- Inland Fisheries Ireland

An Assessment of Juvenile Salmonid Abundance and
Distribution in the Currane Catchment 2014 &
Comparison with Previous Surveys.
Inland Fisheries Ireland.
June 2014.
Project Personnel/ Acknowledgements
This report was written and researched by Tony Holmes, MSc, and Dr Paddy Gargan and Dr William
Roche, IFI. The assistance of Trevor Stafford, Patricia O’Connor, Andrew Long, Danny Breen and Mike
Hennessy is gratefully acknowledged.
Acknowledgements
The help and co-operation of staff from the IFI South Western River Basin District is gratefully
acknowledged.
Executive Summary

A depletion electro-fishing survey was undertaken in the Currane catchment in summer
2014 following concerns regarding the number of salmon passing the counter at Butler’s
pool in Waterville.

Previous depletion electro-fishing surveys had been undertaken on the Currane catchment
in 1985 and 1986 (Whelan, 1985, and Whelan and Roche, 1987), and 1994 (Roche and
Gargan, 1996). The current survey will allow comparison of juvenile salmon and trout stocks
with that of previous surveys.

Two distinct electro-fishing survey methods for juvenile salmonids were employed,
depletion fishing (Quantitative) and catchment wide electro-fishing (Qualitative).

Depletion fishing recorded salmon at 15 of the 16 sites fished. A high mean salmon fry
density of 0.77 fish per m2 was recorded, not significantly different from the 1994 survey. A
high mean salmon parr density of 0.21 fish per m2 was also recorded- significantly higher
from the 1994 survey.

The main tributary channels of stream order 3 and above had the highest densities and are
the most significant areas for salmon production. Salmon fry were less dense in lower order
streams.

Depletion fishing recorded trout at all 16 sites surveyed. A very high mean trout fry density
of 0.77 fish per m2 was recorded not significantly different from the 1995 survey, and a
mean trout parr density of 0.05 fish per m2, significantly higher than the 1995 survey. Trout
were present throughout the whole catchment and were present in relatively higher
densities in low order steams than were salmon.
i

Catchment wide Electrofishing (CWEF) was undertaken at 43 sites throughout the Currane
catchment. Salmon were present at 29 sites surveyed and absent from only 14 of sites, these
latter sites being on streams in upper reaches of the catchment. The mean salmon fry
density in 2014 was 24.51 salmon fry/5min. This figure is in the top 10% of all results from
the CWEF programme 2007 to 2014.

CWEF found trout 0+present in good numbers throughout the whole catchment. But more
dominant on lower order streams. Best numbers were found on streams below 5m in width.

5 minute qualitative electrofishing gave a more comprehensive coverage of the Currane
catchment and demonstrates the importance of lower order steams to trout in terms of
spawning areas.

Q values assess the freshwater quality of the catchment based on the presence of
invertebrates. Results from the catchment indicate water quality was good with all three of
sites surveyed in 2012 with a Q value of 4 or greater.
ii
Contents
Project Personnel/ Acknowledgements................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................. i
1.
Introduction. ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.
Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 3
Fluvial Resource and Gradient Classification. ................................................................................. 3
Water Quality – Q Values................................................................................................................ 5
Previous Electro-fishing Depletion Surveys. ................................................................................... 6
2.
3.
Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.
Depletion Fishing. ................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.
Five Minute Fishing. ................................................................................................................ 8
Results. ............................................................................................................................................ 9
3.1.
Depletion Fishing .................................................................................................................... 9
Comparison of Salmonid Density with Previous Surveys.............................................................. 13
Comparison with Other Depletion Surveys. ................................................................................. 15
3.2.
Catchment Wide Electro-Fishing (Five Minute Fishing) ........................................................ 16
Comparison with Previous Annual CWEF Surveys Nationally. ...................................................... 19
3.3.
Length Frequency Distribution of Salmon and Trout............................................................ 19
4.
Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 20
5.
References. ................................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 25
Depletion Results Details .................................................................................................................. 25
CWEF Site details and results. ........................................................................................................... 27
iii
1. Introduction.
An electro-fishing survey of the Currane catchment was conducted during 2013. Fisheries surveys
were undertaken in 1985 and 1986 (Whelan, 1985, and Whelan and Roche, 1987), and 1995 (Roche
and Gargan, 1996) on the Currane.
The surveys in 1985 and 1986 together constituted a preliminary survey of the catchment to assess
the fish population and to provide advice for an enhancement programme. In 1995, at the request of
the SWRFB, due concerns about stock levels a re-survey of the 1985/86 sites was undertaken. The
current 2014 survey was initiated at the request of IFI Macroom and allows comparison of juvenile
salmon and trout density at sites previously electro-fished during earlier surveys.
Over the 2007 to 2013 period there have been a number of years that low numbers of salmon were
registered by the Currane counter; 2009, 10, 11 and 13 all have poor numbers of fish, this is
reflected in the predicted salmon surplus calculated by the Standing Scientific Committee on Salmon
(SSCS) (figure 1.1). This survey will examine the juvenile salmonid stock at sites previously surveyed
using depletion electrofishing techniques to determine how the stock densities have changed since
the previous survey. It will also compare salmonid densities in this catchment with that in other
catchments.
The survey will determine the relative importance of major tributaries and the main channel and of
channels of different order in terms of salmon and of trout productivity.
A second electro-fishing technique, catchment wide electro-fishing (CWEF) described in Gargan, P.,
Roche, W., Keane, S. & Stafford, T. (2008), was also undertaken on the Currane catchment. The
method allows a wider coverage of sites to be fished than the standard depletion fishing survey and
allows the results to be compared previous equivalent surveys on the Currane and with a wide range
of rivers nationally.
Figure 1.1: SSCS predicted Surplus salmon for the Currane 2007 to 2016 (left) and number of salmon recorded passing
the fish counter at Butler’s pool on the Currane each year 2008 to 2014 (right).
1
2
Map 1.1. Showing the main tributaries and lakes in the Currane, also shown are Depletion fishing locations from 1994 and 2014.
1.1. Study Area
The Currane, which is located on the Iveragh peninsular in SW Kerry, is designated as Salmonid
status under the EU directive 78/659/EEC (i.e. Quality of water needing protection or improvement
to support fish life). More recently the Currane has been designated as an SAC for Salmon under the
EU habitats directive (Council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of
wild flora and fauna); salmon are listed as an Annex 2 species; that is animals and plants species
whose conservation requires the designation of an SAC. Margaritifera are also present in the
Currane.
