Issuu

2009 Carlingford Tributaries Catchment Status Report

Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission

Report Ref: LA/CSR/C001/10

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Carlingford Tributaries Catchment Status Report 2009

Report Reference LA/CSR/C001/10 Headquarters 22, Victoria Road Londonderry BT47 2AB Northern Ireland

Picture of Atlantic salmon Kelt courtesy of Atlantic Salmon Trust

Tel: +44(0)28 71 342100 Fax: +44(0)28 71 342720 general@loughs‐agency.org www.loughs‐agency.org Regional Office Dundalk Street Carlingford Co Louth Republic of Ireland

Written and prepared by: Art Niven Rachel Scott Mairead O’Connor Declan Lawlor

Tel+353(0)42 938 3888 Fax+353(0)42 938 3888 carlingford@loughs‐ agency.org www.loughs‐agency.org

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

1.0

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 9

1.1

The Carlingford Catchments...................................................................................... 11

Fig 1.1 Carlingford area looking east from the Newry River estuary towards the mouth of Carlingford Lough ....................................................................................................... 12 Fig 1.11. Carlingford catchments topographical map with river network. .................... 13 1.2

Atlantic Salmon and Sea Trout .................................................................................. 14

1.3

Non Salmonid Fish Species ........................................................................................ 14

Fig 1.3 Bream specimens recovered during a coarse fish survey of Newry Canal in 2002 ........................................................................................................................................ 14 2.0

ATLANTIC SALMON STOCKS ........................................................................................... 15

2.1

Redd Counts .............................................................................................................. 15

2.2

Juvenile Abundance .................................................................................................. 15

Table 2.2 Loughs Agency semi‐quantitative electrofishing classification system for 0+ salmon and trout ............................................................................................................ 16 Fig 2.21 Electrofishing on the Clanrye River and salmon parr ....................................... 16 Fig 2.22 Carlingford Area fry index 2000‐2009............................................................... 17 Fig 2.23 White Water catchment fry index 2000‐2009. ................................................. 18 Fig 2.24 Clanrye River catchment fry index 2000‐2009 ................................................. 18 Fig 2.25 Salmon 0+ electrofishing site classification 2008 ............................................. 19 3.0

TROUT STOCKS................................................................................................................ 20 Fig 3 Electrofishing survey and trout parr ...................................................................... 20 Fig 3.1 Carlingford Area fry index 2000‐2009................................................................. 20 Fig 3.11 Whitewater trout fry index 2000‐2009............................................................. 21 Fig 3.12 Clanrye trout fry index 2000‐2009. ................................................................... 21 Fig 3.13 Trout 0+ electrofishing site classification 2009 ................................................ 22 Fig 3.14 Salmon and Trout fry distribution 2009............................................................ 23 Fig 3.15 Total salmonid (salmon/trout fry and parr) distribution 2009 ......................... 24 Fig 3.16 Eel presence as recorded during semi quantitative electrofishing surveys 2009. *Note technique used is designed specifically for salmonids. ....................................... 25

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Fig 3.17 Lamprey presence as recorded during semi quantitative electrofishing surveys 2009. *Note technique used is designed specifically for salmonids. Further surveys will be required to accurately monitor lamprey populations. .............................................. 26 Fig 3.18 Stickleback presence as recorded during semi quantitative electrofishing surveys 2009. *Note technique used is designed specifically for salmonids. ................ 27 Fig 3.18 Stoneloach presence as recorded during semi quantitative electrofishing surveys 2009. *Note technique used is designed specifically for salmonids. ................ 28 Fig 3.19 Minnow presence as recorded during semi quantitative electrofishing surveys 2009. *Note technique used is designed specifically for salmonids. ............................. 29 4.0

MARINE SURVIVAL .......................................................................................................... 30 Table 4 Marine survival rates for the River Bush of 1SW grilse (after exploitation at sea) pre 1996 and 2002‐2008 smolt cohort. Data supplied by Agri Food and Bioscience Institute, River Bush Salmon Research Station .............................................................. 30 Fig 4 Marine survey areas for salmon in 2008 ............................................................... 31 Fig 4.1 Marine survey areas for salmon in 2009 ............................................................ 32 Fig 4a RV Celtic Explorer SALSEA research cruise........................................................... 33 Figure 4b Picture from the Irish Research Vessel Celtic Explorer taken during the second SALSEA research cruise 16‐24th May 2008 ......................................................... 33 Figure 4c Rotary screw trap in position on the River Faughan directly below the fish pass at Campsie barrage................................................................................................. 34 Table 4.1 Numbers and average weight and length of salmon smolts tagged on the River Faughan 2003‐2009. Coded Wire Tagging equipment was purchased by the Loughs Agency in 2005 with funding secured from the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IIIA Programme, administered by the Environment and Heritage Service, on behalf of the Department of Environment. ..... 34 Table 4.12 Recapture data from River Faughan CWT programme. Data for fish tagged in 2008 and recovered in 2009 will not be available until 2010. ................................... 35 Figure 4d Salmon smolt run timing and abundance from rotary screw trap sub sample, River Faughan 2004‐2009. Breaks in data are due to closure of trap during high water conditions. ...................................................................................................................... 35 Table 4.13 Age class of salmon smolts migrating from the Faughan catchment in 2004 ........................................................................................................................................ 36 Fig 4.14. From top to bottom, Atlantic salmon smolts from the Faughan Catchment, brook lamprey, river lamprey and sea lamprey also caught in the River Faughan smolt trap ................................................................................................................................. 36

5.0

ADULT ABUNDANCE ....................................................................................................... 37 June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

5.1

Recreational Fisheries ............................................................................................... 37

Table 5.1 Declared rod catch returns for salmon and trout in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. Note figures include the Clanrye and Whitewater in the Carlingford area from 2001 onwards. Carcass tagging was introduced in 2001. *Denotes all trout. ............... 37 Table 5.1 Declared salmon rod catch ............................................................................. 38 Table 5.1 Declared catch from the Carlingford system for salmon and trout 2001‐2008 ........................................................................................................................................ 39 Fig 5.11 Angler on the upper reaches of the Faughan River .......................................... 39 5.2

Commercial Fisheries ................................................................................................ 39

Table 5.2 Declared catch from the commercial salmon fisheries 1998‐2009. Note 100% rate of catch returns. * Reduced numbers of commercial nets operating in the Foyle area from 2007 ............................................................................................................... 40 Fig 5.21 Commercial Fishing. Draft netting on the tidal River Foyle and drift netting in Lough Foyle ..................................................................................................................... 40 Fig 5.22 Length weight relationship for combined commercial catches in 2009 .......... 40 5.3

Counters .................................................................................................................... 41

Fig 5.3 Fish Pass and counter construction on the Newry River. ................................... 41 Table 5.3 Newry/Clanrye River fish counter figures. *Note the Newry/Clanrye fish counter was installed in September 2007. The figures reported are indicative and form the initial output from the commissioning phase of the counter installation. .............. 42 Fig 5.31 Monthly fish counts on the Newry River Sep 2007‐2009 ................................. 42 5.2 6.0

Conservation Limits/Spawning targets ..................................................................... 42

COARSE FISH STOCKS ...................................................................................................... 43 Figure DL 1. Temperature/DO profile in Derryleckagh Lough........................................ 44 Figure DL 2. Location of benthic gillnets (red circles), floating gillnet (white circle) and fyke nets (red squares) in Derryleckagh Lough .............................................................. 46 Table DL 1. Number of fish caught in each net in Derryleckagh Lough ......................... 46 Figure DL 3. Length frequency of pike in Derryleckagh Lough ....................................... 47 Figure DL 4. Length frequency of eels in Derryleckagh Lough ....................................... 47 Figure DL 5. Derryleckagh Lough survey 2008 ............................................................... 48 Table 6 Fish survey results from Newry canal 2007. Eel and Flounder were also recorded. ........................................................................................................................ 49 Fig 6 Newry Canal fish stock assessment 2007 .............................................................. 49 Table 6.1 Fish survey results from Newry canal 2001 .................................................... 50 June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Table 6.2 Fish survey results from Newry canal 2002. Perch, Brown trout and Eels were also caught in 2002 ......................................................................................................... 50 Fig 6.1 Left to right Perch, Pike and Bream .................................................................... 51 7.0

HABITAT MONITORING................................................................................................... 51 Fig 7 Life cycle unit depicting the type of habitat found in spawning, nursery and holding zones .................................................................................................................. 51 Fig 7.1 Examples of spawning, nursery and holding habitat .......................................... 51

