2015 Water Framework Directive: Fish in Rivers Classification Report by loughsagency

LOUGHS AGENCY OF THE FOYLE CARLINGFORD AND IRISH LIGHTS COMMISSION

Loughs Agency Water Framework Directive Fish in Rivers Classification Report 2015 Water Framework Directive Fish Population Assessment Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission Art Niven, Mark McCauley & Rachel Scott, May 2016

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 2015

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/15 CITATION: Niven, A.J, McCauley, M. & Scott, R. (2016) Loughs Agency Water Framework Directive Fish in Rivers Classification Report 2015. Loughs Agency, 22, Victoria Road, Derry~Londonderry Page 2 of 79

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Name of Document

Loughs Agency Water Framework Directive Fish in Rivers Classification Report 2015

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 2016

Assigned review period:

Annual

Date of next review:

May 2017

Document Code

LA/WFDFIR/15

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

31/05/2016

Revision 2

Page 3 of 79

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

Fisheries Bursar

Kendal Hunter

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

@ArtNiven

Loughs Agency TV

Page 4 of 79

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 9 1.0

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 11

2.0

BASIS FOR WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE FISH CLASSIFICATION......... 11 Table 1. Habitat classification................................................................... 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...................................................................................................... 15

3.0

CLASSIFICATIONS .................................................................................... 16

3.1 F10014 Glenmornan River at Catherines Bridge GBNI1NW010101075 Glenmornan WFD Fish Classification 2015 .................................................. 16 Table 2. Electrofishing sampling results ................................................... 16 Fig 3. Site F10014 ..................................................................................... 16 3.11

Results .............................................................................................. 17

Fig 5. Density/100m² ................................................................................ 17 Fig 6. Length weight relationship of trout ................................................ 18 Fig 7. Length frequency distribution for trout .......................................... 18 3.12

Proposed Programme of Measures .................................................. 20

Fig 8. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Bar charts of the probability of class........... 21 Fig 9. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Density estimates of the EQR variables ...... 22 3.2 F10022 Burndennet River at Burndennet Bridge GBNI1NW010101070 Burndenett WFD Fish Classification 2015 .................................................... 23 Table 3. Sampling results ......................................................................... 23 Fig 3. Site F10022 ..................................................................................... 23 3.21

Results .............................................................................................. 23

Fig 12. Length weight relationship of salmon ........................................... 25 Page 5 of 79

Fig 13. Length weight relationship of all trout .......................................... 25 Fig 14. Length frequency distribution for juvenile salmon........................ 26 Fig 15. Length frequency distribution for trout ........................................ 26 3.22

Proposed Programme of Measures .................................................. 28

Fig 16. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Bar charts of the probability of class......... 29 Fig 17. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Density estimates of the EQR variables .... 30 3.3 F10076 Coneyglen Burn at Coneyglen Br GBNI1NW010102085 Owenkillew WFD Fish Classification 2015 .................................................... 31 Table 4. Sampling results ......................................................................... 31 Fig 18. Site F10076 ................................................................................... 31 3.31

Results .............................................................................................. 31

Fig 19. Total catch .................................................................................... 32 Fig 20. Density estimate/100m2 ............................................................... 32 Fig 21. Length weight relationship of all juvenile Salmon caught ............. 33 Fig 22. Length weight relationship of all juvenile Trout caught ................ 33 Fig 23. Length frequency distribution for all salmon caught ..................... 34 Fig 24. Length frequency distribution for all salmon caught ..................... 34 3.32

Proposed Programme of Measures .................................................. 36

Fig 25. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Bar charts of the probability of class......... 37 Fig 26. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Density estimates of the EQR variables .... 38 3.4 F10077 Owenkillew R at Monanameal Br GBNI1NW010102086 Owenkillew WFD Fish Classification 2015 .................................................... 39 Table 5. Sampling results ......................................................................... 39 Fig 27. Site F10077 ................................................................................... 39 3.41

Results .............................................................................................. 39