The entire catchment drains an area of approximately 118 km2. Its main tributaries are the
Cummeragh, which enters Lough Currane (1032.4 ha) from the north. The Cummeragh drains loughs
Derriana (239.2 HA) and Tooreenbog (12.1HA) and several smaller loughs at the northernmost end
of the catchment; loughs Namona (44.6 HA) and Cloonaghlin (126.2Ha) and two smaller loughs via
the Owengarrif river; and Loughs Iskanamacteery (23.5HA) and Nambrackdarrig (2.6A) via the
Oweveen River. The Cappal River enters Lough Currane from the east and drains Loughs Isknagahiny
(41.8HA) and Coomrooanig (10HA). The Currane River leaves Lough Currane and is joined by the
Finglas river, which drains and area to the south of the catchment, at Butler’s pool. The Bedrock is
composed of purple and green sandstone and siltstone. Conductivity is low. Land use is
predominantly peat bogs and pasture there are some areas of coniferous (primarily Sitka spruce)
forestry restricted mainly to the mid sections of the Cummeragh river north of Lough Currane and
around the eastern sides of Currane and around the Cappal sub catchment.
Fluvial Resource and Gradient Classification.
River gradient has been identified as a key indicator of habitat quality (Amiro, 1993), as it acts as a
good indicator of river morphology, indicating the possible presence of riffle, falls, pools etc. within
the river channel. These habitat features in turn are good indicators of where salmon and trout
would be expected. To simplify matters river gradients have been classified low gradient (<1.5%),
medium gradient (>1.5 ≤3%) and high gradient (>3%). Amiro (1993) found that medium gradient
habitat has the best potential for the production of juvenile salmon.
Stream
Order
1
2
3
5
Grand Total
%
km
%
km
%
km
%
km
km
%
km
Gradient
Classification
%
4
High
74.9 43.2% 26.0 15.0%
7.1
4.1%
2.2
1.3%
0.0%
110.2
64%
Med
5.1
3.0%
2.6
1.5%
4.6
2.6%
2.3
1.3%
0.0%
14.7
8%
Low
15.6
9.0%
9.8
5.7%
11.1
6.4%
11.3
6.5%
0.6
0.4%
48.5
28%
Grand Total 95.7 55.2% 38.5 22.2%
22.8
13.1% 15.8
9.1%
0.6
0.4%
173.4
100%
Table 1.1: Breakdown of the total lengths (km) of channel of various stream orders and gradients on the Currane
System.
3
The wetted area report and subsequent studies (McGinnity et al, 2003 & 2012) examined all the
salmon rivers in Ireland and has quantified that resource in terms of gradient and wetted area. The
2012 wetted area revision assessed that there was 24.8 Ha of fluvial (river) habitat available to
salmon within Currane catchment, making it the 65th largest catchment in the country in terms of
accessible fluvial habitat. The area of lakes available to Salmon within the system is assessed at
527.5Ha-98% of the total available wetted area of the system. The estimate on available riverine
wetted area does not include any channels of stream order 1; it is acknowledged however that these
small streams are capable of supporting salmonids (Aprahamian et al. 2003). Around 95 km of
channels within the Currane catchment is on channels of stream order 1. Due to the mountainous
terrain in this catchment many of the first and indeed a proportion of the second order streams are
high gradient. While much of this water may be inaccessible to both salmon and trout, at least some
of this habitat will be important in terms of trout production.
Map 1.2 Main river channels on the Currane Catchment classified by gradient: low gradient (≤1.5%), medium gradient
(>1.5 ≤3%) and high gradient (>3%).
4
Water Quality – Q Values
The EPA undertakes biological water quality assessments of catchments on a national basis. Kick
samples are taken from specific stations. The invertebrate species collected are then identified.
According to the proportions of species and taxa of macroinvertebrates present a quality score (Q
Score) from 1 (grossly polluted) to 5 (pristine) is given.
The last extensive survey of the catchment occurred in 2012 (EPA, 2014a). It found that the water
was unpolluted; all 2 sites were found to have Q value of 4 and one to have a Q value of 4-5.
Q Score
3-4
4
4-5
5
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
3
1
4
3
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
Table 1.1. Q Values from EPA Surveys of Currane.
Quality Classes
Q Ratings
Class A
Q5
Q4
Class B
Q3-4
Class C
Q3
Pollution Status
Pristine,
Unpolluted
Unpolluted
Slight pollution
Fishery Potential
Game fisheries
Good game
fisheries
Game fish at
risk
Class D
Q2
Q1
Moderate
pollution
Heavy pollution
Gross pollution
Coarse fisheries
Fish usually
absent
Fish absent
Table 1.2: Pollution status and fishery potential of water characterised by Q status (after Clabby et al. in Champ, 2007)
Map1.3: Location and most recent Q value of water at EPA monitoring sites labels indicate most recent water
quality survey. (EPA 2015)
5
Previous Electro-fishing Depletion Surveys.
Fisheries surveys were undertaken in 1985 and 1986 (Whelan, 1985, and Whelan and Roche, 1987),
and 1994 (Roche and Gargan, 1996) on the Currane.
The survey in 1985 comprised sites on the Cummeragh and Coppal rivers, a follow up survey was
conducted in 1986 to complement the 1985 survey by assessing Dromod streams and the Finglas
River, together these constituted a preliminary survey of the catchment to assess the fish population
and to provide advice for an enhancement programme.
In 1994, at the request of the SWRFB, a re-survey of the 1985/86 sites was undertaken. This survey
was to re-asses stock densities following concerns related to poor sea trout catches in 1989, 1992
and 1993 and a 1993 report from The Sea Trout Working Group which had concluded that it was
reasonable to assume that sea trout stock in the Currane had suffered a serious decline. The 1995
survey consisted of 34 sites (map 1.2).
The 1994 survey report found that Salmon fry were present at 26 (76%) sites; maximum density was
1.61 fish/m2 at site10. Salmon 1+ were present at 26 (76%) of sites, maximum density was 0.3
fish/m2 at site 19. Trout 0+ were present at 32 (94%) of sites, trout 1+ at 23 (68%) of sites. The
survey concluded that the distribution of salmonids was unchanged from the previous survey. And
that stocks were generally satisfactory in the catchment.
Maps 1.4(top) and 1.5: Showing salmon (0+ and 1+) densities recorded at sites throughout the Currane 1994.
6
Maps 1.6(top) and 1.7: Showing trout (0+ and 1+) densities recorded at sites throughout the Currane 1994.
7
2. Methods
Two independent surveys were carried out in 2014, each employing different electrofishing
techniques. Depletion electrofishing was carried out at a selection of the sites identified and
surveyed during the 1995 survey.
A more rapid and extensive five minute electrofishing technique was employed at sites identified in
a selection of the sites identified and surveyed during the 1995 survey. The surveys were conducted
in August and September 2013 during a warm dry summer with very few interruptions due to rain.
