Loughs Agency Water Framework Directive Fish in Rivers

Transcription

LOUGHS AGENCY OF THE FOYLE CARLINGFORD AND IRISH LIGHTS COMMISSION
Loughs Agency Water
Framework Directive Fish in
Rivers Classification Report
2014
Water Framework Directive Fish Population
Assessment
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Art Niven, Mark McCauley & Rachel Scott, April 2015
This report outlines results and classifications from Water Framework Directive fish surveillance
and routine monitoring programmes within rivers of the Foyle and Carlingford areas during 2014
COPYRIGHT © LOUGHS AGENCY OF THE FOYLE CARLINGFORD AND IRISH LIGHTS COMMISSION 2015
Headquarters
22, Victoria Road
Derry ~ Londonderry
BT47 2AB
Northern Ireland
Tel: +44(0)28 71 342100
Fax: +44(0)28 71 342720
[email protected]
www.loughs-agency.org
Regional Office
Dundalk Street
Carlingford
Co Louth
Republic of Ireland
Tel+353(0)42 938 3888
Fax+353(0)42 938 3888
[email protected]
www.loughs-agency.org
Report Reference LA/WFDFIR/14
CITATION: Niven, A.J, McCauley, M. & Scott, R. (2015) Loughs Agency Water
Framework Directive Fish in Rivers Classification Report 2014. Loughs Agency,
22, Victoria Road, Derry~Londonderry
Page 2 of 72
DOCUMENT CONTROL
Name of Document
Loughs Agency Water Framework Directive Fish in Rivers
Classification Report 2014
Author (s):
Art Niven, Mark McCauley & Rachel Scott
Authorised Officer:
Art Niven
Description of Content:
WFD Fish Classification Report
Approved by:
John McCartney
Date of Approval:
May 2015
Assigned review period:
Annual
Date of next review:
May 2016
Document Code
LA/WFDFIR/14
This documents comprises
TOC
Text List of tables Table of Figures
X
X
X
No.
Appendices
X
Version Control Table
Version No.
Status
Final copy
Version 1
Author (s)
Reviewed by
Art Niven, John McCartney
Mark
McCauley &
Rachel Scott
Approved by
Date of issue
John Pollock
31/05/2015
Revision 2
Page 3 of 72
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Loughs Agency sponsoring departments, board and staff are gratefully
acknowledged for the funding, support and assistance provided to conduct
Water Framework Directive fish monitoring in the Foyle and Carlingford areas.
Land owners and angling associations are also gratefully acknowledged for their
co-operation.
PROJECT STAFF 2014
Fisheries Biologist/Project Manager
Art Niven
GIS Manager
Rachel Scott
Assistant Scientific Officer
Mark McCauley
Antoin Lawlor
David Tully
Suzanne McBride
Fisheries Intern
Aisling Doogan
For further information contact [email protected]
@ArtNiven
Loughs Agency TV
© LOUGHS AGENCY OF THE FOYLE CARLINGFORD AND IRISH LIGHTS COMMISSION 2015
Page 4 of 72
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 11
2.0
BASIS FOR WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE FISH CLASSIFICATION......... 11
Table 1. Habitat classification based on Department of Agriculture for
Northern Ireland (Fisheries Division) advisory leaflet on the evaluation of
habitat for salmon and trout .................................................................... 13
Figure 1. WFD Fish surveillance river sites within the Foyle area, Northern
Ireland and Ireland ................................................................................... 14
Fig 2. WFD fish surveillance river sites within the Carlingford area, Northern
Ireland. There are no sites within Ireland in the Carlingford area. ........... 15
3.0
CLASSIFICATIONS .................................................................................... 16
3.1 F11335 Camowen River at Donnellys Bridge GBNI1NW010102033
Camowen WFD Fish Classification 2014 ...................................................... 16
Table 2. Multi method sampling results ................................................... 16
Fig 3. Site F11335 ..................................................................................... 16
Fig 5. Density/100m² ................................................................................ 17
Fig 6. Length weight relationship of salmon ............................................ 18
Fig 7. Length weight relationship of all trout caught ............................... 18
Fig 8. Length frequency distribution for juvenile salmon caught ............. 19
Fig 9. Length frequency distribution for trout. . ....................................... 19
3.2 F10045 Derg River at Crew Bridge GBNI1NW010102095
Derg
WFD Fish Classification 2014........................................................................ 23
Table 3. Removal sampling results .......................................................... 23
Fig 10. Site F10045 ................................................................................... 23
Fig 11. Total catch .................................................................................... 24
Fig 12. Density/100m2 .............................................................................. 24
Fig 13. Length weight relationship of of salmon caught .......................... 25
Fig 14. Length weight relationship of of trout caught............................... 25
Page 5 of 72
Fig. 15. Length frequency distribution for salmon caught. ....................... 26
Fig. 16. Length frequency distribution for trout caught. .......................... 26
3.3 F10128 Drumragh River U/S of Campsie Br GBNI1NW010102006
Drumragh WFD Fish Classification 2014 ...................................................... 30
Table 4. Sampling results ........................................................................ 30
Fig 17. Site F10128 ................................................................................... 30
Fig 18. Total catch .................................................................................... 31
Fig 19. Density estimate in 100m² ............................................................ 31
Fig 20. Length weight relationship of salmon ........................................... 32
Fig 21. Length weight relationship of trout ............................................. 32
Fig 22. Length frequency distribution for salmon. ................................... 33
Fig 23. Length frequency distribution for trout. ...................................... 33
3.4 F10101 Fairywater River GBNI1NW010102041
Fairywater WFD
Fish Classification 2014 ................................................................................ 36
Table 5. Removal sampling results ........................................................... 36
Fig 24. Site F10101 ................................................................................... 36
Fig 25. Total catch .................................................................................... 37
Fig 26. Density/100m² .............................................................................. 37
Fig 27. Length weight relationship of salmon caught .............................. 38