8.0

LAND USE ........................................................................................................................ 52 Fig 8 Carlingford Area land use classification ................................................................. 52 Fig 8.1 Carlingford Area land use classification map ...................................................... 53

4.0

9.0 WATER QUALITY ....................................................................................................... 54 Fig 9.0 Loughs Agency chemical water quality testing in the laboratory....................... 54 Fig 9.1 Carlingford area average suspended solids results 2009. Values are in mg/l .... 57 Fig 9.2 Carlingford area Ammonia results 2009. Values are in mg/l .............................. 58 Fig 9.3 Carlingford area phosphorous results 2009. Values are in mg/l ........................ 59 Fig 9.4 Carlingford area Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) results 2009. Values are in mg/l ................................................................................................................................. 60 Fig 9.5 Carlingford area Biological Monitoring Working Party results 2009 .................. 61 Fig. 9.06: How the different water quality element results are combined to classify ecological status, chemical status and the overall surface water status: Adapted from the ‘Recommendations on Surface Water Classifications Schemes for the purposes of the Water Framework Directive’ UKTAG 2006. ............................................................. 62 Table 9.07. Quality elements which are monitored for the ecological status. .............. 63 Table 9.08. Environmental Quality Ratio classifications for ASPT and NTaxa................ 64 Table 9.09. Environmental Quality Ration Classifications for Diatoms and Macrophytes. ........................................................................................................................................ 64 Table 9.10. Classification for General Chemical & Physiochemical Quality Elements. .. 65 Table 9.11. Favourable condition targets for Atlantic salmon ....................................... 66 Figure 9.12. Flattened mayfly nymph from the order high scoring macro invertebrate indicative of good water quality .................................................... 66 Figure 9.13. Overall WFD surface water status for the Carlingford area 2009 .............. 67

9.1

WFD Fish Classifications 2009 ................................................................................... 68

Figure 9.11. LA fish classification 2009 based on seven sites surveyed within the Foyle and Carlingford areas ..................................................................................................... 68 June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Figure 9.12. WFD fish surveillance monitoring stations in the Carlingford system ....... 69 Figure 9.13. WFD fish classifications in the Foyle system .............................................. 70 Table 9.14 Depletion sampling results from quantitative electrofishing survey on the Jerrettspass River 2009................................................................................................... 71 Table 9.15 Species and numbers caught ........................................................................ 71 Table 9.16 Density of species by age class per 100m2 ................................................... 71 Figure 9.17 Length frequency distribution of juvenile trout .......................................... 72 Figure 9.18 Length weight relationship of juvenile trout ............................................... 72 Figure 9.19 WFD fish monitoring on the Jerrettspass River 2009 .................................. 73 10.0 CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION .............................................................................. 74 Table 10. Breakdown of conservation and protection duties in the Carlingford area catchment 2005‐2009. Note policy changed in 2008 in relation to on site inspections. ........................................................................................................................................ 74 Table 10.1 Seized nets, salmon, rod/reels and vehicles in the Foyle and Carlingford areas 2003‐2009 ............................................................................................................. 74 Table 10.2 Seizures in the Carlingford area 2007‐2009 ................................................. 74 10.1

Habitat Improvement Works ................................................................................. 75

Fig 10.4 Reinstatement of pool with some repair work to a weir on the Kilbroney ...... 75 Fig 10.5 Creation of spawning habitat on the Kilbroney ................................................ 76 Fig 10.6 Repair of weirs on the Kilbroney ...................................................................... 76 Fig 10.7Repair of damaged weir on the Kilbroney ......................................................... 76 Fig 10.8 Trimming of overhead cover and pool reinstatement on the Kilbroney.......... 77 Fig 10.8 Grading of bank on the Kilbroney ..................................................................... 77 Fig 10.9 Pool excavation and repair of weir on the Kilbroney ....................................... 78 Fig 10.10 Repair of weir on the Kilbroney ...................................................................... 78 Fig 10.11 Repair of weir and reinstatement of pool on the Kilbroney........................... 78 Figure 10.12. Bank protection works conducted by the Kilkeel Angling Association on the Whitewater River in 2009 ........................................................................................ 79 11.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ............................................................................................. 80 12.0 DESIGNATED AREAS ...................................................................................................... 81 13.0 GENETIC STUDY ............................................................................................................. 81 14.0 POLLUTION MONITORING ............................................................................................ 82 15.0 CARLINGFORD AREA FISHERY OFFICERS REPORT 2009 ................................................ 82 June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

16.0 WHITEWATER RIVER SALMONID POPULATION SURVEY 2008 ..................................... 84 Fig 16 Salmonid densities at Ballyardle Bridge 2008 ...................................................... 85 Fig 16.1 Salmon fry and parr length weight relationships at Ballyardle bridge 2008 N = 89 .................................................................................................................................... 86 Fig 16.2 Length Frequency distribution of Whitewater salmon fry and parr in 2008 N = 89 .................................................................................................................................... 86 17.0 ACTIONS FOR 2009 ....................................................................................................... 87 17.1

Foyle and Carlingford Areas Ongoing Actions for 2009 ........................................ 87

17.2

Carlingford Catchments Potential Habitat Improvement Schemes for 2010 ....... 88

17.3

Carlingford Area Specific Actions for 2010 ............................................................ 89

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Carlingford Tributaries Catchment Status Report 2009 1.0

INTRODUCTION

Welcome to the 2009 Loughs Agency Catchment Status Report series. The reports have been updated in 2010 to include survey data collected during 2009. Environmental issues of relevance to the water quality and fisheries resources of the Foyle and Carlingford areas are discussed and intervention outlined. This is one of an annual series of catchment status reports produced by the Loughs Agency. The primary objective of the catchment status reports is to disseminate catchment specific information to all interested stakeholders. The reports continue to be consulted widely by a variety of stakeholders including local angling associations, fishery owners, statutory bodies, environmental consultants, students, conservation Non Governmental Organisations and private individuals. The catchment status reports provide summary data which demonstrates the work that the Loughs Agency conducts within specific catchments and outlines catchment specific objectives. The theme for the 2009 catchment status reports is water quality. The first River Basin Management Plans, a requirement under the European Union Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) were published in December 2009. These reports are written for each river basin district by the competent authorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Some of the river basin districts are classified as International River Basin Districts and within these areas there is cooperation in managing shared waters. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires the assessment of aquatic ecological status. Ecological status has been and will continue to be monitored using new monitoring programmes and classification systems developed for the Water Framework Directive. Initial results and more details on the parameters measured are provided within this report. The Loughs Agency has been conducting freshwater fish monitoring for inclusion within overall surface water classifications in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and is well positioned to facilitate and participate in the implementation of programmes of measures designed to improve water quality on a cross border basis. Water bodies will continue to be monitored within each six year reporting cycle for river basin planning with reporting due next in 2015, 2021 and 2027. The overall objective is to have all water bodies reaching good ecological status. The River Basin Management Plans are intended to provide the primary means of coordinating and integrating the management and protection of the aquatic environment. Working in partnership has been highlighted within the directive as an essential mechanism June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

for full implementation and delivery. The Loughs Agency is playing an active role within this process and would encourage all stakeholders to participate fully. Programmes of measures to deliver the key objective of attaining good ecological status within all water bodies have been developed and will need to be further refined with active participation from statutory and non statutory bodies. Local Management Areas (LMA’s) have been defined by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) with information leaflets produced which includes details of specific local measures identified to improve the aquatic environment within these areas. Continued consultation and partnership working will be required to maximise the potential of these and to develop them into feasible action plans. The Loughs Agency views the contribution of the catchment status reports as vital to informing planned action for improving the local aquatic environments of the Foyle and Carlingford areas. Loughs Agency members of staff also play an active part in Water Framework Directive implementation through active participation within the Catchment Stakeholder Groups, Northern Ireland Water Framework Directive Fish Group and other Water Framework Directive working groups.