2.1. Depletion Fishing.
Fish were removed using bank based electrofishing equipment consisting of a portable generator
(220/240V) with an appropriate control (D.C. converter) unit attached. The sampling area at each
site was isolated by using stopnets to ensure no escapement of fish upstream or downstream during
the electrofishing operation. A number of fishings were carried out in the contained area in an
upstream direction from the bottom net. Fish from each pass were held in bins of water, sorted and
processed separately. All fish were measured for fork length within 1cm length groupings. All fish
were held in a large bin of water after processing until they were fully recovered at which time they
were returned to the water.
Population estimates were calculated using the two fishing depletion of Seber and Le Cren (1967) or
the three fishing method of Zippin (1958). Where catchability was low (<0.3) or where single fishing
was carried out minimum densities were calculated.
2.2. Five Minute Fishing.
This is a rapid technique to qualitatively assess the number of salmonid fry (0+ salmon and trout)
present at riffle sites throughout a catchment. The sites chosen consist of an area of riffle sizable
enough to provide for 5 minutes of electrofishing. The survey was carried out only on sites in second
order and higher streams. A single uninterrupted fishing in an upstream direction lasting five
minutes was undertaken at each site. Fish were removed by a single operator using a backpack
electrofishing unit (Safari Research 550-e) and collected into a bucket of water carried by an
assistant. The number of salmonid fry missed was recorded. Any other fish observed were noted,
but not captured or measured. At the end of the fishing period the fish were identified to species
and measured for fork length within 1cm groups. When the fish were fully recovered they were
returned to the water. The ratio of salmon to trout fry captured was used to assign the missed fish
to one or the other species. If catch efficiency was below 60% then the site survey was not used. Full
methodology is set out in Gargan, P., Roche, W., Keane, S. & Stafford, T. (2008).
8
3. Results.
3.1. Depletion Fishing
Depletion fishing was undertaken by a team of IFI staff at 16 sites on dates from the 9th to the 18th
of September 2014. The sites were a selection of those that had been surveyed in the 1995 survey.
A summary of the calculated densities of salmon and trout is presented (table 3.1). Salmon 0+ had
mean abundance of 0.77 fish per m2, salmon 1+ were at 0.21 fish per m2, trout 0+ at 0.77 fish per m2,
and trout 1+ were the least abundant at 0.04 fish per m2.
Other species present were Minnow (20 fish, 1 site) and Eel (74 fish, 15 sites) and three-spined
stickleback (7 fish, 1 site).
Salmon fry were present at 14 of the 16 sites, ranging in density from 0.16 -1.52 fish per m2 with a
survey mean of 0.77 fry/m2. The highest density of Salmon 0+ was 1.52 salmon fry per m2, found at
site 16 above Lough Dreenaun on the Finglas. But high densities were found at most of the sites
sampled, all densities were either below 0.13 or above 0.65 fry per m2. The lower densities of
salmon were found on the lower order streams. Salmon were entirely absent from site 22 – Watsons
2, this site had the highest Trout 0+ density.
Salmon parr (Salmon >0+) were found at 14 sites, ranging in density from 0.022 to 0.52 fish per m2,
with a survey mean of 0.21 fry/m2. While the distribution was similar the that of salmon 0+ the
densities were much lower.
Trout fry were present at all 16 sites, densities ranged from 0.09 to 3.6 fish per m2, with a survey
mean of 0.77 fry/m2. Three sites had densities over 1 fry per m2 site 22 having an extremely high 3.6
fry. The mean density was comparable with salmon 0+. Density at most sites was moderate, but high
densites were very high, the highest was 3.6 fry per m2 at site 22 (more than double the highest
salmon density recorded). The three highest densities of trout were at sites with no or very few
salmon.
Trout 1+ (more correctly trout >0+) were present at 14 sites ranging from 0.017 to 0.145 fish per m2,
with a survey mean of 0.04 fry/m2. Trout 1+ densities were considerably lower than Trout 0+ and
Salmon 1+, the highest density being 0.145 fish per m2 at site 24. Densities were higher on the
higher order channels.
Description
Very High
High
Moderate
Low
Absent
0+ Salmon/Trout Density
>1
>0.6-0.1
>0.3-0.6
>0.3-0.0
0
Sal 0+
7
5
0
2
2
Trout 0+
3
3
6
4
0
1+ Salmon/Trout Density
>0.1
>0.07-0.1
0.04-0.07
>0 -0.04
0
Sal 1+
12
0
0
2
2
Trout 1+
2
0
4
8
2
2
Table 3.1: Salmonid abundance (fish per m ) associated with classifications modified from Roche and
Gargan (1996) along with the number of sites within those groups found in the 2014 survey on the Currane.
9
Site Number
3
5
7
10
11
15
16
19
20
22
24
25
26
28
32
33
Species
Sal 0+
Sal 1+
Trout 0+
Trout 1+
Eel
Year
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
Tributary
Derriana lwr/inflow
Abhgrabh/ Owengarriff
Abhainn/Oweveen Lower
Cummeragh Uppr
Cummeragh Mid
Termons Lwr (Dromod 4)
Finglas 1 (Above Lake)
Finglas 4 (MC)
Finglas 5
Watsons 2
Cloghbhuaile 2
Hallisseys
Coffeys
Kellys 2
Coppal 2 (Br)
Coppal 3 (mid)
Number of sites
Mean Density all sites
0.79
0.88
1.16
1.15
0.88
0.02
1.52
0.66
1.1
0
1.01
1.02
0.13
0
0.84
1.22
16
0.77
(
(0.286)
(0.261)
(0.249)
*
*
*
(0.274)
*
(0.076)
*
(0.438)
(0.289)
(0.116)
*
(0.084)
(0.112)
2
0.23
0.32
0.43
0.24
0.11
0
0.26
0.49
0.23
0
0.2
0.52
0.03
0.02
0.14
0.2
16
0.21
*
(0.066)
(0.161)
(0.134)
*
*
(0.02)
(0.118)
(0.04)
*
(0.052)
(0.321)
*
*
(0.034)
(0.03)
0.32
0.09
0.13
0.48
0.17
2.22
0.8
0.83
0.46
3.6
0.62
0.49
1.13
0.32
0.23
0.43
16
0.77
*
(0.021)
*
*
*
(0.653)
(0.134)
(0.328)
(0.187)
(2.151)
*
*
(0.186)
(0.083)
*
(0.185)
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.02
0
0.05
0.11
0.06
0.02
0.15
0.07
0.02
0.04
0.02
0
16
0.04
(0.027)
(0.038)
(0.004)
*
(0.01)
*
*
(0.039)
(0.005)
*
(0.031)
(0.124)
*
*
(0.005)
*
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.04
0
0.2
0.14
0.03
0.08
0.09
0.07
0.02
0.04
0.01
0
16
0.05
(0.01)
*
(0.008)
*
(0.034)
*
*
*
*
*
*
(0.048)
*
*
*
*
Table 3.2: Summary of Fish densities with 95% Confidence Intervals) Fish/m calculated from site surveys in 2014. Where catchability was low
(<0.3) minimum (*) densities were calculated.