Fig 28. Total catch .................................................................................... 40 Fig 29. Density estimate/100m2 ............................................................... 40 Fig 30. Length weight relationship of all Salmon caught........................... 41 Fig 31. Length weight relationship of all trout caught .............................. 41 Page 6 of 79

Fig 32. Length frequency distribution of all Salmon ................................. 42 Fig 33. Length frequency distribution of all trout ..................................... 42 3.42

Proposed Programme of Measures .................................................. 44

Fig 34. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Bar charts of the probability of class......... 45 Fig 35. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Density estimates of the EQR variables .... 46 3.5 F10079 Glenelly River at Clogherny Br GBNI1NW010102048 Glenelly WFD Fish Classification 2015........................................................................ 47 Table 6. Sampling results ......................................................................... 47 Fig 36. Site F10079 ................................................................................... 47 3.51

Results .............................................................................................. 47

Fig 37. Total catch .................................................................................... 48 Fig 38. Density estimate in 100m² ............................................................ 48 Fig 39. Length weight relationship of salmon n = 102 .............................. 49 Fig 40. Length weight relationship of trout n = 16 .................................... 49 Fig 41. Length frequency distribution for salmon ..................................... 50 Fig 42. Length frequency distribution for trout ........................................ 50 3.52

Proposed Programme of Measures .................................................. 52

Fig 43. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Bar charts of the probability of class......... 54 Fig 44. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Density estimates of the EQR variables .... 55 3.6 F10763 Skeoge River at Elagh Road GBNI1NW393901002 Burnfoot WFD Fish Classification 2015........................................................................ 56 Table 7. Sampling results ......................................................................... 56 Fig 45. Site F10763 ................................................................................... 56 3.61

Results .............................................................................................. 56

Fig 46. Total catch .................................................................................... 57 Fig 47. Density/100m2 .............................................................................. 57 Fig 48. Length weight relationship of all juvenile trout............................. 58 Fig. 49. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught. ...................... 58 3.62

Proposed Programme of Measures .................................................. 60 Page 7 of 79

Fig 50. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Bar charts of the probability of class......... 61 Fig 51. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Density estimates of the EQR variable ...... 62 3.7 F10020 Dunnyboe Burn at Dunnyboe Bridge GBNI1NW010101072 Burndenett WFD Fish Classification 2015 .................................................... 63 Table 8. Removal sampling results ........................................................... 63 Fig 52. Site F10020 ................................................................................... 63 3.71

Results .............................................................................................. 63

Fig 53. Total catch .................................................................................... 64 Fig 54. Density/100m² .............................................................................. 64 Fig 55. Length weight relationship of all salmon ...................................... 65 Fig 56. Length weight relationship of all trout caught .............................. 65 Fig 57. Length frequency distribution for all juvenile salmon caught (this can be used to assess the presence of different age classes/cohorts) ............ 66 Fig 58. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught ........................ 66 3.72

Proposed Programme of Measures .................................................. 68

Fig 59. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Bar charts of the probability of class......... 69 Fig 60. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Density estimates of the EQR variable ...... 70 4.0

OVERVIEW OF WFD FISH SURVEILLANCE RESULTS.................................. 71 Table 9. WFD fish surveillance stations surveyed by the Loughs Agency 2008-2015 ................................................................................................ 73 Fig 61. Loughs Agency WFD fish surveillance water body classifications 2015 Foyle area ................................................................................................ 74

5.0

SEMI QUANTITATIVE/SALMON MANAGEMENT PLAN CLASSIFICATIONS 75 Table 10. 2015 method comparisons ....................................................... 75 Fig 62. Foyle area Semi quantitative/salmon management plan derived indicative water body classifications 2015 ............................................... 76 Fig 63. Carlingford area Semi quantitative/salmon management plan derived indicative water body classifications 2015 .................................. 77

6.0

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 78 Page 8 of 79

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Seven Water Framework Directive fish surveillance monitoring stations were surveyed within the Loughs Agency jurisdiction in 2015. All seven were within Northern Ireland. 29% of sites surveyed were classified as high status, 29% as good status and 42% as moderate status. 0% of sites were classified as poor or bad status.