Fig 28. Length weight relationship of salmon caught .............................. 38
Fig 29. Length frequency distribution for salmon caught. ........................ 39
Fig 30. Length frequency distribution for trout caught. ............................ 39
3.5 F10148 Faughan River at Mobuoy Bridge GBNI1NW020204031
Faughan WFD Fish Classification 2014........................................................ 43
Fig 31. Site F10148 ................................................................................... 43
Fig 32. Total catch .................................................................................... 44
Fig 33. Density/100m² .............................................................................. 44
Fig 34. Length weight relationship of all salmon caught .......................... 45
Page 6 of 72
Fig 35. Length weight relationship of all trout caught ............................. 45
Fig 36. Length frequency distribution for all salmon caught. ................... 46
Fig 37. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught. ...................... 46
3.6 F10072
Owenkillew River, Killymore Br GBNI1NW010102028
Owenkillew WFD Fish Classification 2014 .................................................... 50
Fig 38. Site F10072 ................................................................................... 50
Fig 39. Total catch .................................................................................... 51
Fig 40. Density estimate/100m2 ............................................................... 51
Fig 41. Length weight relationship of salmon caught. .............................. 52
Fig 42. Length weight relationship of salmon caught. .............................. 52
Fig 43. Length weight frequency distribution of salmon caught ............... 53
Fig 44. Length frequency distribution of trout caught .............................. 53
3.7 F10171 River Roe at Limavady GBNI1NW020202018 Roe WFD Fish
Classification 2014 ....................................................................................... 57
Fig 45. Site F10171 ................................................................................... 57
Fig 46. Total catch .................................................................................... 58
Fig 47. Density estimate/100m2 ............................................................... 58
Fig 48. Length weight relationship of all salmon caught ........................... 59
Fig 49. Length weight relationship of all trout caught ............................. 59
Fig 50. Length frequency distribution for all salmon caught ..................... 60
Fig 51. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught 2011 .............. 60
4.0
OVERVIEW OF WFD FISH SURVEILLANCE RESULTS.................................. 64
Table 9. WFD fish surveillance stations surveyed by the Loughs Agency
2008-2014 ................................................................................................ 66
Fig 52. Loughs Agency WFD fish surveillance water body classifications 2014
Foyle area ................................................................................................ 67
5.0
SEMI QUANTITATIVE/SALMON MANAGEMENT PLAN CLASSIFICATIONS 68
Page 7 of 72
Table 10. 2014 method comparisons ....................................................... 68
Fig 53. Foyle area Semi quantitative/salmon management plan derived
indicative water body classifications 2014 ............................................... 69
Fig 54. Carlingford area Semi quantitative/salmon management plan
derived indicative water body classifications 2014 .................................. 70
6.0
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 71
Page 8 of 72
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Seven Water Framework Directive fish surveillance monitoring stations were
surveyed within the Loughs Agency jurisdiction in 2014. All seven were within
Northern Ireland. 43% of sites surveyed were classified as high status, 29% as
good status, 14% as moderate status and 14% as poor status. 0% of sites were
classified as bad status.
14%
High
14%
43%
Good
Moderate
Poor
Bad
29%
Classification in 2014 was completed using the WFD compliant classification
tool, Fish Classification Scheme 2 Ireland (FCS2 Ireland) with the option of a
professional judgement over ride. No results were over ridden using
professional judgement in 2014. An overview of the classification system is
provided and a synopsis of the survey data presented.
Additional data and information has been presented in a series of excel
spreadsheets and ESRI Arc GIS shape files. All data reported is stored within the
Loughs Agency Geographical Information System (GIS) and is available upon
request. Photographs of each site have been included and outline
recommendations made for consideration as part of any programme of
measures.
Additional indicative classifications have been derived for water bodies within
the Foyle and Carlingford areas where certain criteria have been applied to semi
quantitative Salmon Management Plan electrofishing data. These criteria have
Page 9 of 72
been developed by the Northern Ireland Water Framework Directive Fish Group
and are outlined within this report.
A number of recommendations are made to ensure the continued success of
Water Framework Directive river fish monitoring.
Page 10 of 72
1.0
INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared to disseminate results for Water Framework
Directive fish monitoring within the Foyle and Carlingford areas as managed by
the Loughs Agency. The Loughs Agency reports this information to the Northern
Ireland Environment Agency. The report provides classifications for water
bodies with surveillance monitoring stations, waterbodies where additional data
of a suitable standard for deriving WFD fish classifications is available and for
water bodies covered by routine semi quantitative Salmon Management Plan
monitoring within the Loughs Agency jurisdictions of the Foyle and Carlingford
areas for 2014. Additional information has been provided in electronic format.
WFD compliant fish surveys at surveillance stations are required under national
and European law. Annex V of the WFD outlines that rivers are included within
monitoring programmes and that the composition abundance and age structure
of fish fauna are examined (Council of the European Communities, 2000).
A synopsis of targeted Water Framework Directive river fish sampling within the
Foyle and Carlingford areas has been provided below for fieldwork conducted in
2014.
Other sites outside the Foyle and Carlingford areas have been monitored by the
Agri Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) under contract to NIEA. Loughs
Agency and AFBI have previously collaborated on a number of surveys to ensure
continuity of sampling methods, no collaborative surveys were conducted in
2014.