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

1.1

The Carlingford Catchments

Located in the North East of the island of Ireland and composed of significant areas of County Armagh, County Down and County Louth, the Carlingford catchments cover an area of approx 544 km2. The catchments of the Carlingford area can be broadly divided into 4 main landscape types, the Newry basin, Slieve Roosley, Carlingford Lough and Mourne mountains. The Newry basin is characterised by a large scale rolling drumlin landscape (this drift geology is composed of deposits left by retreating glaciers) situated between the Ring of Gullion and the Mourne Mountains. The Newry basin is drained by the Newry/Clanrye River and tributaries. The main land use consists of improved pastures of good condition becoming increasingly rough on the fringes of the Mourne foothills. To the southeast drumlins are displaced by broader ridges separated by narrow, flat-bottomed valleys with ribbon loughs and bogs such as Derryleckagh Lake and Greenan Lough. The underlying solid geology is composed of basalt, sandstones and shales. The Slieve Roosley landscape lies between Newry and the Mourne Mountains and is characterised by open, exposed hills with a rugged profile, which are dissected by a number of river valleys. The Rostrevor Glen and Killbroney River together form a marked feature along the eastern boundary of the area, which is underlain by a complex geology of igneous and sedimentary rocks. The hills are used for sheep grazing and are characterised by rough, open, unfenced pastures of moorland grasses, gorse, bracken and sedges. The fringes comprise semi-improved pastures of small fields enclosed by stonewalls and gorse hedgerows. The Mourne Mountains Landscape (particularly associated with the Whitewater River catchment) is characterised by steep rock and scree covered mountain slopes capped with granite torrs, falling to the sea on their eastern edge. It is largely a wild upland landscape composed of exposed heath, thin grass cover, rock and scree slopes with rough grazing for sheep and some cattle. The underlying geology is dominated by granite which is reflected by the characteristic torrs which cap the mountain tops. Rocky mountain streams occupy the steep glens which dissect the mountain ridges. Carlingford Lough is a low energy estuary filling a structurally controlled (NW-SE fault) glacially scoured depression. The estuary mouth is shallow which allows wave focusing of south westerly storms onto the northern shoreline where erosion has left a number of bays dominated by gravel beaches. Carlingford Lough supports a range of unusual and rich littoral/shoreline communities, including sheltered sands, muddy sands, muds and boulder shores. It exhibits a good natural transition from lower shore communities, through upper shore saltmarsh to fen vegetation. Mill Bay in particular supports the largest intact block of

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

saltmarsh in Northern Ireland and the area is internationally important in terms of numbers of wildfowl and waders that over-winter on the site. The Carlingford area and tributaries are impacted upon by a wide range of anthropogenic influences within both the terrestrial and aquatic environments. A diverse array of impacts include amongst others; agriculture, aquaculture, sand and gravel extraction, quarrying, commercial forestry, commercial and recreational fishing, industry, water abstraction, sewage treatment, diffuse and point source pollution, invasive plant species, urban sprawl, flood defences and heavily modified water bodies. Increasing pressures on the aquatic environments within the Carlingford area and tributaries requires appropriate monitoring, control and remediation if native biodiversity is to be preserved and enhanced. The proximity of some of the Carlingford area and tributaries to a large urban area exacerbates many of these issues. As the competent authority for fishery issues within the catchment the Loughs Agency are required to fulfil a variety of national and international obligations. European Directives including the Habitats Directive and Water Framework Directive and the transposing national legislation have assisted in creating a legislative framework in which to drive forward sustainable management of riparian and aquatic habitats and the species which inhabit them.

Fig 1.1 Carlingford area looking east from the Newry River estuary towards the mouth of Carlingford Lough

June 1, 2010

Fig 1.11. Carlingford catchments topographical map with river network.

1.2

Atlantic Salmon and Sea Trout

Salmon and Sea Trout are referred to as being anadromous meaning that they migrate between the freshwater and marine environments returning to freshwater to reproduce. This complex life history exposes them to varied environmental pressures and recreational and commercial fisheries. Adult Atlantic salmon return to their natal rivers where spawning takes place. Sea trout also demonstrate an ability to return to their natal river but their homing instinct may not be as strong as those of the Atlantic salmon. After the eggs hatch the juveniles (initially referred to as fry and then parr) remain in freshwater for up to three years. Smoltification is the physiological adaptation, which occurs when the juvenile salmon change from the parr stage (freshwater phase) to the smolt stage (marine phase). Smoltification at the latitudes of the Foyle and Carlingford areas tends to occur after one, two or three years. Most salmon from the north of Ireland (referred to as post smolts) will remain after smoltification in the North Atlantic for one year and are referred to on their return to the coast and rivers as grilse. Salmon that stay at sea for longer than one year are referred to as multi sea winter (MSW) salmon. 1.3

Non Salmonid Fish Species

As highlighted earlier populations of other non-salmonid fish species occur within the Carlingford catchments. At present monitoring is targeted at salmonid and to a lesser degree coarse species however with obligations under the Water Framework Directive other non salmonid fish species are being monitored more closely. Fish species presence, abundance and age structure can act as a good environmental/ecological indicator demonstrating the ability of the aquatic habitat to support a diverse array of native species. Populations of the European Eel, Bass, Grey Mullet, River/Brook and possibly Sea Lamprey form an important part of the native fisheries biodiversity of the Carlingford catchments. Maintaining high standards of water quality and appropriate habitat for these species is essential for the overall health of the aquatic ecosystem. In the Carlingford area significant nonnative fish species have colonised heavily modified and artificial water bodies such as Newry canal and Camlough. The Loughs Agency recognises the importance of the coarse fish populations in terms of a recreational resource for both local residents and tourists and views the improvement and development of the infrastructure to sustainably exploit this resource as a core responsibility.

Fig 1.3 Bream specimens recovered during a coarse fish survey of Newry Canal in 2002

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

2.0

ATLANTIC SALMON STOCKS

In order to describe the status of salmon stocks each of the following points need to be considered: Redd Counts Juvenile abundance Marine survival Adult abundance Exploitation

2.1

Redd Counts

Redds are spawning nests created by salmon or trout. Differentiation between salmon and trout redds can be made as salmon redds tend to be larger in size and trout tend to spawn earlier than salmon. Research within the Foyle system using extensive annual redd count data has highlighted a good relationship between the number of redds and the total annual catch of salmon. Water flow is of great significance when monitoring redds as in high water conditions the ability to see and count redds in rivers is impaired. The Loughs Agency will continue to expand redd counting in the 2008/2009 spawning season on the Whitewater River and sections of the Clanrye River. 2.2

Juvenile Abundance

Within the Loughs Agency jurisdiction trends in abundance of juvenile salmonids are monitored by annual semi-quantitative electrofishing surveys. The numbers, age and species of fish captured during five minute timed electrofishing surveys are compared with previous years data allowing for change to be monitored, facilitating suitable fishery management practices to be implemented. In 2009 a total of 80 sites were semi-quantitatively electrofished within the Carlingford system. The results for each site for salmon and trout are classified as excellent (>25 fish), good (15-24 fish), fair (5-15 fish), poor (1-4 fish) and absent (0 fish), Table 2.2. Figures 2.22-2.25 outline the salmon 0+ electrofishing results and site classifications for the Carlingford catchments in 2008. Please consult previous status reports for site classifications in other years. Semi-quantitative electrofishing was developed to monitor 0+ salmonids (fry/young of the year). In order to quantify the abundance of 1+ salmonids (parr and older) fully quantitative electrofishing surveys are required which can be used to calculate fish densities within a defined area. Rivers and tributaries with good environmental quality are more likely to support good populations of each year class. Fish populations can vary considerably over time and location, it is therefore necessary to monitor the populations over a period of years to highlight meaningful June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

trends before considering remedial activities such as habitat improvement works. These trends are being continually monitored by the Loughs Agency and the most appropriate management options considered. There are a variety of reasons why electrofishing sites may be perceived to be under producing, these can include, lack of suitable juvenile habitat, the presence of impassable obstacles to migratory fish species on lower sections of a tributary, pollution, inconsiderate channel maintenance, tunnelling by bank side vegetation, stream gradient and poor forestry practices etc. The critical point is to recognise the major factors at play and to investigate all possible reasons for underproduction accepting that there may be inherent reasons as to why production may not be improved upon in certain areas. When the same areas are surveyed for other non salmonid species it may be discovered that they provide habitat more suited to these species. Habitat improvement works and the rational behind them are discussed in greater detail later. Obligations under the Water Framework Directive are driving quantitative surveys of both salmonid and non salmonid species under proposed Surveillance, Operational, Investigative and Protected Area monitoring programmes.