High 29%

Good

42%

Moderate

Poor

29%

Bad

Classification in 2015 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 2015. 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 Page 9 of 79

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 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 79

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 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 2015. 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 2015. 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 2015.

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 estimated using models created for each part of the UK and Ireland (UKTAG, 2013). Page 11 of 79

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 2015 and involved the use of a quantitative electrofishing methodology. 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. 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 higher than normal water levels during survey. NURSERY AREA Grade 1

· · · ·

50 -80mm water depth 0.5 – 8% gradient Stable cobble/boulder substrate > or = 70% bed cover Providing adequate cover

Page 12 of 79

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 79

Figure 1. WFD Fish surveillance river sites within the Foyle area, Northern Ireland and Ireland

Page 14 of 79

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 79

3.0

CLASSIFICATIONS

3.1 F10014 Glenmornan

Glenmornan River at Catherines Bridge WFD Fish Classification 2015

GBNI1NW010101075

MODERATE METHOD

Sal 0+

Sal 1+

Tro 0+

Tro 1+

Eel

Total

1st Pass

2nd Pass

3rd Pass

TOTAL

Table 2. Electrofishing sampling results

Fig 3. Site F10014

Page 16 of 79

3.11

Results

Site F10014 was surveyed using a quantitative electrofishing method. This involved stop netting the river at both upstream and downstream limits of the selected site. Between the stop nets removal sampling was conducted. From this data, density estimates have been calculated for all species and age classes present. 25

Number of Fish

Species

Stone Loach

Stickleback

Minnow

Lamprey

Eel

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Fig 4. Total catch 45 40 No. of Fish/100m²

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Stone Loach

Minnow

Stickleback

Lamprey

Eels

Total Salmonids

Total Tro

Total Sal

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon1+

Salmon 0+

Fish Species

Fig 5. Density/100m²

Page 17 of 79

180 y = 1E-05x3.0266 R² = 0.9973

160 140

Weight (g)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 30

120

150 Length (mm)

180

210

240

Fig 6. Length weight relationship of trout n = 44

2009 2012 2015

Frequency

25 20 15 10 5

[240-249]

[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]

Length (mm)

Fig 7. Length frequency distribution for trout. 2009 n = 82, 2012 n = 46 & 2015 n = 44

Page 18 of 79

This site is composed predominantly of grade 2 nursery habitat (45%) with grade 2 spawning habitat (30%) and grade 2 holding habitat (25%). This site was fished upstream of the monitoring station for operational reasons. The exact location is given in the spreadsheets supplied which provide grid references for upstream and downstream stop net locations. The site is upstream of a natural barrier to migration for migratory salmonids. The site is also upstream of a WWTW. Additional biological information is available in the spreadsheets provided. The right hand bank has been heavily trampled by livestock. Himalayan balsam is present on both banks and there is rubbish and farm plastic on the right hand bank. Excellent trout holding water upstream.

Page 19 of 79

3.12

Proposed Programme of Measures

Potential programmes of measures could include improved riparian land management in the form of stock proof fencing, native buffer zone creation with limited access grazing and pasture pump installation. Some improvement of inchannel substrate could be conducted by either loosening compacted gravels or by importing new substrate. Treatment of riparian invasive species is also required. These measures are site specific. At the waterbody level riparian invasive species particularly Himalayan balsam is a significant problem. Bank erosion as a result of trampling by cattle is also an issue.

Page 20 of 79

Fig 8. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Bar charts of the probability of class

Page 21 of 79

Fig 9. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Density estimates of the EQR variables

Page 22 of 79

3.2 F10022 Burndenett

Burndennet River at Burndennet Bridge WFD Fish Classification 2015

GBNI1NW010101070

MODERATE FISHING Sal 0+

Sal 1+

Tro 0+

Tro 1+

Eel

Lamprey

3 Spined Stone Stickleback Loach

Total

1st

TOTAL

Table 3. Sampling results

Fig 3. Site F10022 3.21

Results

Site F10022 was surveyed using a single pass quantitative electrofishing method. Prevailing high air and water temperatures precluded removal sampling over multiple passes. From this data minimum density estimates have been calculated for all species present. Page 23 of 79