2.0
BASIS FOR WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE FISH CLASSIFICATION
The Fish Classification Scheme 2 tool for Ireland (FCS2 Ireland) has been
developed to classify fish fauna from high status to bad status to comply with
Water Framework Directive requirements. FCS2 Ireland is a statistical model
based on the Environment Agency (England) Fisheries Classification Scheme 2
(FCS2). FCS2 Ireland compares the observed abundance of fish of each species
with a site specific prediction of the expected fish community under near
undisturbed “reference conditions”. The predicted reference conditions are
Page 11 of 72
estimated using models created for each part of the UK and Ireland (UKTAG,
2013).
FCS2 Ireland was used for the first time within the Loughs Agency jurisdiction in
2012 to classify fish in rivers. This methodology is WFD compliant and has
replaced professional opinion as the main method of classification. A
professional opinion over ride can still be employed if deemed appropriate. Fish
classifications will be incorporated into final surface water classifications.
Data collection was conducted in the field during July and August 2014 and
involved the use of a quantitative electrofishing methodology and a multi
method survey technique. Electrofishing is the preferred method for WFD
surveillance monitoring of fish in rivers to obtain a representative sample of fish
from each monitoring station. This method is compliant with the European
Committee for Standardisation (CEN) standards for assessing fish stocks in
wadeable rivers (CEN, 2003).
Quantitative electrofishing requires the netting off of a section of river using
stop nets. Removal sampling is then conducted utilising electrofishing
equipment with the numbers, age class and species of each fish being recorded
for each pass. After an appropriate depletion has been achieved, which
facilitates a density estimation to be made, all fish were returned alive to the
river.
At a number of larger river sites where quantitative electrofishing was not
possible due to width and or depth a multi method sampling approach was
adopted which included single pass electrofishing, the deployment of 1m ”D”
ring fyke nets overnight and seine netting.
Additional habitat variables were recorded and the exact sampling locations
were recorded using a Trimble Juno hand held GPS unit.
Professional judgement over ride can be utilised where classifications are
deemed to be inaccurate due to the presence of barriers to migration
downstream of the sampling stations. Consideration of this issue has not been
incorporated into the FCS2 (Ireland) model at this time. Other scenarios for
professional judgement over ride include significant deviation from expected
classification and high water levels during survey.
Page 12 of 72
NURSERY AREA
Grade 1
·
·
·
·
50 -80mm water depth
0.5 – 8% gradient
Stable cobble/boulder substrate > or
= 70% bed cover
Providing adequate cover
Grade 2
Marginally outside grade 1 on one count only
Grade 3
Well outside grade 1 on one or more counts
Grade 4
Absent, deep, channelized, silty etc.
SPAWNING AREA
Grade 1
·
·
·
·
Flow 300 – 600mm/sec
Water depth 150 – 700mm
70% substrate 30-80mm diameter
Gravel depth:
Trout = 50-150mm
Salmon = 200-500mm
Grades 2-4
Failing as for nursery habitat above
HOLDING AREA
Grade 1
Grades 2-4
·
·
·
Depth minimum m ideally > or = 2m
Suitable cover
Bankside/substrate stability
Failing as for nursery habitat above
Table 1. Habitat classification based on Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland
(Fisheries Division) advisory leaflet on the evaluation of habitat for salmon and trout
Page 13 of 72
Figure 1. WFD Fish surveillance river sites within the Foyle area, Northern Ireland and Ireland
Page 14 of 72
Fig 2. WFD fish surveillance river sites within the Carlingford area, Northern Ireland. There are
no sites within Ireland in the Carlingford area.
Page 15 of 72
3.0
CLASSIFICATIONS
3.1
F11335
Camowen
Camowen River at Donnellys Bridge
WFD Fish Classification 2014
GBNI1NW010102033
GOOD
METHOD
Sal 0+
Sal 1+
53
7
14
2
0
0
32
108
0
2
0
22
0
2
0
26
Fyke Net 1
0
2
0
3
3
0
0
8
Fyke Net 2
0
1
0
6
6
0
0
13
53
12
14
33
9
2
32
155
Electrofishing
Single Pass
Seine Netting
TOTAL
Tro 0+ Tro 1+ Eel
Minnow
Stone Loach Total
Table 2. Multi method sampling results
Fig 3. Site F11335
Page 16 of 72
Due to the width and depth of the Camowen River at site F11335 it was surveyed
using a multi method approach which incorporated a single pass electrofishing
method, seine netting and fyke netting. Only the single pass electrofishing data
has been used for final classification purposes. The combined multi method
catch data was also entered into the model as single pass catch data from which
a high classification was derived. It was decided to apply the precautionary
approach and base the final fish classification on the lowest classification
resulting in a classification for this site of good. Minimum density estimates have
been calculated for all species present based on the single pass electrofishing
data.
60
Number of Fish
50
40
30
20
10
Stone
Loach
Flounder
Stoneloach
Minnow
Minnow
Species
Stickleback
Lamprey
Eel
Trout 1+
Trout 0+
Salmon 1+
Salmon 0+
0
Fig 4. Total catch
16
No. of Fish/100m²
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Stickleback
Lamprey
Eels
Tot Salmonids
Tot Tro
Tot Sal
Trout 1+
Trout 0+
Salmon1+
Salmon 0+
0
Fish Species
Fig 5. Density/100m²
Page 17 of 72
30
y = 1E-05x3.049
R² = 0.9808
25
Weight (g)
20
15
10
5
0
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Length (mm)
Fig 6. Length weight relationship of salmon n = 65
160
y = 2E-05x2.8883
R² = 0.9964
140
120
Weight (g)
100
80
60
40
20
0
40
90
140
190
240
Length (mm)
Fig 7. Length weight relationship of all trout caught n = 47
Page 18 of 72
45
2011
40
2014
35
Frequency
30
25
20
15
10
5
[140-149]
[130-139]
[120-129]
[110-119]
[100-109]
[90-99]
[80-89]
[70-79]
[60-69]
[50-59]
[40-49]
[30-39]
[20-29]
[10-19]
[0-9]
0
Length (mm)
Fig 8. Length frequency distribution for juvenile salmon caught (this can be used to assess the
presence of different age classes/cohorts). 2011 n= 71, 2014 n = 65.
