21.0 to

77.0) 30.6

KM13 44.7 180.9 (52.3 to 339.8) 218.9

62.2 (13.6 to 114.6) 55.1

2.1 (-0.1 to 4.1)

1.8

252.5 (86.0 to 450.0) 307.5

52.0 (30.1 to 108.7) 49.0

25.2 (14.4 to

44.0) 24.6