0 Lamprey

Eel

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Stone Loach

Minnow Stone Loach

Stickleback

Fig 10. Total catch Minnow

Species

Lamprey

Eels

Total Salmonids

Total Tro

Total Sal

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon1+

Salmon 0+

No. of Fish/100m²

Number of Fish

Fish Species

Fig 11. Density/100m²

Page 24 of 79

12 y = 2E-05x2.9314 R² = 0.9159 10

Weight (g)

0 32

102

Length (mm)

Fig 12. Length weight relationship of a sub sample n = 36 of salmon

Weight (g)

y = 0.0006x1.9983 R² = 0.0503

0 0

40 Length (mm)

Fig 13. Length weight relationship of all trout caught n = 5

Page 25 of 79

80 72 64

Frequency

56 48 40 32 24 16 8 [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 14. Length frequency distribution for juvenile salmon caught (this can be used to assess the presence of different age classes/cohorts). 2015 n = 36, 2013 n= 36, 2010 n = 125. * Note not all salmon were measured in 2013 due to warm weather conditions/fish health. 6

2010 2013 2015

Frequency

[170-179]

[160-169]

[150-159]

[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]

[10-19]

[0-9]

Fig 15. Length frequency distribution for trout. 2015 n = 5, 2013 n = 9, 2010 n = 5

Page 26 of 79

This site is composed predominantly of grade 3 holding habitat (55%) with grade 3 nursery habitat (30%) and grade 2 spawning habitat (15%). Additional biological information is available in the spreadsheets provided.

Page 27 of 79

3.22

Proposed Programme of Measures

This water body has suffered from arterial drainage in the past with regular maintenance works conducted. High flood banks are present on both sides of the channel with both Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Balsam present. The surrounding land use is grazing and silage production with some arable crop rotation. Page 28 of 79

Fig 16. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Bar charts of the probability of class

Page 29 of 79

Fig 17. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Density estimates of the EQR variables

Page 30 of 79

3.3

F10076 Owenkillew

Coneyglen Burn at Coneyglen Br WFD Fish Classification 2015

GBNI1NW010102085

GOOD FISHING

Sal 0+

Sal 1+

Tro 0+

Tro 1+

Eel

Total

1st

TOTAL

Table 4. Sampling results

Fig 18. Site F10076 3.31

Results

Site F10076 was surveyed using a quantitative electrofishing method. This involved a single pass within a defined area. Consistently high water was encountered throughout the sampling period and on the third visit to this site it was decided to conduct a single pass survey. From this data minimum density estimates have been calculated for all species and age classes present.

Page 31 of 79

Stickleback

Minnow

Lamprey

Eel

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Stone Loach

Species

Stickleback

Lamprey

Eels

Total Salmonids

Total Tro

Total Sal

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon1+

Salmon 0+

No. of Fish/100m²

Number of Fish

Fig 19. Total catch

Fish Species

Fig 20. Density estimate/100m2

Page 32 of 79

y = 2E-05x2.954 R² = 0.9879

Weight (g)

5 0 0

60 80 Length (mm)

100

120

140

Fig 21. Length weight relationship of all juvenile Salmon caught n = 39 240 y = 1E-05x3.0367 R² = 0.9986

210 180

Weight (g)

150 120 90 60 30 0 0

120

150

180

210

240

270

Length (mm)

Fig 22. Length weight relationship of all juvenile Trout caught n = 8

Page 33 of 79

4 [140-149]

[130-139]

[120-129]

[110-119]

Frequency 20

[260-269]

[90-99]

[80-89]

[70-79]

[60-69]

[50-59]

[40-49]

[30-39]

[20-29]

[10-19]

[0-9]

[100-109]

Length (mm)

[220-229] [230-239] [240-249] [250-259]

[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]

Frequency

2009

2012

2015

Fig 23. Length frequency distribution for all salmon caught 2015 n= 39, 2012 n = 53 & 2009 n = 58 2009

2012

2015

Length (mm)

Fig 24. Length frequency distribution for all salmon caught 2015 n= 8, 2012 n = 1 & 2009 n = 3

Page 34 of 79

This site is composed of grade 3 nursery habitat (65%), grade 3 holding habitat (20%) and grade 3 spawning habitat (15%). This site is located upstream of an active crossing ford connecting two fields.