12
2011
11
2014
10
9
Frequency
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
[0-9]
[10-19]
[20-29]
[30-39]
[40-49]
[50-59]
[60-69]
[70-79]
[80-89]
[90-99]
[100-109]
[110-119]
[120-129]
[130-139]
[140-149]
[150-159]
[160-169]
[170-179]
[180-189]
[190-199]
[200-209]
[210-219]
[220-229]
[230-239]
[240-249]
[250-259]
[260-269]
[270-279]
[280-289]
[290-299]
0
Length (mm)
Fig 9. Length frequency distribution for trout. 2011 n = 36, 2014 n = 47.
Page 19 of 72
This site electrofished is composed predominantly of grade 1 spawning habitat
(50%) with grade 2 nursery habitat (50%) and no holding habitat. Additional
biological information is available in the spreadsheets provided. Stretches within
this water body show evidence of being heavily drained with flood banks
constructed beside the river. Significant bank erosion is occurring in places with
Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam present along the bank. A number of
weirs are located within this water body which impact upon fish migration.
Potential programmes of measures could include removal and treatment of
invasive species and introduction of large woody debris. Reconnection of the
river to the flood plain would also be beneficial from a hydro geomorphological
perspective. The removal of weirs should also be given careful consideration.
Page 20 of 72
Page 21 of 72
Page 22 of 72
3.2
Derg
F10045
Derg River at Crew Bridge
GBNI1NW010102095
HIGH
Method
Sal 0+
Sal 1+
Tro Tro
0+ 1+
1
1
Electrofishing
84
20
Seine 1
0
6
0
Fyke 1
0
3
Fyke 2
0
TOTAL
84
Eel
Lam Min SB Gud Roa SL Total
1
0
0
0
1
1
7
116
1
0
0
12
17
0
228
0
264
0
5
11
0
0
0
0
0
10
20
1
0
2
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
30
1
9
33
0
12
17
1
230
7
424
Table 3. Removal sampling results *Note Sal 0+ = salmon 0+, Sal 1+ = salmon1+, Tro 0+ = Trout
0+, Tro 1+ = Trout 1+, Lam = Lamprey, Min = Minnow, SB = 3 Spined Stickleback, Gud =
Gudgeon, Roa = Roach and SL = Stone Loach
Fig 10. Site F10045
Page 23 of 72
Site F10045 was surveyed using a multi method approach which incorporated a
single pass quantitative electrofishing method, seine netting and fyke netting.
Only the single pass electrofishing data has been used for final classification
purposes. The combined multi method catch data was also entered into the
model as single pass catch data from which a high classification was derived.
Both data sets resulted in an agreed classification of high status. Minimum
density estimates have been calculated for all species present based on the
single pass electrofishing data.
250
Number of Fish
200
150
100
50
Roach
Stone
Loach
Gudgeon
Species
Stickleback
Minnow
Lamprey
Eel
Trout 1+
Trout 0+
Salmon 1+
Salmon 0+
0
Gudgeon
Roach
Flounder
Stoneloach
Minnow
Lamprey
Eels
Tot Salmonids
Tot Tro
Tot Sal
Trout 1+
Trout 0+
Salmon1+
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Salmon 0+
No. of Fish/100m²
Fig 11. Total catch
Fish Species
Fig 12. Density/100m2
Page 24 of 72
40
35
y = 1E-05x3.0596
R² = 0.9907
30
Weight (g)
25
20
15
10
5
0
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Length (mm)
Fig 13. Length weight relationship of of salmon caught n = 66.
525
y = 1E-05x3.018
R² = 0.9994
450
Weight (g)
375
300
225
150
75
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Length (mm)
Fig 14. Length weight relationship of of trout caught n = 9.
Page 25 of 72
[0-9]
[10-19]
[20-29]
[30-39]
[40-49]
[50-59]
[60-69]
[70-79]
[80-89]
[90-99]
[100-109]
[110-119]
[120-129]
[130-139]
[140-149]
[150-159]
[160-169]
[170-179]
[180-189]
[190-199]
[200-209]
[210-219]
[220-229]
[230-239]
[240-249]
[250-259]
[260-269]
[270-279]
[280-289]
[290-299]
Frequency
5
[140-149]
[130-139]
[120-129]
[110-119]
[100-109]
[90-99]
[80-89]
[70-79]
[60-69]
[50-59]
[40-49]
[30-39]
[20-29]
[10-19]
[0-9]
Frequency
45
2011
40
2014
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Length (mm)
Fig. 15. Length frequency distribution for salmon caught. 2011 n = 90, 2014 n = 65.
2011
2014
4
3
2
1
0
Length (mm)
Fig. 16. Length frequency distribution for trout caught. 2011 n = 4, 2014 n = 10.
Page 26 of 72
This site is composed predominantly of grade 2 spawning habitat (50%) with
grade 2 nursery habitat (40%) and grade 3 holding habitat (10%). This site
demonstrated natural channel structure with good in channel habitat diversity
including the presence of Ranunculus sp. Himalayan balsam was present on both
banks of the river and Japanese knotweed was present on the left hand bank
downstream of the bridge. Giant hogweed was present upstream of the bridge.
Some bank erosion was evident upstream of Crew Bridge on the right hand bank.
invasive species and introduction of large woody debris. Reconnection of the
river to the flood plain would also be beneficial from a hydro geomorphological
perspective. The bank erosion could be halted through riparian fencing
incorporating a gate to facilitate limited access grazing and a pasture pump.
Additional biological information is available in the spreadsheets provided.