10
Maps 3.1 to 3.2: Showing the densities of Salmon found by depletion fishing in 2014 on the Currane.
11
Maps 3.3 to 3.4: Showing the densities of Trout found by depletion fishing in 2014 on the Currane.
12
Comparison of Salmonid Density with Previous Surveys.
All 16 sites surveyed in 2014 had been surveyed in the 1994 survey (appendix table A.1). Densities
from the two surveys were compared on a site by site basis with a Wilcoxon matched pairs test.
Figures 3.3 to 3.6 indicate how densities at each site changed for salmon and trout 0+ and 1+. The
results indicate that:
 For Salmon fry (0+)
2014 densities were not significantly different than 1994 (p=0.11).
Most sites showing a modest increase, one site (site 28 Kelly’s #2) reduced from 1.2 to zero.
 For Salmon parr (1+), 2014 densities significantly increased from 1994 (p=0.02).
 For Trout fry (0+)
2014 densities not significantly different from 1994 (p=0.08).Highest
densities at same 3 sites–all of these sites showed a decrease of between 1.1 to 1.4 fry/ m2.
 For Trout parr (1+)
2014 densities were significantly higher than 1994 (p=0.02) but all
densities remained very low.
Figure 3.2: Boxplot of results for the 16 sites that were assessed by both the 1994 and the 2014 surveys.
Fig 3.3: Salmon 0+ Currane, Repeated Sites,
12 increased, 3 decreased, 1 unchanged at
zero; Wilcoxon Matched Pairs nonparametric test showed no significant
difference between years (p=0.11).
Fig 3.4: Salmon 1+ Currane, Repeated Sites,
11 increased, 4 decreased, 1 unchanged at
zero; Wilcoxon Matched Pairs nonparametric test showed significant
difference between year(p=0.02).
Fig 3.5:Trout 0+ Currane, Repeated Sites, 6
increased, 10 decreased, 0 unchanged;
Wilcoxon Matched Pairs non-parametric test
showed no significant difference between
years (p=0.08).
Fig 3.6:Trout 1+ Currane, Repeated Sites, 13
increased, 2 decreased, 1 unchanged at zero;
Wilcoxon Matched Pairs non-parametric test
showed significant difference between years
(p=0.002).
13

Comparisons between 1985/6, 1994 and 2014.
Ten sites were surveyed by all three of the surveys, results from each survey were standardised by
taking the density from the first fishing pass at each site (appendix table A.2). Kruskal Wallace tests
were undertaken to compare densities. These found that for the densities at each of these ten sites:
 For Salmon 0+ There was a significant difference between the three surveys (p=0.04) suggesting
that the densities in 1985 were lower than those in 1994 and 2014.
 For Salmon 1+ There was no significant difference between years (p=0.69).
 For Trout 0+ There was no significant difference between years (p=0.07).
 For Trout >0+ There was no significant difference between years (p=0.37).
Figure 3.7: Boxplots of the minimum densities [densities calculated from
first fishing] of salmon and trout 0+and 1+ for the 10 sites that were
surveyed at each of the surveys 1985/6, 1995 and 2014
14
Comparison with Other Depletion Surveys.
Depletion surveys on the Currane were compared with similar surveys of other catchments
throughout Ireland (Gargan, 2006). This indicated that salmon 0+ and 1+ and Trout 0+ average
densities were in the upper-range of densities found and that trout 1+ densities were in the lower
range of those found.
Catchment
Year
# Sites
Salmon Fry
Salmon Parr
Total
R. Feale
2001
20
0.98
0.25
1.23
R. Feale
2013
16
0.89
0.4
1.29
Currane
2014
16
0.77
0.21
0.98
R. Deel
6
0.66
0.1
0.76
Upper Blackwater
9
0.61
0.22
0.83
Kerry Blackwater
2014
9
0.42
0.21
0.63
R. Feale
1992
19
0.36
0.21
0.57
Currane
1994
34
0.34
0.08
0.42
R Erriff
10
0.31
0.17
0.48
R. Feale
2005
14
0.25
0.12
0.37
L. Currane
8
0.24
0.07
0.31
R. Inney
16
0.23
0.07
0.3
R. Feale
1988
37
0.29*
0.14
0.43
Table 3.4: Mean densities (fish/m2) of salmon from a selection on Irish channels.
(NB: *Refers to Tributaries only, no Data available for main channel)
Catchment
Year
# Sites
Trout Fry
Trout Parr
Total
Currane
1994
34
1.19
0.04
1.23
Currane
2014
16
0.77
0.04
0.81
Upper Blackwater
9
0.69
0.26
0.95
R. Inney
16
0.59
0.04
0.63
L. Currane
8
0.33
0.13
0.46
R. Feale
2013
16
0.25
0.03
0.28
R. Deel
6
0.19
0.15
0.34
R. Feale
2001
20
0.14
0.15
0.29
R. Feale
1992
19
0.08
0.03
0.11
Kerry Blackwater
2014
9
0.08
0.05
0.13
R Erriff
10
0.06
0.02
0.08
R. Feale
2005
14
0.03
0.07
0.1
R. Feale
1988
37
0.2*
0.12
0.32
Table 3.5: Mean densities (fish/m2) of trout from a selection on Irish channels.
(NB: *Refers to Tributaries only, no Data available for main channel)
15
3.2. Catchment Wide Electro-Fishing (Five Minute Fishing)
Surveys were undertaken between 1th and 11th August 2014 by a team of two or three staff. The
survey comprised 54 sites, 40 of which were included for the calculation of the CWEF index. Salmon
fry were present at 32 sites. The maximum fry catch was 65 salmon at site 49 on the main
Cummeragh River. The mean catch of included sites was 24.51 salmon fry/5min.
Average Salmon fry abundance was greatest at sites with lower riffle grades and in higher stream
order tributaries (maps 3.5 to 3.7). Salmon fry
were present in good numbers at most sites on
all channels of stream order 3 and over, and
present in low numbers or absent in stream
orders 1 and 2.
Figure 3.6: Average 0+ fish/5min from CWEF surveys on
the Currane 2014 Salmon fry per 5 min.by stream order .
