Godfrey Williams - The Rivers Trust

Godfrey Williams
Environment & Fisheries Manager
The Environment Agency
Changes
Monitoring & assessment
of
coarse fish and fisheries
Godfrey Williams
Environment & Business Manager, Fisheries
What follows:
Coarse fisheries monitoring
What we do
The framework
The scale
How we assess fisheries
Water Framework Directive
An example
Other forms of monitoring
Angler catches
Other means and methods of monitoring
Not just fish
What is it telling us
Fisheries Monitoring
We have a statutory duty to maintain, improve and develop
fisheries.
We aim to do this in a way that maximises the social,
recreational and economic benefits arising from the
sustainable exploitation of the fish stocks that underpin
fisheries.
What we do
Wide range of monitoring
principally driven by fisheries
needs
Monitoring undertaken by local
(fisheries and environmental
monitoring) teams
Fisheries Programmes
Driver
Programme
Water Framework Directive (WFD)
Once in every 6 year River Basin District planning cycle.
EC regulation for the recovery of the
stock of European eel
Annual and biennial surveys – yellow eel, silver eel and elver
Core fisheries monitoring to identify
trends, deficiencies & inform
management action
Coarse fish, wild brown trout, sea trout, and salmon.
Cycles at every one, two, three and six years
Annual assessment of salmon stocks
and fisheries in England and Wales
Index river programme -Dee, Tamar, Lune and Tyne. Additional
monitoring with counters and traps for adult salmon and sea
trout plus angler and net catches
Investigations – WFD, local drivers
Investigations as required to inform WFD and local information
needs. Varying spatial scale, frequency and methods.
Scale of programme and resources
Budget – £3.5 million per annum
6300 sites in the programme (ef & netting)
2500 surveys per annum
Hydroacoustics – 57 stretches
Angler catch – 295 venues on 33 rivers
Juvenile seine netting – 20 annual sites
Silver eel and glass eel/elver
Coarse fish programme
Temporal and spatial
monitoring of principal and
general coarse fisheries
Reference principal
coarse fisheries
monitoring annually
Other principal coarse
fisheries monitoring 3
yearly
General coarse
fisheries monitored
6 yearly
Electric fishing on
smaller rivers,
seine netting,
hydroacoustics
and angler catch
on larger rivers
Coarse fish monitoring
Over 2500 coarse fish sites in the core
programme
Over 900 surveys per annum
490 electric fishing surveys
58 seine netting surveys
112 eel specific surveys
Hydroacoustics – 78 stretches
Angler catch – 196 venues
Silver eel and elver trapping/counting
Eel programme
22 index rivers
10 yellow eel sites per river
monitored biennially
Silver eel migration at 5 sites
Elvers at 3 sites
Local monitoring
Water Framework Directive
High
Good
Phytoplankton
Mod
Diatoms
pH balance
Macrophytes
Nutrients
Invertebrates
Oxygen
Fish
Man-made chemicals
Poor
Bad
Metals
Hydrology
Morphology
Classifying fish for the WFD
0.60
Using probability to
compare observed
results with that
expected of an
undisturbed
environment
0.50
0.40
Frequency
Apply
results for
all fish at
each site
0.30
Observed
Catch = 4
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Number of fish
Assesses status
across 23 fish
species
Build together
site results to
classify water
bodies
Fish classification
Low tolerance
Salmon (Salmo salar)
Brown and sea trout (Salmo trutta)
Grayling (Thymallus thymallus)
Lamprey (Lampetra planeri, Lampetra fluviatilis, Petromyzon marinus)
Bullhead (Cottus gobio)
Medium tolerance
Stone loach (Barbatula barbatula)
Barbel (Barbus barbus)
Spined loach (Cobitis taenia)
Pike (Esox lucius)
Gudgeon (Gobio gobio)
Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus)
Chub (Leuciscus cephalus)
Dace (Leuciscus leuciscus)
Minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus)
Rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus)
High tolerance
Bream (Abramis brama)
Bleak (Alburnus alburnus)
Eel (Anguilla anguilla)
Common carp (Cyprinus carpio)
3-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
Perch (Perca fluviatilis)
Roach (Rutilus rutilus)
Tench (Tinca tinca)
Fisheries assessments – example catchment
Essex Stour – fisheries classification
Middle Stour 2009 Fish Status
Site Name
Event Date
WFD Description
Anchor Bridge
23/07/2009
High
Bakers Mill A
03/08/2009
High
Boxted Mill
06/07/2009
High
Brundon (River Stour Middle)
10/08/2009
Good
Bures Bridge A
29/07/2009
Good
Bures Mill
21/07/2009
Poor
Garnons Farm
16/07/2009
Poor
Higham Hall
10/07/2009
Poor
Lamarsh FGS A
12/08/2009
High
Langham Intake
02/07/2009
Bad
Mill Meadow
31/07/2009
Good
Pitmire A
11/08/2009
High
Priory Meadow
04/08/2009
Moderate
Shalford Meadow
05/08/2009
Moderate
Shalford Weir
30/07/2009
High
Tendring Hall
07/07/2009
Moderate
Wick Farm
03/07/2009
High
Wissington
28/07/2009
High
Wiston Mill
13/07/2009
Moderate
Wormingford Mill
15/07/2009
Moderate
Essex Stour – species recorded
Species captured
10-spined stickleback
Minnow
3-spined stickleback
Perch
Barbel
Pike
Bleak
Roach
Brown trout
Roach x chub hybrid
Bullhead
Roach x common bream hybrid
Chub
Roach x rudd hybrid
Common bream
Rudd
Dace
Ruffe
European eel
Spined loach
Golden pike
Stone loach
Gudgeon
Tench
Brook lamprey
Zander
Mean standing crop of different fish species (>99mm) in the
Stour 2009
Low er
Middle
1300
Upper
900
700
500
300
Tench
Roach
Pike
Perch
Eel
-100
Dace
100
Chub
Standing Crop (g 100m -2)
1100
Middle Stour example roach data
- length frequency & standing crop over time
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
120
80
60
40
20
290
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
Fish Length (m m )
Standing crop (log+1) of roach (>99mm) in the Middle Stour 1985-2009 (n=20)
4
3.5
3
Standing Crop log+1 (g 100m 2)
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
0
20
Number of fish
100
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
Survey year
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
Catchment reports – Essex Stour 2009
Perch stocks are recovering throughout the
catchment;
Numbers of dace are in long-term decline throughout
the Stour;
Eel numbers are in long-term decline in the upper and
middle Stour;
Chub populations in the upper Stour are increasing;
Populations of roach in the middle Stour are
improving;
There is a continued overall decline in the status of
the lower Stour fishery.
