Issuu

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

Headquarters 22, Victoria Road Derry ~ Londonderry BT47 2AB Northern Ireland 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 Tel+353(0)42 938 3888 Fax+353(0)42 938 3888 carlingford@loughs-agency.org 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

No. Appendices

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

Assistant Scientific Officer

Antoin Lawlor

Assistant Scientific Officer

David Tully

Assistant Scientific Officer

Suzanne McBride

Fisheries Intern

Aisling Doogan

For further information contact art.niven@loughs-agency.org

@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 Table 6. Removal sampling results ........................................................... 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 Table 7. Removal sampling results ........................................................... 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 Table 8. Removal sampling results ........................................................... 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+

Tro 0+ Tro 1+ Eel

Minnow

Stone Loach Total

Electrofishing Single Pass Seine Netting

108

Fyke Net 1

Fyke Net 2

TOTAL

155

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

Species

Stickleback

Lamprey

Eel

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 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+

Fish Species

Fig 5. Density/100m²

Page 17 of 72

y = 1E-05x3.049 R² = 0.9808

Weight (g)

0 40

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

140

190

240

Length (mm)

Fig 7. Length weight relationship of all trout caught n = 47

Page 18 of 72

2011

2014

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]

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

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]

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 WFD Fish Classification 2014

GBNI1NW010102095

HIGH Method

Sal 0+

Sal 1+

Eel

Lam Min SB Gud Roa SL Total

Tro Tro 0+ 1+ 1 1

Electrofishing

116

Seine 1

228

264

Fyke 1

Fyke 2

TOTAL

230

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

Stone Loach Stoneloach

Gudgeon

Stickleback Minnow

Species

Roach

Minnow Lamprey

Lamprey

Eel

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Gudgeon

Roach

Flounder

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

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

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

Length (mm)

Fig. 15. Length frequency distribution for salmon caught. 2011 n = 90, 2014 n = 65.

2011

2014

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. 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 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 WFD Fish Classification 2014

GBNI1NW010102006

HIGH FISHING 1st Pass TOTAL

Salmon Salmon Trout 0+ 1+ 0+ 23 36 1 23

Trout Eel 1+ 5 2 5

Roach Total

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

0 Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Eel

Stone Loach

Minnow Roach

Stone Loach

Stickleback

Roach

Minnow

Lamprey

Species

Eels

Tot Salmonids

Tot Tro

Trout 1+

Tot Sal

16 Trout 0+

Fig 18. Total catch

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon1+

Salmon 0+

No. of Fish/100m²

Number of Fish

Fish Species

Fig 19. Density estimate in 100m²

Page 31 of 72

45 40 y = 1E-05x2.9947 R² = 0.9931

Weight (g)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 50

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

0 60

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Length (mm)

Fig 21. Length weight relationship of trout n = 6

Page 32 of 72

Frequency 10

[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

Length (mm)

Fig 22. Length frequency distribution for salmon. 2011 n = 64, 2014 n = 59. 2011

2014

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. Additional biological information is available in the spreadsheets provided.

Page 34 of 72

Page 35 of 72

3.4 F10101 Fairywater

Fairywater River WFD Fish Classification 2014

GBNI1NW010102041

MODERATE FISHING 1st TOTAL

Salmon 0+ 1

Salmon 1+ 3

Trout 0+ 0

Trout 1+ 2

Eel

*La

*Mi

*SL

*SB

Total

100

119

100

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

Fig 25. Total catch

Fish Species

Fig 26. Density/100m²

Page 37 of 72

45 40

y = 1E-05x3.0108 R² = 0.9929

Weight (g)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 50

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

Weight (g)

0 0

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

Length (mm)

Fig 29. Length frequency distribution for salmon caught. 2011 n = 40, 2014 n = 4. 10 2011

9 2014

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 WFD Fish Classification 2014

GBNI1NW020204031

POOR METHOD

Sal 0+

Sal 1+

Tro 0+

Tro 1+

Eel

Lam

Min

Seine 1

Seine 2

Fyke 1

Fyke 2

Total

Electrofishing

TOTAL

120

Table 6. Removal sampling results

Fig 31. Site F10148

Page 43 of 72

Site F10148 has been classified as a large river site where quantitative 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. 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 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+

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

Fig 33. Density/100m²

Page 44 of 72

y = 3E-05x2.8113 R² = 0.9771

Weight (g)

0 30

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

0 0

120

150

180

210

240

Length (mm)

Fig 35. Length weight relationship of all trout caught n = 7

Page 45 of 72

2011 2014

Frequency

[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]

Length (mm)

Fig 36. Length frequency distribution for all salmon caught. 2011 n = 89, 2014 n = 41.

2011 2014

Frequency

[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]

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. Potential programmes of measures could include removal and treatment of 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. Additional biological information is available in the spreadsheets provided.

Page 47 of 72

Page 48 of 72

Page 49 of 72

3.6 Owenkillew

F10072 Owenkillew River, Killymore Br WFD Fish Classification 2014

GBNI1NW010102028

HIGH METHOD

Sal 0+

Sal 1+

Seine 1

Sea Tro Tro Eel Lam SB SL Total Trout 0+ 1+ 12 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 75

Fyke 1

Fyke 2

Electrofishing

TOTAL

136

Table 7. Removal sampling results

Fig 38. Site F10072

Site F10072 has been classified as a large river site where quantitative 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. 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 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+

Sea Trout Trout 0+

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+ Salmon1+

Salmon 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+

Salmon 0+

Fig 40. Density estimate/100m2

Page 51 of 72

y = 1E-05x3.005 R² = 0.9923

Weight (g)

0 40

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

2014 2011

Frequency

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

Fig 43. Length weight frequency distribution of salmon caught in 2011 n = 96 and 2014 n = 58

2014 2011

Frequency

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

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 WFD Fish Classification 2014

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

Table 8. Removal sampling results

Fig 45. Site F10171

Site F10171 has been classified as a large river site where quantitative 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

Number of Fish

30 25 20 15 10

8 5

3 1

Flounder

Stickleback

Minnow

Lamprey

Eel

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 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+

Fish Species

Fig 47. Density estimate/100m2

Page 58 of 72

y = 1E-05x2.9803 R² = 0.9774

Weight (g)

0 50

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

Weight (g)

0 0

120

150

180

Length (mm)

Fig 49. Length weight relationship of all trout caught n = 3

Page 59 of 72

2011 2014

Frequency

[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]

Length (mm)

Fig 50. Length frequency distribution for all salmon caught 2011 n = 32 & 2014 n = 51

2011 2014

Frequency

[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]

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

F10763

2009

Skeoge

Poor

F10022

2010

Burndennet

Good

Mod

F10049

2010

Derg

Good

F10079

2010

Glenelly

Good

Mod

F10115

2010

Camowen

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

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

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