Page 27 of 72
Page 28 of 72
Page 29 of 72
3.3
F10128
Drumragh
Drumragh River U/S of Campsie Br
GBNI1NW010102006
HIGH
FISHING
1st Pass
TOTAL
Salmon Salmon Trout
0+
1+
0+
23
36
1
23
36
1
Trout Eel
1+
5
2
5
2
La
Mi
SB
SL
Roach Total
4
3
1
53
1
129
4
3
1
53
1
129
Table 4. Sampling results *Note La = Lamprey , Mi = Minnow, SB = 3 Spined Stickleback and
SL = Stone loach
Fig 17. Site F10128
Site F10128 has been classified as a large river site where quantitative
electrofishing is not possible except in the lowest of water conditions. A single
pass electrofishing survey without stop nets was conducted as the river lacked
suitable depths to safely deploy seine and fyke netting methods. From this data
minimum density estimates have been calculated for all species present.
Page 30 of 72
Stone Loach
Minnow
Roach
Stickleback
Lamprey
Roach
Stone Loach
Stickleback
Minnow
Lamprey
Eel
Trout 1+
Trout 0+
Salmon 1+
Salmon 0+
Species
Eels
Tot Salmonids
Tot Tro
Tot Sal
Trout 1+
Trout 0+
Salmon1+
Salmon 0+
No. of Fish/100m²
Number of Fish
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Fig 18. Total catch
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Fish Species
Fig 19. Density estimate in 100m²
Page 31 of 72
45
40
y = 1E-05x2.9947
R² = 0.9931
35
Weight (g)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Length (mm)
Fig 20. Length weight relationship of salmon n = 59
150
125
y = 8E-06x3.079
R² = 0.9985
Weight (g)
100
75
50
25
0
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Length (mm)
Fig 21. Length weight relationship of trout n = 6
Page 32 of 72
[0-9]
[10-19]
[20-29]
[30-39]
[40-49]
[50-59]
[60-69]
[70-79]
[80-89]
[90-99]
[100-109]
[110-119]
[120-129]
[130-139]
[140-149]
[150-159]
[160-169]
[170-179]
[180-189]
[190-199]
[200-209]
[210-219]
[220-229]
[230-239]
[240-249]
[250-259]
[260-269]
[270-279]
[280-289]
[290-299]
Frequency
10
9
25
[140-149]
[130-139]
[120-129]
[110-119]
[100-109]
[90-99]
[80-89]
[70-79]
[60-69]
[50-59]
[40-49]
[30-39]
[20-29]
[10-19]
[0-9]
Frequency
2011
2014
20
15
10
5
0
Length (mm)
Fig 22. Length frequency distribution for salmon. 2011 n = 64, 2014 n = 59.
2011
2014
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Length (mm)
Fig 23. Length frequency distribution for trout. 2011 n = 26, 2014 n = 6.
Page 33 of 72
This site is composed predominantly of grade 2 nursery habitat (65%) with grade
3 spawning habitat (25%) and grade 3 holding habitat (10%).
This waterbody is impacted by large scale flood defences. Himalayan balsam is
present on both banks.
Page 34 of 72
Page 35 of 72
3.4
F10101
Fairywater
Fairywater River
GBNI1NW010102041
MODERATE
FISHING
1st
TOTAL
Salmon
0+
1
Salmon
1+
3
1
3
Trout
0+
0
0
Trout
1+
2
2
Eel
*La
*Mi
*SL
*SB
Total
3
6
3
100
1
119
3
6
3
100
1
119
Table 5. Removal sampling results*Note La = Lamprey, Mi = Minnow, SL = Stone Loach & SB
= Stickleback
Fig 24. Site F10101
Site F10101 was surveyed using a single pass quantitative electrofishing method
due to the very low numbers of fish caught. This involved stop netting the river
at both upstream and downstream limits of the selected site. From this data
minimum density estimates have been calculated for all species present.
Page 36 of 72
Stickleback
Minnow
Lamprey
Eel
Trout 1+
Trout 0+
Salmon 1+
Salmon 0+
Stone Loach
Species
Flounder
Stone Loach
Minnow
Stickleback
Lamprey
Eels
Tot Salmonids
Tot Tro
Tot Sal
Trout 1+
Trout 0+
Salmon1+
Salmon 0+
No. of Fish/100m²
Number of Fish
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Fig 25. Total catch
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fish Species
Page 37 of 72
45
40
y = 1E-05x3.0108
R² = 0.9929
35
Weight (g)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Length (mm)
Fig 27. Length weight relationship of salmon caught n = 4
25
y = 0.0003x2.2814
R² = 1
20
Weight (g)
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Length (mm)
Fig 28. Length weight relationship of trout caught n = 2
Page 38 of 72
[240-249]
[140-149]
[130-139]
[120-129]
[110-119]
[100-109]
[90-99]
[80-89]
[70-79]
[60-69]
[50-59]
[40-49]
[30-39]
[20-29]
[10-19]
[0-9]
Frequency
25
[230-239]
[220-229]
[210-219]
[200-209]
[190-199]
[180-189]
[170-179]
[160-169]
[150-159]
[140-149]
[130-139]
[120-129]
[110-119]
[100-109]
[90-99]
[80-89]
[70-79]
[60-69]
[50-59]
[40-49]
[30-39]
[20-29]
[10-19]
[0-9]
Frequency
2011
2014
20
15
10
5
0
Length (mm)
Fig 29. Length frequency distribution for salmon caught. 2011 n = 40, 2014 n = 4.
10
2011
9
2014
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Length (mm)
Fig 30. Length frequency distribution for trout caught. 2011 n = 13, 2014 n = 3.
Page 39 of 72
This site is composed predominantly of grade 3 nursery habitat (80%) with grade
3 holding habitat (15%) and grade 4 spawning habitat (5%).