Trout fry were absent from only 2 of the 54 sitesone of these above a waterfall, the other on a
very narrow (50cm) shallow (12cm) channel. The
highest number 58 trout fry per 5 min was at site
39 on the Coppal River, high densities were
present on all of the tributaries and on a number
of first order streams. Trout fry were more
dominant in streams with a lower stream order,
and were less so on sites on the main channel
(map 3.2). Trout numbers were highest in
streams below 5m in width. It is clear that lower
order streams are do not hold many salmon but
are important for trout production.
Figure 3.7: Average 0+ fish/5min from CWEF surveys on
the Currane 2014 Salmon fry per 5min by riffle grade (1highest quality to 3- poorest quality riffle).
Figure 3.8. Numbers of 0+ fish/5min against stream
width (m) from CWEF surveys on the Currane 2014.
16
Map 3.6: Showing the distribution of Salmon fry at 5minute electrofishing survey locations throughout the Currane
system.
Map 3.7: Showing the distribution of Trout fry at 5minute electrofishing survey locations throughout the
Currane system.
17
Map 3.8: Showing Relative abundance of salmon and trout fry at survey locations in the Currane 2014. Shows the
relative dominance of Salmon on the main channels and the importance of lower order channels to trout
production.
Map 3.9: Showing Relative abundance of Salmon and trout Fry at survey locations in the Currane 2014. Size of pie
chart is proportional to Trout fry numbers. Emphasizes the importance of lower order streams where salmon are
relatively few to trout production.
18
Comparison with Previous Annual CWEF Surveys Nationally.
The average CWEF result of 24.51 salmon fry/5min obtained from the Currane on 2014 can be
compared with results of other similar surveys undertaken as part of the CWEF programme 1997 to
2014. The result in the Currane in 2014 is in the top 10% of all results.
Figure 3.9: Bar plot of annual average salmon fry per 5min obtained in annual Catchment surveys 1997 to 2014.
th
th
(Min: 0; 25 percentile: 5.7; median: 12.2; 75 percentile: 18.2; maximum: 40.1)
3.3. Length Frequency Distribution of Salmon and Trout
and age verification by Scale Reading.
Length frequency distribution of captured salmonids captured by depletion fishing and CWEF was
compared (figure 4.3). For salmon 0+ the modal length class found by depletion fishing was 5-6cm,
CWEF found 4 to 5cm to be the modal class, a similar but less marked size shift was found for trout
0+, this may in art be due to the difference in dates between the two surveys. Salmon 0+ would be
expected to be from 3 to 7cm in length and fish greater than 7cm to be 1+. Scale reading of a small
number of fry verified these assumptions. Two salmon fry of 11 cm were read, both were found to
be 2+ fry.
The modal length class for trout was 5 to 6 from both CWEF and depletion fishing, though a slight
increase in sizes is evident similar to that seen in the salmon. The 0+ would be expected to be from 4
to 10cm in length, the 1+ and older fry being those above 10cm. Notable are the relatively low
numbers of trout 1+.
Length frequency distributions for both species were similar from each of the fishing techniques.
19
Figure 3.10: Comparison of Length frequency distributions of Salmon and Trout captured using two fishing
methods. (Sal CWEF N=958, Trout CWEF N=777; Sal Depletion N=1670, Trout Depletion N=885).
4. Discussion
Depletion fishing results for the 2014 Currane survey were good in relation to the previous surveys
undertaken in 1985/6 and 1994 and compared to surveys undertaken elsewhere. The densities of
salmon and trout fry were unchanged, though there was a slight indication of an increase in salmon
numbers and a decrease in trout numbers. Both salmon and trout 1+ showed slight increases, but
densities of both were very low. The densities of trout 1+ were extremely low – as was the case in
each of the previous studies on the Currane.
CWEF electrofishing showed that salmon 0+ numbers were high in relation to a range of similar
surveys undertaken on catchments elsewhere within Ireland 2007 to 2014.
CWEF found Salmon 0+ fry widely distributed throughout the system with excellent numbers
present at a number of sites on main channels of each of the tributaries the Cummeragh, Finglas,
Oweveen, Owgengarrif and Capall). Salmon were virtually absent from many of the lower order
streams – many of these same streams held good numbers of trout.
Trout 0+were widely distributed, depletion fishing found that the highest densities were higher than
those of salmon. CWEF found that salmon 0+ numbers were slightly higher than trout 0+. The
highest numbers of Trout 0+ numbers were generally at the lower order streams, the main stem of
the Cummeragh had the lowest numbers.
20
Q values assess the freshwater quality of the catchment based on the presence on invertebrates.
Results from the catchment indicate water quality was generally good with all of sites surveyed
(2012) with a Q value of 4-5.
21
5. References.
Amiro, P.G. (1993). Habitat measurement and population estimation of juvenile Atlantic salmon. In
R.J. Gibson and R.E. Cutting [ed.]. Production of juvenile Atlantic salmon in natural waters. Canadian
Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 118. pp. 81-97.
Anon, (2005) Salmon Fisheries Review 2004, with Scientific Advice for 2005. Joint document
prepared by the Marine Institute and Central Fisheries Board for the Department of
Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.
Aprahamian M.W., Smith K., McGinnity P., McKelvey S. and Taylor J. 2003, Restocking of Salmonids –
opportunities and limitations. Fisheries Research 62. pp 211-227
Roche, W., (1996) A Preliminary Investigation into the Decline of Salmon Stocks in Kenmare Bay in
1994. Central Fisheries Board, Dublin.
Champ et al. (2007) Investigation of the relationship between fish stocks, ecological quality ratings
(Q-Values), Environmental factors and degree of Eutrophication. EPA. Available From :
http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/water/ms4finalreport/#.U0Z_k6LB30c [Accessed:
15/02/2014]
EPA, (2015) Biological Q Results 16/01/2015. [GIS files] Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland.
Downloaded from: http://gis.epa.ie/GetData/Download [Accessed: 15/02/2015]
Gargan, P., Roche, W., Keane, S. & Stafford, T. (2008). Report on Salmon Monitoring Programmes
2008 (June 2009), Central & Regional Fisheries Board.
Gargan, P., and Roche, W. (1993) An assessment of Juvenile Salmonid Production in the River Feale
Catchment, with particular reference to Gravel Removal. Central Fisheries Board, Dublin.
Gargan P., Stafford, T. and Naughton, M. (2006) An assessment of Juvenile Salmonid Abundance in
the River Feale Catchment 2005, & Comparison with previous surveys. Central Fisheries Board,
Dublin.
Hendry, K. and Cragg-Hine, D. (2003). Ecology of the Atlantic Salmon. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers
Ecology Series No. 7. English Nature, Peterborough.