Excellent

>25

Good

15-24

Fair

5-14

Poor

1-4

Absent

Table 2.2 Loughs Agency semi-quantitative electrofishing classification system for 0+ salmon and trout

Fig 2.21 Electrofishing on the Clanrye River and salmon parr

June 1, 2010

Carlingford Salmon Fry Index 2000‐2009 Salmon 0+

Mean Number of Salmon Fry

2008

2009

0 0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005 Year

Fig 2.22 Carlingford Area fry index 2000-2009

2006

2007

Whitewater Salmon Fry Index

Average Fry/5 Minute Fishing

8 Salmon 0+

7 6

5 4 3 3 2 1

0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Year

Fig 2.23 White Water catchment fry index 2000-2009.

Clanrye Salmon Fry Index Number of Salmon Fry/5min Electrofishing

2 Salmon 0+

2004

2005

2008

2009

0 2001

2002

2003

Year Fig 2.24 Clanrye River catchment fry index 2000-2009

2006

2007

Fig 2.25 Salmon 0+ electrofishing site classification 2008

3.0

TROUT STOCKS

Annual trends in the populations of juvenile trout are also monitored within the Loughs Agency jurisdiction using the same methodology and classification system as those employed for salmon. The semi quantitative electrofishing results for trout fry in the Carlingford catchments and site classifications are displayed in Figures; 3.1 to 3.13.

Fig 3 Electrofishing survey and trout parr

Carlingford Trout Fry Index 2000‐2009

Mean Number of Trout Fry

6 4

Trout 0+

4 3

3 2

2007

2008

2000

2001

2002

2003

Fig 3.1 Carlingford Area fry index 2000-2009.

2004

Year

2005

2006

2009

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Whitewater Trout Fry Index

Trout 0+

5 4

Average Fry/5 Minute Fishing

5 4 3

4 3

2 1

1 1 0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year

Fig 3.11 Whitewater trout fry index 2000-2009.

Clanrye Trout Fry Index

Trout 0+

Mean Trout Fry/5 Min Electrofishing

3 3

2008

2009

2 2

0 0 2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year Fig 3.12 Clanrye trout fry index 2000-2009.

June 1, 2010

Fig 3.13 Trout 0+ electrofishing site classification 2009

Fig 3.14 Salmon and Trout fry distribution 2009

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Fig 3.15 Total salmonid (salmon/trout fry and parr) distribution 2009 June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Fig 3.16 Eel presence as recorded during semi quantitative electrofishing surveys 2009. *Note technique used is designed specifically for salmonids. June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Fig 3.18 Stickleback presence as recorded during semi quantitative electrofishing surveys 2009. *Note technique used is designed specifically for salmonids. June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Fig 3.18 Stoneloach presence as recorded during semi quantitative electrofishing surveys 2009. *Note technique used is designed specifically for salmonids. June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Fig 3.19 Minnow presence as recorded during semi quantitative electrofishing surveys 2009. *Note technique used is designed specifically for salmonids. June 1, 2010

4.0

MARINE SURVIVAL

The numbers of salmon that survive to return to the freshwater environment are greatly influenced by conditions in the marine environment. Climate change leading to changes in sea surface temperatures, prey abundance, high seas fishing, marine pollution, sub lethal levels of pollution and predation all have an effect on the Atlantic salmon and indeed other migratory fish species chances of survival. Marine survival trends are monitored on a number of index rivers in the North East Atlantic where total trapping facilities are available for both migrating juvenile and adult populations. Total trapping allows for an accurate count of all migrant smolts (total freshwater production) and returning adults to be made and therefore an accurate estimate of marine survival. These projects are facilitated by the use of Coded Wire Tags (CWT). Coded wire tags are small (2-3mm long) micro tags that are injected automatically by a CWT device into the snout cartilage of anaesthetised fish remaining there for the duration of the life of the fish. CWT fish also have their adipose fin (small fin between the dorsal fin and caudal fin (tail fin)) removed so that they can be identified in the various fisheries that may intercept them. In Ireland a comprehensive screening programme is conducted at all major landing ports and markets. This programme is important in monitoring the effect of the remaining salmon fisheries on salmon stocks from rivers both within and outside of the island of Ireland. Trends in marine survival for the River Bush (nearest index river to the Foyle system) confirm patterns observed elsewhere on the southern stocks of North Eastern Atlantic salmon, which indicate that marine survival can be variable between stocks and years. In the River Bush marine survival has decreased considerably over recent years as outlined in Table 4.

Pre 1998

Circa 30%

2003

5.9

2004 2005

4.3 4.6

2006

4.2

2007

13.0

2008

7.5

2009

3.3

Table 4 Marine survival rates for the River Bush of 1SW grilse (after exploitation at sea) pre 1996 and 2002-2008 smolt cohort. Data supplied by Agri Food and Bioscience Institute, River Bush Salmon Research Station

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

The figures outlined in table 4 are mirrored by those for other index rivers monitoring the southern stocks of North Eastern Atlantic salmon populations. These figures suggest that salmon are facing increased pressure for survival at sea. A major new international research project called SALSEA - Merge has been developed by scientists from the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) parties and its research wing the International Atlantic Salmon Research Board (IASRB). There are twenty consortium members in total including the Loughs Agency. SALSEA aims to monitor how Atlantic salmon use the ocean; where they go; how they use ocean currents, and the ocean’s food resources, and what factors influence migration and distribution at sea. Research cruises commenced in 2008 and continued in 2009 to collect the necessary data to answer the questions listed above. In 2008 426 post smolts were caught by the two Irish cruises and 363 post smolts caught by the Faroese in the areas highlighted below. In 2009 464 post smolts were captured during the two Irish Research cruises which concentrated on the continental shelf edge to the north west of Ireland and on the North Norwegian sea. Further information and project details can be found at: http://www.nasco.int/sas/salsea.htm

Fig 4 Marine survey areas for salmon in 2008

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Fig 4.1 Marine survey areas for salmon in 2009 June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Fig 4a RV Celtic Explorer SALSEA research cruise

Figure 4b Picture from the Irish Research Vessel Celtic Explorer taken during the second SALSEA research cruise 16-24th May 2008

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Since 2003 partial smolt trapping including CWT tagging has been conducted in the Faughan catchment using a rotary screw trap, Fig 4c.

Figure 4c Rotary screw trap in position on the River Faughan directly below the fish pass at Campsie barrage.

Smolt trapping can have a number of objectives including the monitoring of both salmonid and non salmonid species. Sampling of the age composition, obtaining information on run timing and recording length/weight data is conducted in tandem with the tagging programme. As mentioned above total counts of migrating smolts can be made on rivers. Where this is unfeasible due to the absence of total trapping facilities, total smolt migration can be estimated by means of a mark-recapture experiment. In 2004 an estimate of total smolt production for the Faughan catchment was made by a mark-recapture study resulting in a minimum run size estimate of 33,854 migrating salmon smolts. The estimate was a minimum due to a number of high water events that prevented the smolt trap from fishing for a period of time during the peak smolt migration period. Tables 4.1 and 4.12 outline numbers of salmon smolts tagged from 2003-2008 and recapture data for 2003 and 2004.

2113 2500 2210 1025 2062 1865 561

149 134 133 133 135 130 134

33.45 24.6 23.6 25.36 27.1 22.1 24.4

Table 4.1 Numbers and average weight and length of salmon smolts tagged on the River Faughan 2003-2009. Coded Wire Tagging equipment was purchased by the Loughs Agency in 2005 with funding secured from the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IIIA Programme, administered by the Environment and Heritage Service, on behalf of the Department of Environment.

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

2004

Greencastle, Burtonport, Malin Head, Belmullet and Torr Head Greencastle, Malin Head, Donegal and Galway Bay Greencastle

2005

2006

2007

Greencastle and Ballycastle

2008

Greencastle

Table 4.12 Recapture data from River Faughan CWT programme. Data for fish tagged in 2008 and recovered in 2009 will not be available until 2010.

River Faughan Salmon Smolt Run Timing and Abundance 2004 ‐ 2009

2004

Number of Salmon Smolts Trapped

600

2005 2006

500

2007 2008

400

2009 300

200

100

23‐May

21‐May

19‐May

17‐May

15‐May

13‐May

11‐May

09‐May

07‐May

05‐May

03‐May

29‐Apr

01‐May

27‐Apr

25‐Apr

23‐Apr

21‐Apr

19‐Apr

17‐Apr

15‐Apr

13‐Apr

11‐Apr

09‐Apr

07‐Apr

05‐Apr

03‐Apr

Date

Figure 4d Salmon smolt run timing and abundance from rotary screw trap sub sample, River Faughan 2004-2009. Breaks in data are due to closure of trap during high water conditions.