There was heavy filamentous green algae growth possibly Cladophera spp at this
site. This watercourse is slow flowing in nature which may be as a result of
former drainage programmes which have over widened and deepened the river
channel. The riparian area is heavily trampled by cattle on the right hand bank
which is introducing fine sediment into the watercourse.
Potential programmes of measures could include reinstatement of a diverse inchannel habitat including the creation of low level deflectors, and the
introduction of spawning gravel and nursery stone to create repeated units of
spawning holding and nursery habitat. The introduction of large woody debris
could also be beneficial throughout this waterbody. Riparian fencing
incorporating gates to facilitate limited access for grazing and pasture pumps
are also recommended.
Page 40 of 72
Page 41 of 72
Page 42 of 72
3.5
F10148
Faughan
Faughan River at Mobuoy Bridge
GBNI1NW020204031
POOR
METHOD
Sal 0+
Sal 1+
Tro
0+
Tro
1+
Eel
Lam
Seine 1
0
3
0
Seine 2
0
4
Fyke 1
0
Fyke 2
Min
SB
SL
Total
1
0
0
17
3
0
24
0
0
0
0
9
4
0
17
11
0
4
0
0
3
2
0
20
0
7
0
1
0
0
1
13
0
22
Electrofishing
9
8
0
1
0
3
5
8
3
37
TOTAL
9
33
0
7
0
3
35
30
3
120
Table 6. Removal sampling results
Fig 31. Site F10148
Page 43 of 72
electrofishing is not possible. This site was surveyed using a multi method
approach. The multi method approach is conducted across a range of habitats
and combines electrofishing at a suitable riffle habitat, seine netting and fyke
netting.
model as single pass catch data from which a poor classification was derived.
Both data sets resulted in an agreed classification of poor status. Minimum
density estimates have been calculated for all species present based on the
single pass electrofishing data.
40
Number of Fish
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Stone Loach
Stickleback
Minnow
Lamprey
Eel
Trout 1+
Trout 0+
Salmon 1+
Salmon 0+
0
Species
Flounder
Minnow
Stickleback
Lamprey
Eels
Stone Loach
Fish Species
Tot Salmonids
Tot Tro
Tot Sal
Trout 1+
Trout 0+
Salmon1+
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Salmon 0+
No. of Fish/100m²
Fig 32. Total catch
Page 44 of 72
25
y = 3E-05x2.8113
R² = 0.9771
Weight (g)
20
15
10
5
0
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Length (mm)
Fig 34. Length weight relationship of all salmon caught n = 41
140
120
y = 1E-06x3.4859
R² = 0.982
Weight (g)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
Length (mm)
Page 45 of 72
30
2011
2014
25
Frequency
20
15
10
5
[140-149]
[130-139]
[120-129]
[110-119]
[100-109]
[90-99]
[80-89]
[70-79]
[60-69]
[50-59]
[40-49]
[30-39]
[20-29]
[0-9]
[10-19]
0
Length (mm)
Fig 36. Length frequency distribution for all salmon caught. 2011 n = 89, 2014 n = 41.
5
2011
2014
Frequency
4
3
2
1
[210-219]
[200-209]
[190-199]
[180-189]
[170-179]
[160-169]
[150-159]
[140-149]
[130-139]
[120-129]
[110-119]
[100-109]
[90-99]
[80-89]
[70-79]
[60-69]
[50-59]
[40-49]
[30-39]
[20-29]
[10-19]
[0-9]
0
Length (mm)
Fig 37. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught. 2011 n = 16, 2014 n = 7.
Page 46 of 72
This site is composed predominantly of grade 3 spawning habitat (55%) with
grade 3 nursery habitat (25%) and grade 3 holding habitat (20%). This site lies
within a heavily modified waterbody with the channel constrained by large flood
embankments. The riparian area has been colonised by Himalayan balsam and
Japanese knotweed.
invasive species, introduction of large woody debris and low level deflector
construction. Reconnection of the river to the flood plain would also be
beneficial from a hydro geomorphological perspective. Fish passage issues
downstream may be having an impact on upstream fish migration particularly
for European eel, Sea lamprey and River lamprey migration.
Page 47 of 72
Page 48 of 72
Page 49 of 72
3.6
Owenkillew
F10072
Owenkillew River, Killymore Br
GBNI1NW010102028
HIGH
METHOD
Sal 0+
Sal 1+
Sea
Tro
Tro Eel
Lam SB SL
Total
Trout 0+
1+
12
0
0
63
0
0
0
0
75
Seine 1
0
Fyke 1
0
3
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
8
Fyke 2
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Electrofishing
20
21
0
1
0
6
1
0
1
50
TOTAL
20
38
1
1
68
6
1
0
1
136
Fig 38. Site F10072
electrofishing is not possible. This site was surveyed using a multi method
approach. The multi method approach is conducted across a range of habitats
Page 50 of 72
and combines electrofishing at a suitable riffle habitat, seine netting and fyke
netting.
model as single pass catch data from which a good classification was derived.
The two data sets resulted in different classifications. The single pass
electrofishing resulted in a high classification and the combined multi method
data resulted in a good classification. It was decided using professional
judgement that the high classification derived from single pass electrofishing
was justified. Minimum density estimates have been calculated for all species
present based on the single pass electrofishing data.
80
Number of Fish
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Stickleba
ck
Stone
Loach
Stickleback
Stone
Loach
Minnow
Species
Lamprey
Eel
Trout 1+
Trout 0+
Sea
Trout
Salmon
1+
Salmon
0+
0
Fig 39. Total catch
No. of Fish/100m²
25
20
15
10
5
Fish Species
Lamprey
Eels
Tot
Salmonids
Tot Tro
Tot Sal
Trout 1+
Trout 0+
Salmon1+
Salmon 0+
0
Fig 40. Density estimate/100m2
Page 51 of 72
25
y = 1E-05x3.005
R² = 0.9923
Weight (g)
20
15
10
5
0
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Length (mm)
Fig 41. Length weight relationship of salmon caught.
