1. Cattle Exclusion from Watercourses: Environmental and socio-economic implications COSAINT 8 th of February 2016 EPA offices

2. Project Team Teagasc - Daire Ó hUallacháin, Owen Fenton, Karen Daly, Mairead Shore, Mary Ryan, Stuart Green, Technician (12 months) Researcher 2 (16 months), Paul O Callaghan (Researcher) Completed Dundalk Institute of Technology - Eleanor Jennings, Suzanne Linnane, Patricia Antunes (PhD student) University College Dublin - Mary Kelly-Quinn, Matt O Sullivan (PhD Student) Technician (12 months) Dublin City University – Fiona Regan

3. Overview of the research Aim – Assess the environmental, ecological and socio- economic impact of existing and potential measures that prevent cattle access to watercourses.

4. Work packages Literature review on the impact of cattle access on freshwater ecosystems Selection and characterisation of experimental sites Collection and analysis of geochemical and microbial parameters in freshwater ecosystems relative to cattle access and exclusion Collection and analysis of ecological datasets associated with cattle access to watercourses National Estimate of On Farm Water Courses Cost-effectiveness of existing and potential cattle exclusion measures: Socio-economic implications

5. WP1 - Literature review Impact of cattle access on freshwater ecosystems WP leader – P O Callaghan; P Antunes; M O Sullivan; D Ó hUallacháin Topics – the interactions of cattle access and associated agri- environment mitigation measures on freshwater abiotic factors including water chemistry and sediment dynamics. – impact of cattle access and associated agri-environment mitigation measures on freshwater habitats and species, including bio-indicators. – the impact of cattle access to freshwater systems on faecal indicator bacteria in freshwater and sediments. Progress to date – Draft Literature Review completed and circulated

6. Actions arising from Steering Group meeting Literature Review - Action 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 PT to widen the scope of the literature review for this project to take a more holistic approach – PT to submit draft Literature Review to the EPA (October/November 2015) – SC to provide comments within 3-4 weeks Include grey literature Circulate list of papers SC to circulate similar studies Include soil and subsoil studies Include Shore et al in review. Include research by Ormerod et al Addressed in the circulated Literature Review

7. Literature Review Impact of stressors on environmental parameters – Excessive nutrients, sediment – Morphological and habitat changes Overgrazing of riparian margins Trampling of stream banks – Trophic structure alterations – Physico-chemical changes Hyporheic zone dynamics – Fauna of the hyporheic zone – Land-use disturbance on the hyporheos – Macroinvertebrate response in the hyporheic zone Impact of cattle access on algal and diatom communities Faecal contamination of waters and cattle impacts on water microbiological quality – Faecal pathogens from agricultural sources and implications for health – Sources of faecal contamination associated with cattle farming – Sediments as reservoirs of faecal bacteria Policy and agri-environment regulations Mitigation measures Alternative water provision Grazing management Fencing/exclusion Sediment and morphological responses to fencing Biotic responses to fencing Physicochemical responses to fencing Microbiota response to fencing

8. Conclusions Lack of data (particularly from Europe) Divergent results on the impact of grazing – heavy grazing compacts soil, reduces infiltration, increases runoff, erosion and sediment to streams – light and moderate grazing less significant effects – grazing at appropriate stocking densities, do not have a significant effect on stream water quality Divergent results on the effectiveness of fencing – Fencing reduces cattle impact v no change/inconclusive Knowledge gaps

9. Synopsis of some feedback from SG – Inclusion of additional material on riparian buffers & benefit of REPS to bank stability? – Cattle access in the context of whole farm management – Consider Cumulative effect of all pressures – Critical source areas…? – Editorial suggestions Additional papers (e.g. ACP), and cite previous lit reviews References (revise and update) Additional text recommended by number of responses Conclusions under relevant headers Highlight Gaps in Knowledge Table of content and page numbers

10. WP2 - Selection and characterisation of experimental sites WP leader –POC, DÓhU, Objectives: Identify appropriate catchment sites for inclusion in the project (extensive and intensive; gradient of cattle access). Identify sites likely to be included in the ‘Protection of Watercourse’ measure under the proposed GLAS Characterise the sites in relation to hydro-morphology, farming management practices and land-use. Characterise a subset of sites in relation to Digital Elevation Models Progress to date – Draft site selection criteria (including experimental design) completed and circulated

11. Actions arising from Steering Group meeting Site Selection- Action 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 18 Circulate proposed site selection criteria Approval by the S.C. Contact Eva Mockler and Donal Daly, EPA, WFD integration unit Feedback from SC Ongoing + SG meeting Experimental design- Action 19, 20, 21, 22 submit their proposed experimental design and sampling strategy within 1 month SC to comment on the proposed experimental design presented in the slides PT to circulate experimental design for WP4 SC to comment on the proposed experimental design presented in the slides Ongoing and SG meeting