Page 35 of 79

3.32

Proposed Programme of Measures

Potential programmes of measures could include installing a clear span bridge to replace the existing ford or the creation of alternative access. Fencing should be erected to limit stock access with gated access to the crossing ford. Access for cattle to drinking water could be supplied by the installation of a pasture pump.

Page 36 of 79

Fig 25. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Bar charts of the probability of class

Page 37 of 79

Fig 26. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Density estimates of the EQR variables

Page 38 of 79

3.4

F10077 Owenkillew

Owenkillew R at Monanameal Br WFD Fish Classification 2015

GBNI1NW010102086

GOOD FISHING

Sal 0+

Sal 1+

Tro 1+

Eel

Lamprey Minnow Total

1st

135

TOTAL

135

Table 5. Sampling results

Fig 27. Site F10077 3.41

Results

Site F10077 was surveyed using a single pass electrofishing method. The FCS2 (Ireland) model can accept data from a single pass electrofishing survey within a defined area. Minimum density estimates were calculated for all species and age classes present based on the single pass electrofishing results and the area surveyed. Page 39 of 79

100 90

Number of Fish

70 60 50 40

30 20 10

0 Stone Loach

Stickleback

Minnow

Lamprey

Eel

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Species

Fig 28. Total catch 45 40

No. of Fish/100m²

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Minnow

Lamprey

Eels

Total Salmonids

Total Tro

Total Sal

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon1+

Salmon 0+

Fish Species

Fig 29. Density estimate/100m2

Page 40 of 79

35 y = 2E-05x2.9633 R² = 0.979

Weight (g)

0 0

100

120

140

Length (mm)

Fig 30. Length weight relationship of all Salmon caught 75 y = 1E-05x2.9953 R² = 0.9972 60

Weight (g)

0 0

100

120

140

160

180

Length (mm)

Fig 31. Length weight relationship of all trout caught

Page 41 of 79

2009 2012 2015

Frequency

[140-149]

[130-139]

[120-129]

Length (mm)

[110-119]

[100-109]

[90-99]

[80-89]

[70-79]

[60-69]

[50-59]

[40-49]

[30-39]

[20-29]

[10-19]

[0-9]

Fig 32. Length frequency distribution of all Salmon caught 2015 n = 119, 2012 n = 100 & 2009 n = 77 2009 2012 2015

Frequency

[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 33. Length frequency distribution of all trout caught 2015 n = 6, 2012 n = 2 & 2009 n = 13

Page 42 of 79

This site is composed of grade 1 nursery habitat (60%), grade 1 spawning habitat (30%) and grade 2 holding habitat (10%). This site had excellent natural channel structure

Page 43 of 79

3.42

Proposed Programme of Measures

Potential programmes of measures include the development of catchment initiatives to ensure water quality and habitat quality are maintained or improved.

Page 44 of 79

Fig 34. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Bar charts of the probability of class

Page 45 of 79

Fig 35. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Density estimates of the EQR variables

Page 46 of 79

3.5 F10079 Glenelly

Glenelly River at Clogherny Br WFD Fish Classification 2015

GBNI1NW010102048

HIGH METHOD 1ST TOTAL

Sal 0+

Sal 1+ 71 71

Tro 0+ Tro 1+ Eel 31 11 5 31 11 5

Lamprey Minnow 2 11 1 2 11 1

Table 6. Sampling results

Fig 36. Site F10079 3.51

Results

Site F10079 was surveyed using a single pass quantitative electrofishing method. From this data minimum density estimates have been calculated for all species and age classes present.