500
y = 5E-05x2.704
450 R² = 0.9723
400
350
Weight (g)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Length (mm)
Fig 42. Length weight relationship of salmon caught.
Page 52 of 72
25
2014
2011
Frequency
20
15
10
5
140 - 149
130 - 139
120 - 129
110 - 119
Length (mm)
100 - 109
90 - 99
80 - 89
70 - 79
60 - 69
50 - 59
40 - 49
30 - 39
20 - 29
0-9
10 - 19
0
Fig 43. Length weight frequency distribution of salmon caught in 2011 n = 96 and 2014 n = 58
2014
2011
25
Frequency
20
15
10
5
380 - 389
360 - 369
340 - 349
320 - 329
300 - 309
280 - 289
260 - 269
240 - 249
220 - 229
200 - 209
180 - 189
160 - 169
140 - 149
120 - 129
100 - 109
80 - 89
60 - 69
40 - 49
20 - 29
0-9
0
Length (mm)
Fig 44. Length frequency distribution of trout caught in 2011 n = 91 and 2014 n = 69.
Page 53 of 72
This site is composed of grade 2 nursery habitat (80%) and grade 3 spawning
habitat (20%).
Page 54 of 72
The site has unrestricted access to the watercourse by cattle in places.
Himalayan balsam is also present within the site. Both banks show evidence of
arterial drainage with a large flood bank and reinforced bank toe evident. This
site demonstrates features associated with a high energy gravel river with large
mobile cobble banks and bars formed in places. Potential programmes of
measures could include stock proof fencing, treatment of invasive species and
consideration of flood management measures. This site was used for
demonstration
purposes
with
a
video
available
at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TVotpI1bKY .
Page 55 of 72
Page 56 of 72
3.7
Roe
F10171
River Roe at Limavady
GBNI1NW020202018
GOOD
METHOD
Electrofishing
Single Pass
TOTAL
Sal
Sal
Tro
Tro
Eel
Lam Min
SB Fl
Total
0+
1+
0+
1+
35
6
0
3
3
7
8
5
1
68
35
6
0
3
3
7
8
5
1
38
Fig 45. Site F10171
electrofishing is not possible. A single pass electrofishing survey was conducted
within a defined area. From this data minimum density estimates have been
calculated for all species present.
Page 57 of 72
40
35
35
Number of Fish
30
25
20
15
10
7
6
8
5
5
3
3
1
0
Flounder
Stickleback
Minnow
Lamprey
Eel
Trout 1+
Trout 0+
Salmon 1+
Salmon 0+
0
Species
Fig 46. Total catch
14
12
No. of Fish/100m²
10
8
6
4
2
Flounder
Minnow
Stickleback
Lamprey
Eels
Tot Salmonids
Tot Tro
Tot Sal
Trout 1+
Trout 0+
Salmon1+
Salmon 0+
0
Fish Species
Fig 47. Density estimate/100m2
Page 58 of 72
35
30
y = 1E-05x2.9803
R² = 0.9774
Weight (g)
25
20
15
10
5
0
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Length (mm)
Fig 48. Length weight relationship of all salmon caught n = 51
60
y = 2E-05x2.943
R² = 0.9792
50
Weight (g)
40
30
20
10
0
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
Length (mm)
Page 59 of 72
20
2011
2014
Frequency
15
10
5
[140-149]
[130-139]
[120-129]
[110-119]
[100-109]
[90-99]
[80-89]
[70-79]
[60-69]
[50-59]
[40-49]
[30-39]
[20-29]
[10-19]
[0-9]
0
Length (mm)
Fig 50. Length frequency distribution for all salmon caught 2011 n = 32 & 2014 n = 51
5
2011
2014
Frequency
4
3
2
1
[170-179]
[160-169]
[150-159]
[140-149]
[130-139]
[120-129]
[110-119]
[100-109]
[90-99]
[80-89]
[70-79]
[60-69]
[50-59]
[40-49]
[30-39]
[20-29]
[10-19]
[0-9]
0
Length (mm)
Fig 51. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught 2011 n = 5 & 2014 n = 3
Page 60 of 72
This site is composed of grade 3 spawning habitat (50%), grade 3 nursery habitat
(30%) and grade 3 holding habitat (20%).
This site is within a designated watercourse and is classified as a major
maintained channel with extensive earthen flood embankments on both sides
of the river. The river flows through a deeply incised channel which has been
heavily drained. Both banks are heavily colonised by Himalayan balsam with the
left hand bank also heavily colonised by Japanese knotweed. Both banks
demonstrate active erosion in places possibly as an impact of the invasive
species. This site is also impacted upon by a high litter/rubbish burden.
Potential programmes of measures should include the sensitive removal and
treatment of non-native invasive species, ensuring recolinisation by native
species, reconnection of the river to the floodplain, introduction of large woody
debris and a litter pick to remove waste from the watercourse and riparian area.
Page 61 of 72
Page 62 of 72
Page 63 of 72
4.0
OVERVIEW OF WFD FISH SURVEILLANCE RESULTS
The results for WFD river fish monitoring within the Loughs Agency areas from
2008-2014 are outlined in the table below. In 2014 a total of seven WFD river
fish surveillance monitoring stations were monitored. All seven were in
Northern Ireland. Classifications are outlined in the figure below. FCS2 (Ireland)
was the primary classification tool from 2012, prior to this classifications were
based on professional opinion. No additional waterbodies were classified using
FCS2 in 2014.