12. Moderate water quality status/intensively managed sites 3 catchments Mix of ground/surface fed cattle access points in a longitudinal profile along catchment Experimental Design

13. Moderate water quality status/intensively managed sites 3 catchments Mix of ground/surface fed cattle access points in a longitudinal profile along catchment Each site sampled upstream and at a several points downstream (to assess recovery) Uppermost site used to compare affect of single access point (replication between catchments) Other sites to assess the cumulative impact of multiple access points Experimental Design

14. High water quality status/extensively managed sites Two catchments More vulnerable Impacts possibly more obvious Priority under GLAS 3 cattle access points in independent sub-catchments (statistically independent) Each sampled upstream and at a several points downstream

15. Site Selection Criteria COSAINT project 5 Catchments 3 moderate quality, intensive 2 high quality, extensive Highly desirable Availability of previous data Physico-chemical monitoring Relationships with landowners (ACP, Milltown lake, LIFE, Pathways) Mixture of ground and surface fed catchments First and second order streams ideal

16. Availability of previous intensive monitoring data Q-value status/Stocking intensity Moderate status/ Intensive High status/ Extensive Hydrology Surface-waterGround-water Cattle access points within 3 sub-catchments At least 3 cattle access points in a longitudinal gradient Selection criteria hierarchy

17. WP2 - Selection and characterisation of experimental sites Progress to date Experimental design circulated Site selection criteria circulated – Identification of potential sites – Visit to potential sites – Contact with potential sites Contacted local advisors in proposed catchments in relation to identifying potential farmers who may be joining the exclusion measure in GLAS Facilitate before and after sampling We wish to acknowledge the advice, input and ongoing support of a number of projects and their staff in relation to our search for sites, in particular: Agricultural Catchment Programme KerryLIFE Duhallow Milltown

18. CatchmentBallycanewDunleerMilltown LakeDuhallowCaragh Previous Data ✔✔✔ ✔✔ Previous relationships ✔✔✔✔✔ Hydrology Sub-surface/ Surface Surface Q-Value Status Good/ Moderate Moderate/ Poor GoodHigh/Good Stocking intensity Intensive Extensive Cattle access MinimalExtensive Extensive (declining) Extensive Stream Order 1st/2nd County WexfordLouthMonaghanCorkKerry Potential Catchment Characteristics

19. ACP - Dunleer

20. Milltown Lake

21. Synopsis of some feedback from SG Select sites with high number of access points if available. – Record access points when characterising sites Record other pressures in selected sites – Will it be possible to disentagle the impact of cattle access points from other pressures in moderately impacted sites? Consider sites other then 1 st and 2 nd order streams? Is the number adequate; is it feasible to include additional catchments? Inclusion of hydro-morphology in characterisation of sites Gradient

22. WP3 - Collection and analysis of geochemical and microbial parameters in freshwater ecosystems relative to cattle access and exclusion WP Leader – E Jennings, Patricia Antunes Objectives Assess the impact of cattle access points, cattle in-stream activity and proposed cattle exclusion measures on freshwater geochemical parameters. Determine the influence of cattle access points and proposed cattle exclusion measures in relation to sediment export and dynamics. Determine the impact of cattle in-stream activity on delivery and distribution of faecal indicator bacteria in streams, and how these are remediated by cattle exclusion measures. Model the impact of cattle access at the catchment scale and assess management scenarios.

23. WP3 - Tasks Task 1: Low resolution catchment scale evaluation of the influence of cattle access points and cattle in-stream activity on freshwater geochemical parameters. Task 2: High resolution sampling to assess the impact of cattle access points and cattle in-stream activity on freshwater geochemical parameters. Task 3: The impact of cattle restriction measures (under GLAS) on freshwater geochemical parameters. Task 4: Modelling the impact of cattle access at the catchment scale and assessment of management scenarios. Progress to date – P Antunes recruited – Lit review completed – Proposed sampling methodology for water quality parameters drafted – Dissemination

24. WP 3 Finalised and trialled sampling protocol for low frequency sampling. Patricia received training on use of autosamplers, micro analysis, GIS, lab analyses. Trialled camera with livestock (daytime and nightime resolution).