Hutton, S., Harrison, S. and O’Halloran J. (2008a) Forests and Surface Water Eutrophication and
Sedimentation Forwater Final Draft Report available from:
Http://wfdireland.ie/docs/22_ForestAndWater/ [Accessed: 23/04/2013]
Hutton, S., Harrison, S. and O’Halloran J. (2008b) An evaluation of the role of forests and forest
practices in the eutrophication and sedimentation of receiving waters. available from:
Http://wfdireland.ie/docs/22_ForestAndWater/ [Accessed: 23/04/2013]
Kelly, F.L., Connor, L., Matson, R., Feeney, R., Morrissey, E., Wögerbauer, C. and Rocks, K. (2013)
Sampling Fish for the Water Framework Directive - Summary Report 2012. Inland Fisheries Ireland,
Swords Business Campus, Swords, Co. Dublin, Ireland.
Kelly, F.L., Matson, R., Connor, L., Feeney, R., Morrissey, E., Wögerbauer, C. and Rocks, K. (2012)
Sampling Fish for the Water Framework Directive - Summary Report 2011. Inland Fisheries Ireland,
Swords Business Campus, Swords, Co. Dublin, Ireland.
22
Kelly, F.L., Harrison, A., Connor, L., Matson, R., Feeney, R., Morrissey, E., Wögerbauer, C. and Rocks,
K. and O’Callaghan, R. (2011) Sampling Fish for the Water Framework Directive - Summary Report
2010. Inland Fisheries Ireland, Swords Business Campus, Swords, Co. Dublin, Ireland.
Kelly, F.L., Harrison, A., Connor, L., Matson, R., Wightman, G., Morrissey, E., O’Callaghan, R., Feeney,
R., Hanna, R., Wögerbauer, C. and Rocks, K. (2010) Sampling Fish for the Water Framework Directive
- Summary Report 2009. Inland Fisheries Ireland, Swords Business Campus, Swords, Co. Dublin,
Ireland.
Kelly, F.L., Connor. L., Wightman, G., Matson, R., Morrissey, O’Callaghan, R., E., Feeney, R., Hanna, G,
and Rocks, K. (2009a) Sampling Fish for the Water Framework Directive - Summary Report 2008.
Central Fisheries Board. Dublin.
Kelly, F.L., Connor. L., Wightman, G., Matson, R., Morrissey, O’Callaghan, R., E., Feeney, R., Hanna, G,
and Rocks, K. (2009b) Sampling Fish for the Water Framework Directive – ShRFB Rivers. Central
Fisheries Board. Dublin.
Kelly-Quinn, M., Cruikshanks, R., Johnson, J., Matson, R., Baars, J. and Bruen, M. (2008), Forestry &
Surface Water Acidification (Forwater). UCD.
Mainstone, C.P., Barnard, S., Wyatt, R., 1994. The NRA National Fisheries Classification Scheme: A
Guide for Users. R&D Note No. 206. National Rivers Authority, Bristol.
McGinnity, P., Gargan, P., Roche, W., Mills, P. & McGarrigle, M., (2003) Quantification of the
Freshwater Salmon Habitat Asset in Ireland using data interpreted in a GIS platform. Irish Freshwater
Fisheries Ecology and Management Series: Number 3, Central Fisheries Board, Dublin, Ireland.
McGinnity, P., De Eyto, E., Gilbey, J., Gargan, P., Roche, W., Stafford, T., McGarrigle, M.,
Ó′Maoiléidigh, N. And Mills, P. (2012), A predictive model for estimating river habitat area using GISderived catchment and river variables. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 19 pp. 69–77.
O’Driscoll, C., de Eyto, E,. Rodgers, M., O’Connor, M., Asam, Z-Z & Xiao, L., 2013. Biotic response to
forest harvesting in acidic blanket peat fed streams: a case study from Ireland. Forest Ecology and
Management 310: 729–739.
R Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/
Rodgers, M., Xiao, l., Müller, M., O'Connor, M., de Eyto, E., Poole, R., Robinson, M. and Healy, M.
(2008), Quantification of Erosion and Phosphorus Release from a Peat Soil Forest Catchment (2000LS-3.2.4-M2) STRIVE Report, EPA Ireland.
Seber, G. A. F. and Le Cren, E. D., (1967) Estimating Population Parameters from Catches Large
Relative to the Population. Journal of Animal Ecology, 36, No.3, pp. 631-643.
SSC (2011) The Status of Irish Salmon Stocks in 2010 with Precautionary Catch Advice for 2011. [PDF]
Available from: http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/Download-document/235-The-Status-of-IrishSalmon-Stocks-in-2010-with-Precautionary-Catch-Advice-for-2011.html [Accessed: 23/04/2014].
SSC (2012) The Status of Irish Salmon Stocks in 2011 with Precautionary Catch Advice for 2012. [PDF]
Available from: http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/Download-document/282-The-Status-of-IrishSalmon-Stocks-in-2011-with-Precautionary-Catch-Advice-for-2012.html [Accessed 23/4/2014].
23
SSC (2013) The Status of Irish Salmon Stocks in 2012 with Precautionary Catch Advice for 2013 [PDF]
Available from: http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/Download-document/343-The-Status-of-IrishSalmon-Stocks-in-2012-with-Precautionary-Catch-Advice-for-2013.html [Accessed 23/4/2014].
Whelan, K.F., (1985) Preliminary survey of the Lough Currane catchment and recommendations for
the overall development of the system, Central Fisheries board , Dublin.
Whelan, K.F., and Roche, W.K., (1987) Preliminary survey of the Lough Currane catchment II, Central
Fisheries Board, Dublin.