Page 64 of 72
Site Code
Catchment
F10086
Year
of 1st
Survey
2008
F10089
2009
Strule
Mod
Good
F10076
2009
Owenkillew
Good
Mod
F10020
2009
Burndennet
Good
High
F10014
2009
Glenmornan
Mod
Good
F10626
2009
Newry
Mod
Good
F10644
2009
Killbroney
Mod
Poor
F10077
2009
Owenkillew
Good
Good
F10763
2009
Skeoge
Poor
Poor
F10022
2010
Burndennet
Good
Mod
F10049
2010
Derg
Good
Good
F10079
2010
Glenelly
Good
Mod
F10115
2010
Camowen
Good
Good
F10170
2010
Roe
Good
F10029
2013
Mourne
2008
Strule
2009
Classification
2010
2011
Good
2012
2013
2014
Good
Poor
Page 65 of 72
Site Code
Catchment
40B020400
Year
of 1st
Survey
2010
Bredagh
N/A
Mod
01M010100
2010
Derg
N/A
Poor
01S020200
2010
Finn
N/A
Mod
F10111
2011
Camowen
Good
Good
F10045
2011
Derg
Good
High
F10128
2011
Drumragh
Good
High
F10101
2011
Fairywater
Good
Mod
F10148
2011
Faughan
Good
Poor
F10072
2011
Owenkillew
Good
High
F10171
2011
Roe
Good
Good
F10025
2012
Finn
Mod
F11204
2012
Newry
Mod
2008
2009
Classification
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Table 9. WFD fish surveillance stations surveyed by the Loughs Agency 2008-2014
Page 66 of 72
Fig 52. Loughs Agency WFD fish surveillance water body classifications 2014 Foyle area
Page 67 of 72
5.0
SEMI QUANTITATIVE/SALMON MANAGEMENT PLAN CLASSIFICATIONS
For classification in 2014 the NI WFD Fish Group continued to adopt the set of
rules for deriving indicative fish classifications for waterbodies in which annual
semi quantitative/salmon management plan electrofishing surveys are
conducted. Within the Foyle and Carlingford areas approximately 500 sites are
semi quantitatively surveyed annually. The ability to derive indicative
classifications greatly facilitates the ability to highlight pressures within specific
waterbodies and can assist with the development of programmes of measures.
The refined rules as of January 2013 are listed below.
1. Only use if there are a minimum of three sites per water body - suggest a
minimum of the three largest rivers for which data is available –
important to record the stations used.
2. Classify according to the dominant salmonid species within the water
body where adequate historical data is available.
3. Classify if ≥ 66% of sites agree
4. Classify as Good or better, moderate or Poor or worse
5. Use the most recent years data
Site
Roe
Faughan
Derg
Owenkillew
Fairywater
Drumragh
Camowen
In Agreement
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
SMP Class
Good
Good
Good
Good
Unclassified
Moderate
Unclassified
WFD Class
Good
Poor
High
High
Moderate
High
Good
Table 10. 2014 method comparisons
The maps below provide an overview of results for the application of this
method within the Foyle and Carlingford areas in 2014. GIS shape files
containing the raw data behind these maps including site id’s has been provided
to NIEA.
Page 68 of 72
Fig 53. Foyle area Semi quantitative/salmon management plan derived indicative water body
classifications 2014
Page 69 of 72
Fig 54. Carlingford area Semi quantitative/salmon management plan derived indicative water
body classifications 2014
Page 70 of 72
6.0
CONCLUSION
From 2012 classification has been predominantly based on the FCS2 (Ireland)
model. This has replaced the professional opinion classification method as the
dominant classification method. A professional opinion over ride exists to
correct classifications based on a paucity of information including the presence
of barriers downstream to a monitored site. The professional opinion override
was not utilised in 2014.
2014 marked the last year in the first full monitoring period/cycle of the Water
Framework Directive. In 2014 a number of large river sites were monitored using
the multi method approach. The key recommendation coming from this report
for future monitoring is that the sampling of large river sites using the multi
method approach should be curtailed in favour of single pass electrofishing at
suitable wadeable sites. Electrofishing only is the recommended survey method.
It is also recommended that when it is not possible to install stop nets due to
excessive flow that a single pass survey within a defined area is conducted
The FCS2 (Ireland) tool has passed the intercalibration process and has now
been fully adopted for use across the island of Ireland. Further refinements may
be made to the model in the future to incorporate issues such as full
consideration of barriers downstream and acceptance of different types of
survey data. Adoption of the FCS2 (Ireland) model and completion of the first
cycle of Water Framework Directive fish surveillance monitoring marks an end
to a very positive beginning for WFD compliant fish monitoring in the rivers of
Northern Ireland.
A degree of flexibility will need to be maintained in collecting and analysing
fisheries data which can be utilised for WFD classification purposes and to
ensure future development of the model.
REFERENCES
CEN (2003) Water Quality – Sampling of Fish with Electricity. European Standard.
Ref. No. EN14011:2000.
Page 71 of 72
Council of the European Communities (2000) Establishing a framework for
community action in the field of water policy. Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework (2000)/60/EC). Official
Journal of the European Communities, 43, 1-73.
UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive (2012)
Proposed recommendations on biological standards, Consultation
Page 72 of 72

Loughs Agency Water Framework Directive Fish in Rivers

Transcription

Similar documents

www.carlingfordadventure.com

Loughs Agency - Glenshane Native Tree

For more information please contact us by phone at 937.698.ifly or

Salmon B. Jammin` Item SBJ

Lithuanian Radio Sport Federation Kaunas University of

How to Tie a Woggle

lnstallation - ConservationMart.com

“GOUYAVE FISH FRY – BEST FISH IN GRENADA, MAYBE THE

From Paddy Whack to Paddy Punk