Essex Stour – identified needs
Maintenance and improvement of habitat quality and
diversity for fish;
Management of flow changes caused by flow
augmentation and abstraction to enhance fish habitat
availability, migration patterns and water quality;
Implementation of schemes to reduce barriers to fish
movement;
Continued investigations into the causes, occurrence
and impacts of algal toxin events in the lower Stour.
Angler catches – a valuable source
R. Swale @ Topcliffe
Yorks. Derwent at Barmby
R. Aire @ Chapel Haddlesey
R. Don @ Sprotborough
Yorks. Ouse @ Beningbrough
Angler data in use – the Yorkshire Ouse
Ave. weight/angler/hour (oz)
% Success Rate
- angling success 1971 to 2010
Angler data confirming trends
The Decline of Eel in Angler Catches on the Tidal River
Wharfe Match Fishery 1971 - 2010
Percentage Rating
50
40
30
20
10
0
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
91
Year
93
95
97
99
01
03
05
07
09
Percentage of Anglers Weighing In by Year in YORKSHIRE Region
Number of Matches per Year in YORKSHIRE Region
85
1400
80
% of Anglers Weighing In
1000
800
600
400
200
0
70
65
60
55
50
45
1974
1980
1985
1990
1995
Year
2000
2005
2011
1974
1980
1990
2000
Summary of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) by Year in YORKSHIRE Region
900
350
Maximum
Mean
Minimum
300
250
200
150
100
80
60
Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
40
20
0
0
1974
1980
1990
Year
2000
2011
Year
Summary of Number of Anglers per Match by Year in YORKSHIRE Region
Number of Anglers per Match
75
Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)
Number of Matches
1200
2011
1974
1980
1990
Year
2000
Angler data – Yorkshire rivers
2011
Innovation – new tools
Hydro-acoustics
Towards
Away
Fish movements in and out of pump station – Jan 2011
Acoustic Case Study: A Recovering River and Canal
Recovering River - Mersey above Woolston Weir
70
Poor WQ
Mersey WQ improves
Canal WQ improves
3
Density (fish / 1000m )
60
50
40
30
20
10
Not Surveyed
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
Few fish
Fish move in from R. Bollin
Acoustics
Shoals move between
Mersey & Canal
Disease Monitoring
Genetic studies - roach
•There are genetic
differences
•Severn, Kent & Sussex
stocks most distinct
•3 main groups –
Thames & South,
Severn, the rest
•Has stocking really
contributed to these
fisheries?
Data about
anglers
West Midlands
2005
From Economic
Evaluation of Inland
Fisheries published
2009
Data about anglers – West Midlands 2005
Second only to the South East for the number of resident, licensed
anglers (c. 132,000) and to the East Midlands for the level of angling
activity.
4.8 million days fished on inland waters in the region, most (95 per
cent) spent coarse fishing on rivers, still waters and canals.
Anglers’ annual spend on fishing in the West Midlands £190 million =
approximately 4,200 jobs and £100 million of household income.
Most angling by residents but nearly half a million days fished by
visiting anglers - more than visited Wales.
Visiting anglers came from most other parts of England and Wales,
except North East and London.
Although the region is dominated by coarse fishing, game fishing on
rivers was proportionately more important for trips by West Midlands
residents to other regions.
The view in 2004
‘Our nations’ fisheries’ concluded:
Coarse fish numbers increasing in many rivers
Fish found in 97% of coarse fish sites surveyed
50% of sites held at least 8 species
Angler catch rates improved over previous 20 years in
many lowland rivers
Upper Trent tributaries – status in 2011
Overall
ecological status
for WFD
We are
here
Water management issues – upper Trent tribs.
Coarse fish classification
- for illustration only
Now based on 12 coarse fish species
Low tolerance
None
Medium tolerance
Barbel (Barbus barbus)
Pike (Esox lucius)
Gudgeon (Gobio gobio)
Chub (Leuciscus cephalus)
Dace (Leuciscus leuciscus)
Rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus)
High tolerance
Bream (Abramis brama)
Bleak (Alburnus alburnus)
Common carp (Cyprinus carpio)
Perch (Perca fluviatilis)
Roach (Rutilus rutilus)
Tench (Tinca tinca)
The view now
Many rivers support good and improving coarse
fisheries
Just over 50% of river water bodies assessed are at
less than good status for fish
Trends in angler catch rates variable but continuing to
improve in some areas, e.g. Yorkshire
Coarse angling is important in many regions, making
valuable economic and social contributions
New methods offer potential to tell us more:
About larger river fisheries
About behaviour & makeup of stocks
About anglers
We want to use the information we all generate to guide
further improvement for river coarse fisheries
– working together
Thank-you
www.environment-agency.gov.uk