Zippin, C. (1958) The removal method of population estimation. Journal of Wildlife Management, 22
pp. 82
24
Tributary
25
X
63288
63250
62395
62332
58160
58510
59584
58690
58600
57999
56987
53969
53420
51781
51646
53700
52912
52417
51959
51565
55844
56088
56856
56848
57325
58042
58936
59201
60387
60082
60524
60149
58845
58332
-2
Y
72484
72537
73384
73521
71078
70726
69843
70353
70220
71374
70598
68471
68423
67320
67162
63500
63347
63261
63419
63790
64935
64874
66676
66272
65091
65092
65048
65057
66429
66194
66265
65969
65284
65228
0.1 *
0.02 *
0.57 (0.08)
0
0.49 (0.12)
0.3 (0.05)
0.51 (0.06)
0
0.36 (0.13)
1.61 (0.28)
0.35 (0.01)
0.02 (0.02)
0
0
0
0.3 (0.05)
0.08 *
0.1 *
1.03 (0.31)
0.96 (0.35)
0
0
0.14 (0.03)
0.25 (0.04)
0.57 (0.1)
0.03 *
0.02 *
1.21 (0.58)
0
0.22 *
0.72 (0.21)
0.48 (0.04)
1.1 (0.03)
0.11 (0.08)
34
0.34
1.61 10
1994
2014
16
0.77
1.52 16
0.84 (0.084)
1.22 (0.112)
0*
1.01 (0.438)
1.02 (0.289)
0.13 (0.116)
0*
0.66 *
1.1 (0.076)
0.02 *
1.52 (0.274)
1.15 *
0.88 *
1.16 (0.249)
0.88 (0.261)
0.79 (0.286)
Sal 0+
0.05 *
0
0.07 *
0
0.07 (0.03)
0.29 (0.11)
0.25 (0.04)
0.04 *
0.02 *
0.11 (0.08)
0.04 (0.006)
0.1 (0.1)
0
0.03 *
0.02 *
0.19 (0.05)
0.15 (0.04)
0.01 *
0.3 (0.05)
0.07 *
0
0
0
0.1 (0.02)
0.02 *
0.18 *
0
0.05 *
0
0.01 *
0.03 *
0.22 (0.03)
0.08 *
0.26 (0.1)
34
0.08
0.30 19
1994
2014
16
0.21
0.52 25
0.14 (0.034)
0.2 (0.03)
0.02 *
0.2 (0.052)
0.52 (0.321)
0.03 *
0*
0.49 (0.118)
0.23 (0.04)
0*
0.26 (0.02)
0.24 (0.134)
0.11 *
0.43 (0.161)
0.32 (0.066)
0.23 *
Sal 1+
0.08 *
0.78 (0.28)
0.7 (0.15)
0
0.64 (0.18)
0.3 (0.08)
0.18 (0.06)
0.25 (0.04)
1.63 (0.023)
0.55 (0.16)
0.25 (0.08)
0.82 (0.11)
3.68 (0.43)
3.58 (0.62)
3.6 (0.57)
0.38 (0.08)
0.18 (0.04)
0.82 (0.06)
0.52 (0.06)
0.96 (0.35)
4.61 (0.62)
5.04 (1.72)
1.74 (0.28)
0.44 (0.23)
0.49 (0.23)
2.15 (0.3)
3.56 (0.3)
1.07 (0.13)
0
0.74 (0.08)
0.21 (0.05)
0.2 (0.01)
0.34 (0.01)
0.08 (0.03)
34
1.19
5.04 22
1994
16
0.77
3.60 22
0.23 0
0.43 (0.185)
0.32 (0.083)
0.62 0
0.49 0
1.13 (0.186)
3.6 (2.151)
0.83 (0.328)
0.46 (0.187)
2.22 (0.653)
0.8 (0.134)
0.48 0
0.17 0
0.13 0
0.09 (0.021)
0.32 0
2014
Trout 0+
0
0.2 *
0.02 *
0.06 *
0
0.08 *
0.02 *
0.11 *
0
0.03 *
0.01 *
0
0
0
0
0.08 *
0.04 (0.01)
0.08 (0.02)
0.07 *
0.01 *
0.06 *
0
0.08 (0.03)
0.01 *
0.04 *
0
0
0.04 *
0
0.02 *
0.07 *
0.01 *
0.09 *
0.05 *
34
0.04
0.20 2
1994
2014
Eel
0*
0.2 *
0*
0.05 *
0.08 *
0.04 *
16
0.04
0.15 24
16
0.05
0.20 16
0.02 (0.005) 0.01 *
0*
0*
0.04 *
0.15 (0.031) 0.09 *
0.07 (0.124) 0.07 (0.048)
0.02 *
0.02 *
0.02 *
0.11 (0.039) 0.14 *
0.06 (0.005) 0.03 *
0.01 *
0.04 (0.034)
0.04 *
0.02 (0.01)
0.03 (0.004) 0.05 (0.008)
0.03 (0.038) 0.02 *
0.04 (0.027) 0.01 (0.01)
2014
Trout 1+
Table A.1: Summary of all results fish densities (fish m ) along with 95%CI (in brackets) from depletion fishing surveys 1994 and 2014 on the
Currane system. Where catchability was below 0.3 the minimum density (Total catch/Area) is presented (*).
Coomavanniha 1
Coomavanniha 2
Derriana lwr/inflow
Derriana N
Abhgrabh/ Owengarriff
Abhainn/Oweveen Upper
Abhainn/Oweveen Lower
Caoldubh
Caolbhi
Cummeragh Uppr
Cummeragh Mid
Dromod 1
Dromod 2
Termons uppr (Dromod 3)
Termons Lwr (Dromod 4)
Finglas 1 (Above Lake)
Finglas 2 (Below Lake)
Finglas 3 (Tullig)
Finglas 4 (MC)
Finglas 5
Watsons 1
Watsons 2
Cloghbhuaile 1
Cloghbhuaile 2
Hallisseys
Coffeys
Kellys 1
Kellys 2
Connells uppr
Connells lwr
Coppal 1 (Upper)
Coppal 2 (Br)
Coppal 3 (mid)
Coppal 4 (lake)
Number of sites
Mean Density all sites
Max Density & s i te
Species
Year
Site Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Appendix
Depletion Results Details
26
X
62395
58160
58510
59584
58690
53969
53420
51781
51646
53700
52912
52417
51959
55844
56856
57325
58936
59201
60082
60524
60149
58845
58332
Y
73384
71078
70726
69843
70353
68471
68423
67320
67162
63500
63347
63261
63419
64935
66676
65091
65048
65057
66194
66265
65969
65284
65228
1985
0.09
0.09
0.23
0.18
0.16
0
0
0
0
0
0.26
0
0.49
0
0.12
0.02
0
0.76
0.03
0.38
0.22
0.07
0.01
Sal 0+
1994
0.36
0.49
0.3
0.47
0
0.02
0
0
0
0.29
0.07
0.1
0.59
0
0.14
0.57
0.02
1.21
0.22
0.72
0.48
1.1
0.02
Sal 1+
2014 1985 1994 2014
0.24 0.03 0.06 0.09
0.35 0.01 0.07 0.17
0.14 0.29
0.47 0.12 0.23 0.15
0.08 0.04
0.12 0.1
0.02 0
0 0.04
0.02 0.02 0.02 0
0.69 0.18 0.16 0.18
0.24 0.14
0.04 0.01
0.26 0.36 0.2 0.22
0
0
0
0
0.41 0.13 0.02 0.16
0
0
0 0.09 0.05 0.02
0.08 0.01
0.07 0.03
0.46 0.02 0.22 0.08
0.77 0.12 0.08 0.14
0.04 0.06
Trout 0+
1985 1994 2014
0.08 0.47 0.15
0.16 0.64 0.06
0.32 0.3
0.28 0.15 0.05
0.48 0.16
2.45 0.82
2.38 3.3
5.17 2.88
2.48 3.02 0.82
1.78 0.32 0.45
0.2 0.11
0.65 0.64
0.25 0.4 0.22
5.65 4.61
0.11 1.74
0.16 0.49 0.14
2.22 3.56
1.79 1.07 0.24
0.1 0.74
0.31 0.21
0.16 0.2 0.1
0.04 0.34 0.21
0.06 0.02
Trout 1+
1985 1994 2014
0.01 0.01 0.02
0 0.01
0
0.01 0.08
0.01 0.02 0.02
0.1 0.06
0
0
0.07 0
0
0
0
0.14 0
0.3 0.06 0
0.24 0.02
0.26 0.07
0.09 0.06 0.05
0.05 0.06
0.01 0.08
0.02 0.04 0.02
0.21 0
0.09 0.04 0.02
0.07 0.02
0.03 0.07
0.04 0.01 0.01
0 0.09 0
0 0.01
Table A.2: Standardised Trout and Salmon (no/m2) [density calculated from first fishing pass only] for 1985/6, 1994 and 2014 from the Currane catchment.