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

In 2004 a detailed examination was carried out on the age class of migrating salmon smolts in the Faughan catchment, Table 4.13.

13 83 4 Table 4.13 Age class of salmon smolts migrating from the Faughan catchment in 2004

Fig 4.14. From top to bottom, Atlantic salmon smolts from the Faughan Catchment, brook lamprey, river lamprey and sea lamprey also caught in the River Faughan smolt trap June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

5.0

ADULT ABUNDANCE

Adult Atlantic salmon abundance is assessed in three ways: directly by using commercial netting/recreational rod catches and fish counters and indirectly by reference to conservation limits/spawning targets. Using catch data as a measure of population status is a well established and extensively used technique. In the Foyle system annual commercial and recreational catch data has been recorded since the establishment of the Foyle Fisheries Commission in 1952, with some data available before this period. The relationship between catch and stock is complex and care should be applied in interpretation. A more precise measure of catch incorporates fishing effort (number of licences issued or the amount of time fished) and is referred to as catch per unit effort (CPUE).

5.1

Recreational Fisheries

One problem encountered when analysing catch data is unreported catch. All recreational fishers are required by law to make catch returns. This information facilitates management decision making and therefore it is vitally important that all catch returns are accurate and made promptly at the seasons end.

1022

679

3.74

723

417

2.55

3188

450

17.68

5117

1010

27.93

1844

361

15.5

2285

13.99

4084

413

25.77

3476

469

4929

379

22.11

4060

815

54.94

2923

*550

43.88

June 1, 2010

Salmon Rod Catch 1952 ‐ 2009 18000 Reported Rod Catch 16000 Corrected Rod Catch 14000

Number of Salmon

12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000

Year

Table 5.1 Declared salmon rod catch

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

1970

1968

1966

1964

1962

1960

1958

1956

1954

1952

0 17 0 3 44 62 29

0 3 33 8 46 45 84

Table 5.1 Declared catch from the Carlingford system for salmon and trout 2001-2008

Fig 5.11 Angler on the upper reaches of the Faughan River

5.2

Commercial Fisheries

Commercial fisheries have traditionally operated within the Foyle sea area, Lough Foyle and tidal River Foyle. The drift net and draft net fisheries as well as the rod fisheries have been closely regulated with a real time management regime in place to monitor the numbers of fish migrating up key rivers. If predetermined numbers of fish have not been counted by the strategically placed electronic fish counters at Sion Mills weir (River Mourne), Campsie Barrage (River Faughan) and the Plumb Hole (River Roe) then specified closures of the commercial and/or recreational fisheries are enforced. In 2007 new regulations were introduced to reduce the number of commercial nets operating within the Foyle area and all mixed stock interceptory drift nets seaward of Lough Foyle were curtailed. This decision was made to comply with the EU Habitats Directive, similar curtailment of mixed stock fisheries were introduced in the Republic of Ireland. Within the Foyle area this was achieved through a voluntary hardship scheme. 18 out of 112 drift nets remain in Lough Foyle, those remaining have been reduced in size from 900m to 500m and 10 out of 50 draft nets remain. This represents a significant reduction of netting effort. Regulations were also introduced

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

to limit the numbers of fish which could be retained by the recreational rod fishery throughout the Foyle and Carlingford areas.

31296 15397 22333 13500 28851 15741 12800 13391 6145 2598 1248 611

11141 7893 10339 9476 11917 16991 9490 12143 6031 2774 2916 1326

42437 23290 32672 22976 40768 32732 22290 25534 12176 5372 4164 1937

Table 5.2 Declared catch from the commercial salmon fisheries 1998-2009. Note 100% rate of catch returns. * Reduced numbers of commercial nets operating in the Foyle area from 2007

Fig 5.21 Commercial Fishing. Draft netting on the tidal River Foyle and drift netting in Lough Foyle

Length Weight Relationship for Combined Commercial Catches 2009 (N=581) Weight (Kg)

10.00 y = 0.0022x2 ‐ 0.1587x + 3.8724 R² = 0.894

8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0

100

Length (cm)

Fig 5.22 Length weight relationship for combined commercial catches in 2009

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

5.3

Counters

Within the Foyle system a number of river catchments have electronic fish counting facilities that provide estimates on the run timing and abundance of fish >45cm. A Logie resistivity fish counter has been installed on the Newry River within the Carlingford system (figure 5.3), this facility has been operational since September 2007. The new counting facilities will provide valuable information on the run timing and abundance of fish in the Newry/Clanrye River and will facilitate future fisheries management decision making. Counts for the Newry River catchment within the Carlingford area are outlined in table 5.3 and figure 5.31.

Fig 5.3 Fish Pass and counter construction on the Newry River.

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

*32 268 223 Table 5.3 Newry/Clanrye River fish counter figures. *Note the Newry/Clanrye fish counter was installed in September 2007. The figures reported are indicative and form the initial output from the commissioning phase of the counter installation.

Newry River Fish Counter Figures 2007‐2009 100

Number of Fish > 45cm

60 2007 40

2008 2009

0 JAN ‐20

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JULY AUG SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Month

Fig 5.31 Monthly fish counts on the Newry River Sep 2007-2009

5.2

Conservation Limits/Spawning targets

Another way to assess adult salmon stock status is to monitor run sizes on rivers and to compare them with predefined reference points called conservation limits. Conservation limits define a level of spawning that optimises the sustainable catch by commercial and recreational fisheries. If exploitation rates increase above the sustainable catch levels the catch may increase in the short-term but the stock will eventually reduce. Conservation limits demarcate the undesirable spawning stock level at which recruitment would begin to decline significantly (NASCO). The real time management regime incorporating the setting of management targets and spawning targets implemented in the Foyle aims to manage the fisheries and spawning populations in a sustainable manner. The management and spawning June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

targets are set for the various river catchments based on the amount and quality of nursery habitat present. River habitat surveys are carried out along each stretch of river and graded according to the type and quality. Egg deposition levels are set according to the quality grading of each section of nursery habitat. There are four grades of nursery habitat, however for the purpose of setting egg deposition levels only grades 1-3 are utilised. Grade 1 denotes the best quality habitat. The egg deposition rate/carrying capacity is set as follows. Grade 1 = 10 eggs per m², grade 2 = 5 eggs per m² and grade 3 2.5 eggs per m². The total number of eggs is calculated by multiplying the area of each grade of nursery habitat by the appropriate density of eggs per m². 25% is deducted from the management target allowing for loss of salmon by angling (15%) and poaching and predation (10%). The remaining figure is referred to as the conservation limit/spawning target. Once the number of eggs required for each river has been established this can be converted to a total number of fish required to achieve the management targets and conservation limit/spawning targets. The average fecundity (number of eggs produced per female) of Foyle salmon has been estimated at 2500 and the ratio of female to male salmon estimated at 60:40. When combined with the amount of nursery habitat of the various grades this equates to the conservation limit/spawning target. In the Carlingford area targets can be set and monitored once adequate information has been collated from both fish counting facilities and recreational catch returns from the salmon fisheries. Where necessary catchments which do not meet their targets may have fishery conservation measures imposed and or fish stock rebuilding programmes instigated.

6.0

COARSE FISH STOCKS

Coarse fish species differ significantly from most salmonid species in that their lifecycle is completed solely in freshwater. Coarse species also utilise differing habitat types than salmonid species preferring slower moving deeper water. Newry canal and Camlough are good examples of coarse fish habitat within the Carlingford area. The coarse fish species present within the Carlingford area are not native to the island of Ireland but have been introduced over the last few hundred years as a source of food, for sport and by escaping from fish farms. Irelands natural water courses are defined primarily as salmonid waters however artificial water bodies such as canals and reservoirs provide ideal habitat for a variety of coarse fish species. These artificial or heavily modified water bodies facilitated the colonisation by coarse fish species providing suitable habitat for spawning, nursery areas for juveniles and appropriate conditions and feeding opportunities for adult populations.