25. Trialling set-up for sediment-water incubations. 5 cm diameter by 15 cm height 3D printed in styrene WP 3

26. WP4 - Collection and analysis of ecological datasets associated with cattle access to watercourses WP leader – M Kelly-Quinn, Matt O’Sullivan, Technician Objectives Assess the impact of cattle access points and cattle in-stream activity on freshwater ecology Assess extent of ecosystem impact and recovery at a spatial scale downstream of cattle access points Assess impact of cattle access on hyporheic water chemistry and invertebrate fauna Evaluate the impact of cattle exclusion measures (proposed in GLAS) on in- stream and hyporheic ecology

27. WP4 Tasks Task 1: Seasonal sampling of macroinvertebrates,macrophytes and phytobenthos above, below and at a further point downstream of cattle access.  Macroinvertebrates will be collected in spring and autumn 2016 (replicated Surber sampling concentrated in the riffle/runs, and a single reach scale 2minute kick sample) upstream, and two downstream points as per the experimental design.  Macrophytes will be surveyed in summer 2016 - CEN (2003) methodology  Phytobenthos scraping will be used for biomass and chlorophyll measurement. A sample will also be preserved and may be analysed for diatoms.  Instream and riparian habitat condition will be assessed. Instream measurements will include % representation of mesohabitats, substrate categories and % silt cover. A RHAT survey will be completed.  Riparian condition – method being reviewed (e.g. QBR; Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition New South Wales) - width of riparian vegetation, longitudinal continuity, vegetation structure, % tree cover, % understorey ground cover, debris such as logs etc. Munne´ A, Prat N, Sola C et al. (2003) A simple field method for assessing the ecological quality of riparian habitat in rivers and streams: QBR index. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosys 13: 147– 163..

28. Task 2: Assess fine temporal scale responses of aquatic biota to inputs from cattle access. Macroinvertebrates will be collected upstream and downstream of cattle access points monitored in WP3 – Task 2, post 3 disturbance events Task 3: Assess impact of cattle access on hyporheic water chemistry and invertebrate fauna. This sampling (mainly parafluvial and sub- riparian) will be carried out at three of the most intensively used sites from Tasks 1 and 2, in spring and summer. Hyporheic water samples will be analysed for nutrient and sediment content Task 4: Evaluate the impact of cattle exclusion measures (proposed in GLAS) on in-stream and hyporheic ecology  Existing pre- and post-fencing macroinvertebrate data from the Milltown Lake sub-catchment will be analysed and depending on the nature of the dataset and results a number of sites may be resampled.  New fenced sites (3 maximum) will be sampled for macroinvertebrates and habitat condition pre and post fencing in two seasons

29. WP5 – National Estimate of On Farm Water Courses WP leader – S Green, Researcher 2 Objectives Spatial analysis of total number of farms with on farm water courses and the extent there-in Tasks Task 1: Create a national Synthetic Farm Boundary Layer. Task 2: Spatial Analysis of on-farm watercourses. Progress to Date Due to commence in 2017 Action 23, 24 Contact P Torpey in early 2016; Look at Prime 2 – Meet DAFM in early 2016 to seek permission to use data relevant to this project currently held by Teagasc

30. WP6 - Cost-effectiveness of existing and potential cattle exclusion measures: Socio-economic implications WP leader – DÓhU, M Ryan, Researcher Objectives Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fencing (and natural alternatives to fencing) as measures to improve the hydro-morphological condition of water courses Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of water provision mechanisms (existing and novel) through literature review, stakeholder engagement and expert evaluation Assess ‘willingness to adopt’ cattle exclusion measures and determine level of incentives required to ensure adequate participation in voluntary cattle exclusion measures Determination of proportion of farms impacted by measures to prevent cattle access to watercourses and socio-economic implications Progress to date – Due to commence in 2017

31. Synopsis of progress to date Literature Review – Draft Literature Review completed and circulated – Lit rev being prepared for publication Site Selection – Experimental design completed – Selection of sites initiated Recruitment – P O Callaghan (Teagasc) Completed – P Antunes (DkIT) – M O Sullivan (UCD) – Technician position advertised

32. Dissemination Action 24 All outputs (papers, posters, etc.) are to be uploaded with the Technical Progress Report. Dissemination completed – Dissemination plan completed and update – Website live http://www.teagasc.ie/environment/cosaint/ http://www.teagasc.ie/environment/cosaint/ – Twitter live @cosaint2015 – Catchment Science 2015 (Abstract +Poster) – Farmland Conservation with 2020 vision (Paper + Poster + presentation) – Towards Integrated Water Management (Presentation) Dissemination submitted – Environ Antunes et al. O’Sullivan et al. – Institute of Fisheries Management

33. Delays and modifications Recruitment – Technician (Teagasc)..currently being advertised – Technician (UCD) …in place by April/May Site selection

35. Milestones for the next 6-months Site Selection – Final set of sites selected – Characterisation of sites Literature Review completed – Submitted for publication Experimentation initiated – WorkPackage 3 and 4