Site Name
Site Number
Derriana lwr/inflow
3
Abhgrabh/ Owengarriff
5
Abhainn/Oweveen Upper
6
Abhainn/Oweveen Upper
7
Caoldubh
8
Dromod 1
12
Dromod 2
13
Termons uppr
14
Termons Lwr
15
Finglas 1
16
Finglas 2
17
Finglas 3
18
Finglas 4
19
Watsons 1
21
Cloghbhuaile 1
23
Hallisseys
25
Kellys 1
27
Kellys 2
28
Connells lwr
30
Coppal 1
31
Coppal 2
32
Coppal 3
33
Coppal 4
34
CWEF Site details and results.
Riffle Grade
Salmon fry
captured
Trout fry
captured
Fry missed
Salmon fry/5min
Trout fry/5min
Include in CWEF
index?
50.70
Include
2
9
12
16
15.86
21.14
Efficiency <60%
1
27
18
15
36.00
24.00
Include
3.6
1
15
18
10
19.55
23.45
Include
4
4.5
1
38
18
15
48.18
22.82
Include
4
5
1
60
8
20
77.65
10.35
Include
63105
2
1
1
0
28
6
0.00
34.00
Include
51226
64328
4
5
3
8
4
5
11.33
5.67
Include
50265
65185
4
6.5
1
6
13
3
6.95
15.05
Include
010
56017
64970
2
1
2
0
17
4
0.00
21.00
Above log jam
011
55844
64936
2
1
3
0
14
5
0.00
19.00
Poor site
012
57325
65138
3
3.2
2
29
40
20
37.41
51.59
Include
013
58034
65082
1
1
2
2
20
4
2.36
23.64
Stream order<2
014
59013
65050
1
0.4
2
0
11
2
0.00
13.00
Stream order<2
015
59456
65349
2
3
2
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
Above Falls
016
59709
65756
4
4.2
3
13
2
3
15.60
2.40
Include
017
60380
66422
2
0.5
1
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
Include
018
60541
66271
3
2.2
1
0
5
2
0.00
7.00
Include
019
60128
65957
4
3
1
37
4
6
42.41
4.59
Include
020
60103
66120
2
1
2
0
7
3
0.00
10.00
Include
021
60083
66219
2
1
1
0
26
4
0.00
30.00
Include
022
59896
66180
1
0.3
3
0
3
0
0.00
3.00
Stream order<2
023
59648
66217
2
1.5
1
0
7
2
0.00
9.00
Include
024
60626
65249
2
1
1
0
11
1
0.00
12.00
Include
025
60675
65383
3
2.5
2
0
16
0
0.00
16.00
Include
026
58873
65536
3
2.5
2
1
9
2
1.20
10.80
Include
027
58618
65231
4
8.9
2
15
7
5
18.41
8.59
Include
028
59249
65379
4
4.5
1
29
8
10
36.84
10.16
Include
029
59215
65084
2
2
3
0
11
2
0.00
13.00
Include
030
58320
65227
4
7
3
14
6
2
15.40
6.60
Include
031
57145
67364
1
0.5
2
0
8
0
0.00
8.00
Stream order<2
032
57007
66842
2
4
2
0
27
4
0.00
31.00
Include
033
56857
66267
3
3.5
1
22
18
20
33.00
27.00
Include
034
51668
67199
2
1.5
2
0
15
4
0.00
19.00
Include
035
53417
68418
1
1
1
4
29
3
4.36
31.64
Stream order<2
036
53967
68469
1
1.5
2
0
26
2
0.00
28.00
Stream order<2
037
59586
69842
3
3.7
1
42
6
15
55.13
7.88
Include
038
58943
70102
1
1
3
6
7
0
6.00
7.00
Stream order<2
039
58612
70195
3
1
1
4
58
8
4.52
65.48
Include
040
58509
70725
3
5
1
44
3
20
62.72
4.28
Include
041
58348
71330
3
7
2
27
1
10
36.64
1.36
Include
042
63289
72484
2
4
3
9
12
5
11.14
14.86
Include
043
63251
72537
2
1
2
0
11
2
0.00
13.00
Include
Width (m)
23.30
Stream Order
20
Y Site
37
X Site
17
Site Number
1
001
53594
63455
3
1.5
002
53182
63405
3
4
003
52576
63357
3
3
004
52741
62964
4
005
51899
63541
006
51562
63809
007
51683
008
009
27
X Site
Y Site
Stream Order
Width (m)
Riffle Grade
Salmon fry
captured
Trout fry
captured
Salmon fry/5min
Trout fry/5min
Include in CWEF
index?
63188
73929
2
5
1
0
29
4
0.00
33.00
Above Barrier
045
62422
73410
3
3.7
1
52
25
25
68.88
33.12
Include
046
62327
73518
2
0.7
1
0
18
0
0.00
18.00
Include
047
58601
72126
3
8
1
43
5
15
56.44
6.56
Include
048
57998
71370
3
5
1
49
2
15
63.41
2.59
Include
049
56984
70597
4
7
1
65
9
20
82.57
11.43
Include
050
54468
68463
4
9
3
0
11
3
0.00
14.00
Water Too High
051
54740
69336
4
10
3
13
2
3
15.60
2.40
Include
052
54942
69588
4
14
2
28
3
10
37.03
3.97
Include
053
55515
69965
4
15.4
1
42
8
25
63.00
12.00
Include
15.58
Site unsuitable (v.
deep)
054
55969
69918
4
5
3
13
11
Fry missed
Site Number
044
10
18.42
Table A.3: Results and locations of CWEF electrofishing 2013. Also indicated is whether the site was included in the
calculation of the CWEF Salmon fry index.
28