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

The Loughs Agency aims to provide sustainable social, economic and environmental benefits through the conservation, protection and development of the coarse fisheries of the Foyle and Carlingford areas by promoting the sustainable exploitation of the resource to achieve maximum benefit to local communities. In 2008 the Loughs Agency in collaboration with the Agri Food and Bioscience Institute (AFBI) conducted a survey of Derryleckagh Lough which discharges into the Clanrye River. The aims of the survey were to chart the bathymetry/depth of the lough and to identify the fish species present. Derryleckagh Lough is a 30 hectare eutrophic lake situated in County Down, Northern Ireland. It has a maximum depth of 9.0m and an average depth of 2.0m, with much of the southern end of the lake being <2m deep. The lake contains pike and eels, and one small perch specimen was captured in this survey. At the time of the survey, water temperatures did not differ greatly among depths with a difference of <2°C between the surface and 7m. All depth strata within the lake had sufficient dissolved oxygen to support fish, ranging from 97.9% at the surface to 73.9% at 7m (Figure DL 1). Total Phosphorous recorded at the time of the survey was 59µgl-1, classifying the lake as eutrophic.

Depth (m)

-2

-4

-6 TEMP DO

-8 0

100

Temp (oC) / Dissolved oxygen (%)

Figure DL 1. Temperature/DO profile in Derryleckagh Lough

This brief report provides a summary of the fish survey on Derryleckagh Lough, undertaken from 28-29th August 2008, including species, number, length frequency, age and locations of fish captured.

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Derryleckagh Lough J128 256 28-29.08.08 Cloudy, dry, light SSE wind 18°C 17.1°C

Stones, reeds, grass, overhanging trees

Lundgrens Norden, 30m, 12 panel multimesh monofilament gill nets (8) Lundgrens, 30m, 75mm fixed mesh monofilament gill net (1) Lundgrens, 30m, 60mm fixed mesh monofilament gill net (1) 50cm x 10m fyke nets, chains of 3 (3)

A total of only 12 fish were captured during this survey; 8 pike, 3 eels and 1 perch. Net locations and the number of fish caught in each net are summarised in Figure 2 and Table DL 1 below. Although few fish were captured overall, it might have been expected to capture more pike in the shallower nets than the deeper set nets. This proved not to be the case however, with most of the pike being captured in nets >3m deep. Pike ranged in size from 16 to 42cm (Figure 3) and age from 0+ to 2+ years. One eel was captured in each of the three fyke nets, ranging in size from 41 to 55cm (Figure 4). Only one small perch was captured, 5.7cm in length. With small perch being a shoaling fish, this is very surprising. The possibility exists that the fish was captured in a previously surveyed lake and was already present in the gillnet before it was set, however this is unlikely as it would be easily seen whilst setting. It could be, however, without the presence of perch as a prey species, that the lake contains a population of mainly cannibalistic pike with a small number of large individuals preying on, and to an extent ‘controlling’, the number of smaller pike in the population. Such large pike would not likely be captured using the monofilament gillnets adopted for this survey.

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

A concurrent hydro-acoustic survey conducted at night-time showed very few fish tracks in general, and none in the open water pelagic zone. This would support the idea of a lake containing only pike (and eels), as shoals of perch generally disperse at night-time and are easily detected using horizontal hydro-acoustics if present. Further surveys would be required to ascertain the presence/absence or size of any perch population within the lake; however evidence from this survey certainly suggests that if a population does exist it is likely to be very small.

Figure DL 2. Location of benthic gillnets (red circles), floating gillnet (white circle) and fyke nets (red squares) in Derryleckagh Lough

G1 (Norden 12 panel gill)

5 - 55

0-3m

G2 (Norden 12 panel gill)

5 - 55

0-3m

3-6m

G5 (Norden 12 panel gill)

5 - 55

6-12m

G6 (Norden 12 panel gill)

5 - 55

6-12m

G7 (Norden 12 panel gill)

5 - 55

3-6m

G8 (Norden 12 panel gill)

5 - 55

3-6m

G9 (Norden 12 panel gill)

5 - 55

3-6m

G10 (Norden 12 panel gill)

5 - 55

Floating

G3 (75mm fixed mesh gill) G4 (60mm fixed mesh gill)

1 1

F1 (fyke)

0-3m

F2 (fyke)

0-3m

F3 (fyke)

0-3m

Table DL 1. Number of fish caught in each net in Derryleckagh Lough June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

0 1

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49

Figure DL 3. Length frequency of pike in Derryleckagh Lough

0 1

10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58

Figure DL 4. Length frequency of eels in Derryleckagh Lough June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Figure DL 5. Derryleckagh Lough survey 2008

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

In 2007 a resurvey of the coarse fish populations of the Newry Canal was conducted by the Loughs Agency in collaboration with the Agri Food and Biosciences Institute and the Central Fisheries Board. The 2007 survey consisted of both netting and horizontal hydro-acoustic techniques during day time and night time hours. The hydro-acoustic method results in fewer gill nets being set and records data passively. The full report on the Newry Canal Fish Stock Assessment can be downloaded from the Loughs Agency website www.loughs-agency.org . The canal was surveyed from the Albert Basin to Victoria Lock. Table 6 outlines summary results from the 2007 survey.

Roach Bream Roach x Bream Pike Perch Tench

144 1 16 5 36 4

8-26 21 8-30 44-75 9.7-27 26

Table 6 Fish survey results from Newry canal 2007. Eel and Flounder were also recorded.

Fig 6 Newry Canal fish stock assessment 2007

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

In 2001 and 2002 the Loughs Agency in collaboration with the Central Fisheries Board conducted baseline surveys of the fish species present within Newry canal between the town of Newry and Victoria Lock. This was designed to assess the population status of the fish stocks. Gill and fyke nets were used to capture fish with a proportion of all fish being measured, weighed and scaled for subsequent age analysis. Tables 6.1 and 6.2

Pike Roach Bream Roach x Bream Tench Eels Brown Trout

118 207 26 9 2 >250 1

13-96 12.5-25 15-38 26-29 34 & 37.5 N/A 23.5

0.03-7.5 0.1-0.3 0.05-0.9 Average 0.95 0.9 & 0.95 >0.5-1.4 0.2

Table 6.1 Fish survey results from Newry canal 2001

Roach Bream Roach x Bream Pike

437 36 58 40

5-27 20-46 26-35 35-73

Up to 0.43 Up to 1.8 0.35-0.85 Up to 3.45

Table 6.2 Fish survey results from Newry canal 2002. Perch, Brown trout and Eels were also caught in 2002

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Fig 6.1 Left to right Perch, Pike and Bream

7.0

HABITAT MONITORING

The Loughs Agency has carried out extensive habitat surveys on all the major rivers and tributaries within the Foyle and Carlingford catchments. Habitat surveys are carried out on foot. Although time consuming this is at present the best method for classifying the various grades of habitat. Habitat is classified into one of three life cycle units Fig 6, the presence and order of which is essential to the productive capacity of a salmonid river. Other non salmonid species also benefit from diverse in-channel habitat. The life cycle unit categories include spawning, nursery and holding habitat. Each category is then graded on a scale of 1-4, 1 representing the best quality attainable and 4 the worst. Other data collected during these surveys include channel width and impassable barriers to migratory fish species.

Fig 7 Life cycle unit depicting the type of habitat found in spawning, nursery and holding zones

Fig 7.1 Examples of spawning, nursery and holding habitat

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

8.0

LAND USE

Land use classification is an important tool when assessing the potential impacts within a particular river catchment or indeed when looking at specific land use and land management practices. Land use impacts could have either a positive or negative impact on rivers and tributaries. A good understanding of the land use within a catchment is therefore imperative in managing at a catchment scale. Land use in Northern Ireland has been captured using satellite imaging technology and classified to type. The following figures outline the broad land use classification within the Carlingford Area.

Land Use in the Carlingford Area Urban

1 2 3

Arable Pastures

6 43 4

5 6

Complex Cultivation. Agriculture/Natural Vegetation Conferious Forest

Natural Grasslands Moors and Heath Transitional Woodland Peatbogs Water Bodies

Fig 8 Carlingford Area land use classification

June 1, 2010

111 - urban 112 - discont. urban 121 - industrial 131 - mineral 142 - sport & leisure 211 - arable 231 - pastures 242 - complex cultiv. 243 - agric. & nat. veg. 311 - broad-leaved forest 312 - coniferous forest 313 - mixed forest 321 - natural grasslands 322 - moors and heath 324 - trans. wood. 333 - sparse veg. 412 - peatbogs 423 - intertidal flats 511 - water courses 512 - water bodies 522 - estuaries 523 - sea

4 Kilometers

Fig 8.1 Carlingford Area land use classification map

4.0

9.0

WATER QUALITY

The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) in Northern Ireland and the Environmental Protection Agency in the Republic of Ireland are the designated competent authorities for implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The WFD is a pan European directive designed to ensure that all waters reach good ecological status by 2015. Extensive monitoring is conducted on all water bodies to facilitate this aim. In addition to the routine river monitoring carried out by the NIEA and the County Councils for WFD monitoring the Loughs Agency conducts proactive and reactive pollution investigations to investigate or highlight problems or potential problems which may have an effect on the aquatic environment and ultimately on the fish species and aquatic habitats. In 2007 the Loughs Agency instigated a programme of monitoring at the tributary level for assessments of chemical and biological water quality. Tributaries within the Carlingford area are monitored for chemical water quality parameters including Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Suspended Solids, Ammonia and Phosphorous. Biological water quality was assessed using the Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) a biotic scoring index.

Fig 9.0 Loughs Agency chemical water quality testing in the laboratory

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

The Loughs Agency also maintains a mobile pollution response unit containing aerating equipment and absorbent and non absorbent booms for oil and chemical spills. The unit can be rapidly deployed to the site of a pollution incident.

The following water quality parameters are monitored through the Loughs Agency monitoring programme and determined from water samples in the laboratory: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Ammonia Phosphorus Suspended Solids

Any organic matter discharged into a river provides an immediate source of food for bacteria. These bacteria will break down the organic matter eventually into simple compounds such as carbon dioxide and water. Biochemical Oxygen Demand or Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) is a chemical procedure for determining how fast biological organisms use up oxygen in a body of water. It is considered as an indication of the quality of a watercourse

Ammonia is generally found in small amounts in rivers and streams. This is due to microbiological activity and the resultant reduction of compounds containing nitrogen. High levels of ammonia can occur as a result from sewage pollution and have detrimental impacts on fish species.

The over-loading of nutrients such as phosphorus in watercourses often leads to a process known as eutrophication. Eutrophication is a major environmental issue in Irish rivers and lakes. Sources of phosphorus include agricultural fertilizers and household detergents.

Particulate matter may be organic or inorganic in nature. Organic solids may consist of algal growths, indicative of eutrophic conditions. Inorganic solids generally are the result of discharge washings from sand and gravel extraction activities or quarries. Suspended solids can affect plant growth and fish habitats. The following parameters are also recorded at each sample station by means of an electronic measuring probe: June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

pH Temperature Dissolved Oxygen Conductivity

This is a measure of the hydrogen ion concentration of a solution and therefore an indication of whether a liquid is acid or alkaline. The pH scale ranges from 0 (very acid) to 14 (very alkaline), with results generally influenced by geological conditions. Fish can be susceptible to changes in pH. Low pH levels are generally found in catchments with high forestry operation impacts.

The effect of changes in temperature on living organisms, such as fish, can be critical. Thermal discharges from urban and industrial sources can lead to temperature increases in watercourses and increased stress on aquatic habitats and associated species.

Sufficient levels of oxygen saturation in fresh waters are generally an indication of good ecological status and ideal for fish life. The main point to remember about oxygen solubility is that it has an inverse relationship with temperature. This helps explain why DO levels are generally lowest during summer low flow conditions, increasing the risk of pollution from discharges at this time.

The conductivity or electrical conductivity of a watercourse is a measure of its ability to conduct an electric current. Electrical conductivity estimates the amount of total dissolved salts, or the total amount of dissolved ions in the water. Electrical Conductivity is controlled by geology and any variations may be sourced to increased ions from wastewater from sewage treatment plants or urban run-off from roads.

June 1, 2010

Fig 9.1 Carlingford area average suspended solids results 2009. Values are in mg/l

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Fig 9.2 Carlingford area Ammonia results 2009. Values are in mg/l June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Fig 9.3 Carlingford area phosphorous results 2009. Values are in mg/l June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Fig 9.4 Carlingford area Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) results 2009. Values are in mg/l June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Fig 9.5 Carlingford area Biological Monitoring Working Party results 2009 June 1, 2010

Prior to 2008 NIEA employed the General Quality Assessment (GQA) system to classify and monitor the chemical and biological water quality of the rivers of Northern Ireland. With the implementation of the Water Framework Directive a new approach to freshwater classification has been adopted following the United Kingdom Technical Advisory Group (UKTAG) guidelines developed for WFD implementation. An overall classification status for a water body is obtained by the amalgamation of biological, chemical and physical elements. Fig. 9.06 details how these elements combine to create ecological and chemical statuses which are then combined to create the overall surface water status.

G M P B

H G M

H M g

H G M

H M g

H G M

H M g

Lowest class element

H G M

H M g

Lowest class element H M

H G M P B

Lowest of chemical and ecological status H G

H G

Lowest class element

G F G F

G F

Lowest class substance

G M

H G M P B gH F

High Good Moderate Poor Bad Good or better Failing to achieve good water chemical status

Fig. 9.06: How the different water quality element results are combined to classify ecological status, chemical status and the overall surface water status: Adapted from the ‘Recommendations on Surface Water Classifications Schemes for the purposes of the Water Framework Directive’ UKTAG 2006.

The ecological status is determined primarily by the lowest class of the biological component. The general and physiochemical element can lower the status to moderate only. If both these elements are classified as high the hydromorphological element can only lower the overall ecological status to good. Whilst the ecological

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

status has five classes (High, Good, Moderate, Poor and Bad), the chemical status has two (High and Moderate). The lowest status of the two determines the overall surface water status. This is termed the ‘one out – all out’ principle.

The various elements monitored for ecological classification are listed in table 1.

1. Macroinvertebrates 1. Dissolved Oxygen (% 2. Macrophytes Saturated) 3. Phytobenthos 2. Soluble Reactive 4. Fish Phosphorus (SRP) 3. pH 4. Specific Pollutants (includes ammonia)

1. Quantity & dynamics of water flow 2. Connection to groundwater 3. River continuity 4. River depth & width variation 5. Structure & substrate of the river bed. 6. Structure of the riparian zone

Table 9.07. Quality elements which are monitored for the ecological status.

Macro-invertebrates Different species of macro invertebrates are more sensitive to specific forms of pollution and therefore environmental quality ratios (EQRs) based on biological results may be used to assess water quality. Macro invertebrates are also the dominant prey of both salmonid and some non salmonid fish species. The measure of diversity of a macro invertebrate community can be a more reliable indicator of the pollution pressures within a catchment than relying solely on an assessment of chemical water quality. The impacts of pollution on a macro invertebrate community are longer lasting and can highlight intermittent pollution impacts that may be missed through chemical water quality monitoring. RIVPACS had been previously used to classify the biological quality of a site in terms of Macroinvertebrates. This has since been updated to meet WFD requirements and is called the ivers nvertebrate lassification ool (RICT). RICT utilises the same principle of a biotic scoring system to produce the EQRs on which the classes are based:

EQR Taxa = BMWP Observed number of Taxa BMWP Predicted number of Taxa (As derived from RICT)

EQR ASPT = BMWP Observed ASPT (Average Score Per Taxon) BMWP Predicted ASPT (As derived from RICT

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

0.97 0.86 0.75 0.63

0.85 0.71 0.57 0.47

Table 9.08. Environmental Quality Ratio classifications for ASPT and NTaxa.

Macrophytes Macrophytes (aquatic vegetation) have been included in the classification as a measure of the effects of nutrient enrichment. The tool employed is Leafpacs which assesses species composition, diversity and abundance. Diatoms Diatom (microscopic organisms) species presence and relative abundance are also indicative of nutrient enrichment in both rivers and lakes. To assess the effect of these on the ecological status the iatoms ssessment for ivers and akes cological uality (DARLEQ) tool has been developed which classifies on levels of nutrient sensitivity and tolerance. The higher the EQR the more sensitive diatom species present. A minimum of three samples over several years is necessary for this classification resulting in few water bodies being classified at present.

0.93 0.78 0.52 0.26 0

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Table 9.09. Environmental Quality Ration Classifications for Diatoms and Macrophytes.

Fish At present there is no tool available for the classification of fish. It has been determined by expert judgement based on the quantitative electrofishing surveys undertaken by the Loughs’ Agency (Foyle and Carlingford Areas) and AFBI (for other rivers in Northern Ireland).

The general chemical elements required for WFD purposes are Dissolved Oxygen (% saturated), pH, and Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP). Notably BOD is no longer used to classify a water body. It is still being monitored for investigative purposes where DO standards are not being met. In addition to these elements a number of ‘specific pollutants’ were also to be identified from a WFD list. These are pollutants which are being discharged in significant quantities. Of particular importance from a fishery aspect is Ammonia. There are 18 other pollutants listed June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

(Full list detailed in NIEA’s Rationale for Water Framework Directive Freshwater Classification).

80 75 64 50

(5 & 95 percentile) >=6 to <=9 4.7 (10 percentile) 4.2 (10 percentile)

20 40

0.2 0.3

150

0.75

500

1.1

Table 9.10. Classification for General Chemical & Physiochemical Quality Elements.

Hydromorphological elements have been incorporated into the classification system to assess the impact that morphological alterations (e.g. sediment removal and channelisation) have on the ecological status of a river. The procedure employed to classify these elements is based on the previous NS Share method, apid ssessment echnique (RAT). The new method is the iver ydromorphological ssessment echnique (RHAT) and has been developed to be fully compliant with the WFD.

Although chemical elements are already being assessed for the ecological status, the Chemical Status refers solely to those chemicals which have been defined as priority substances which are . These include Pentachlorophenol, Carbon Tetrachloride, Aldrin, Isodrin and Napthalene. The full list and their Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) are detailed in the framework’s ‘daughter’ Directive 2008/105/EC. The principal objective of the Water Framework Directive is to achieve good surface water status in all water bodies by 2015. The classification of the water bodies are to be published in the River Basin Management Plans, the first of which was published in Dec 2009. The directive has separate classification schemes for heavily modified water bodies, and protected areas. Heavily modified water bodies have been classified on their ecological potential, details of which are available on the NIEA website (www.nienvironment.gov.uk/wfd). For protected areas (e.g. River Foyle and its tributaries) maps are to be included in the River Basin Management Plans to indicate whether the objectives, established through legislation to define these areas, have been achieved. The Habitat’s Directive (92/43/EEC) indicates that the water quality in these protected areas should achieve targets that are necessary for the designated species. The favourable conditions specific for salmonid rivers have been based on June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

publications from Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers, the European Life Series, Ecology Series; No 7 Ecology of the Atlantic Salmon, L (Table 9.11).

2.5 0.25 80

90 90 10

High Status High Status High Status

0.025

Favourable Conditions Habitat Forming Specific for Atlantic Salmon

10 25

Background

Specific for Atlantic Salmon

Table 9.11. Favourable condition targets for Atlantic salmon

Figure 9.12. Flattened mayfly nymph from the order indicative of good water quality

high scoring macro invertebrate

June 1, 2010

Figure 9.13. Overall WFD surface water status for the Carlingford area 2009

9.1

WFD Fish Classifications 2009

The Loughs Agency is monitoring freshwater fish within the Foyle and Carlingford areas for reporting under the WFD. Working under the direction of the Northern Ireland WFD Fish Group (composed of NIEA, Loughs Agency, AFBI and DCAL personnel) surveillance monitoring stations are surveyed for fish populations once during each WFD reporting cycle. Seven Water Framework Directive fish surveillance monitoring stations were surveyed within the Loughs Agency jurisdiction in 2009. 0% were classified as high status, 43% classified as good status, 43% as moderate status 14% as poor status and 0% as bad status.

Loughs Agency/Foyle and Carlingford Area WFD Fish Classification 2009 (N = 7) 14%

High Good 43% Moderate Poor

43%

Bad

Figure 9.11. LA fish classification 2009 based on seven sites surveyed within the Foyle and Carlingford areas

In the absence of a finalised fish in rivers classification tool (currently under development) professional judgement has been used to classify selected river sites for fish. These have then been incorporated into ecological status classifications and final surface water classifications. Data collection was conducted in the field during the summer of 2009 and involved the use of a quantitative electrofishing methodology commonly used for wadable rivers. This technique requires the netting off of a small section of river approximately 100m² 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 are returned alive to the river.

Figure 9.12. WFD fish surveillance monitoring stations in the Carlingford system

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Figure 9.13. WFD fish classifications in the Foyle system June 1, 2010

In addition to directed WFD fish surveillance monitoring the Loughs Agency has collated other suitable fishery data collected from 2005-2009 and derived WFD fish classifications from this. An example of WFD fish data collected in 2009 is outlined below

5 0 0 5

34 5 2 41

2 0 0 2

27 14 11 52

15 12 6 33

83 31 19 133

Table 9.14 Depletion sampling results from quantitative electrofishing survey on the Jerrettspass River 2009

Total Number of Fish Caught (Jerrettspass River) 2009 133

140 Number of Fish

120 100 80 60

40 20

0 Trout 0+

Trout 1+

Stickleback

Stoneloach

Eel

TOTAL

Fish Species

Table 9.15 Species and numbers caught

Numbers of Fish /100m²

Density Estimate of Fish Species (Jerrettspass River) 100 79

80 60

40 20

0 Eel

Stickleback

Stone Loach

Trout 0+

Fish Species Table 9.16 Density of species by age class per 100m2

Trout 1+

Total Trout

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Length Frequency of Trout 0+ & Trout 1+ (N=46) 6 5

Frequency

4 3 2 1

59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 101 103 105 107 109 111 113 115 117

Length (mm)

Figure 9.17 Length frequency distribution of juvenile trout

Length Weight Relationship of Trout 0+ and Trout 1+ (N=46) 30 25

y = 1E‐05x3.0251 R² = 0.9521

Weight (g)

20 15 10 5 0 0

100

120

140

Length (mm)

Figure 9.18 Length weight relationship of juvenile trout

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Figure 9.19 WFD fish monitoring on the Jerrettspass River 2009 June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

10.0 CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION The Loughs Agency continues to carry out an active fishery protection role throughout the catchments of the Carlingford area including the sea area and on all tributaries. Tables 10 and 10.1 outline the number of patrols and some duties carried out by the Loughs Agency staff in the Carlingford area and seizures for the Foyle and Carlingford areas. A team of Fishery Officers based in Carlingford are responsible for the catchments within the Carlingford area. In addition to fishery protection duties the team is responsible for conducting sampling within Carlingford Lough.

786

230

550

267

410

110

447

501

Table 10. Breakdown of conservation and protection duties in the Carlingford area catchment 20052009. Note policy changed in 2008 in relation to on site inspections.

128

114

100

114

181

198

118

130

155

136

Table 10.1 Seized nets, salmon, rod/reels and vehicles in the Foyle and Carlingford areas 2003-2009

Table 10.2 Seizures in the Carlingford area 2007-2009

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

10.1

Habitat Improvement Works

In addition to the traditional protection duties carried out by the Loughs Agency staff conservation and improvement of habitat has been increasing over recent years. Over time man has imposed significant changes on the natural courses of many rivers and flood plains. The driving forces behind these changes have included amongst others; arterial drainage schemes to provide more suitable land for agricultural purposes, urban sprawl, infrastructure expansion (roads etc.), flood defences, water abstraction and hydro power generation. All have had a significant impact on the natural meanderings and discharges of rivers and tributaries resulting in faster runoff of floodwaters ultimately leading to a change in the morphology and flow regime of rivers and resultant impacts on fisheries. While all these processes have had some impact within the Foyle and Carlingford systems, they are still considered to be relatively natural systems with natural river structure present in the catchments headwaters. In areas that have been altered methods for reinstating lost habitat are investigated and where appropriate action taken. In July/August 2008 the Loughs Agency, in conjunction with the Kilbroney Angling Club co-funded a project on the Kilbroney River in the Fairy Glen area. Surveying had identified that there was a lack of holding water between the mouth of the river and the top of the Glen and many of the stone weirs that were in place were in need of repair. In-stream works were carried out to address these issues and reinstate/create pools and some spawning habitat. The works were impacted by a serious flood event which occurred in mid August but the damage was repaired by club members at their own expense.

Fig 10.4 Reinstatement of pool with some repair work to a weir on the Kilbroney

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Fig 10.5 Creation of spawning habitat on the Kilbroney

Fig 10.6 Repair of weirs on the Kilbroney

Fig 10.7Repair of damaged weir on the Kilbroney

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Fig 10.8 Trimming of overhead cover and pool reinstatement on the Kilbroney

Fig 10.8 Grading of bank on the Kilbroney

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Fig 10.9 Pool excavation and repair of weir on the Kilbroney

Fig 10.10 Repair of weir on the Kilbroney

Fig 10.11 Repair of weir and reinstatement of pool on the Kilbroney

June 1, 2010

CARLINGFORD TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT

Figure 10.12. Bank protection works conducted by the Kilkeel Angling Association on the Whitewater River in 2009

June 1, 2010