Page 47 of 79

80 70

Number of Fish

60 50 40 30 20 10

Stone Loach

Stickleback

Minnow

Lamprey

Eel

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Species

Fig 37. Total catch 35 30

No. of Fish/100m²

25 20 15 10 5

Minnow

Lamprey

Eels

Total Salmonids

Total Tro

Total Sal

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon1+

Salmon 0+

Fish Species

Fig 38. Density estimate in 100m²

Page 48 of 79

20 y = 8E-06x3.0921 R² = 0.9906

18 16

Weight (g)

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0

100

120

140

Length (mm)

Fig 39. Length weight relationship of salmon n = 102

70 y = 2E-05x2.9209 R² = 0.9915

60 50

Weight (g)

40 30 20 10 0 0

100 Length (mm)

125

150

175

200

Fig 40. Length weight relationship of trout n = 16

Page 49 of 79

2010

2013 2015

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 41. Length frequency distribution for salmon. 2010 n = 115, 2013 n = 44 & 2015 n = 102. * Note not all salmon were measured in 2013 due to warm weather conditions/fish health. 10

2010 2013 2015

Frequency

[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 42. Length frequency distribution for trout. 2010 n = 7, 2013 n = 3 & 2015 n = 16. * Note not all salmon were measured in 2013 due to warm weather conditions/fish health.

Page 50 of 79

This site is composed predominantly of grade 1 nursery habitat (60%) with grade 1 spawning habitat (30%) and grade 2 holding habitat (10%). This waterbody is of high value with natural channel structure throughout. Impacts at the site include no or poor riparian fencing on both banks. There was evidence of some unauthorised gravel extraction ongoing. Fly tipping occurs at this site and there was rubbish and farm plastic in the watercourse. Additional biological information is available in the spreadsheets provided

Page 51 of 79

3.52

Proposed Programme of Measures

Potential programmes of measures include the development of catchment initiatives to ensure water quality and habitat quality are maintained or improved. Riparian fencing with pasture pumps, gated access and styles should be installed to control stock access to the watercourse. Adjacent landowners and the local community should be engaged in catchment management planning. Unauthorised gravel extraction should be further investigated.

Page 52 of 79

Page 53 of 79

Fig 43. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Bar charts of the probability of class

Page 54 of 79

Fig 44. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Density estimates of the EQR variables

Page 55 of 79

3.6

F10763 Burnfoot

Skeoge River at Elagh Road WFD Fish Classification 2015

GBNI1NW393901002

MODERATE FISHING 1st

Salmon Salmon Trout Trout Eel Stickleback Roach Total 0+ 1+ 0+ 1+ 0 0 4 1 10 24 1 40

TOTAL

Table 7. Sampling results

Fig 45. Site F10763 3.61

Results

Site F10763 was surveyed using a single pass quantitative electrofishing method. From this data minimum density estimates have been calculated for all species and age classes present.

Page 56 of 79

Roach

Minnow

Stickleback

Lamprey

Eels

Total Salmonids

Total Tro

Total Sal

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon1+

Salmon 0+

No. of Fish/100m²

Roach

Stickleback

Minnow

Lamprey

Eel

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Number of Fish

Species

Fig 46. Total catch

Fish Species

Fig 47. Density/100m2

Page 57 of 79

30 y = 8E-06x3.1386 R² = 0.9945

Weight (g)

0 40

80 Length (mm)

100

110

120

Fig 48. Length weight relationship of all juvenile trout caught n = 5

2009 2012 2015

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. 49. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught. 2009 n= 9, 2012 n = 3 & 2015 n = 5

Page 58 of 79

This site is composed predominantly of grade 3 holding habitat (75%) with grade 3 nursery habitat (10%) and grade 3 spawning habitat (15%). This channel has little diversity in river bed substrate and demonstrates significant signs of being arterially drained in the past. It flows through an urban area until just upstream of the survey site. This channel forms part of a cross border catchment with the water body ultimately discharging to Lough Swilly, Co Donegal through a heavily modified artificial impoundment at Inch Levels. It is suspected that developments upstream of this site may be responsible for untreated effluent entering this water body from misconnected waste water systems. Additional biological information is available in the spreadsheets provided.

Page 59 of 79

3.62

Proposed Programme of Measures

Potential programmes of measures could include, monitoring of consented and non-consented discharges, increased water quality monitoring, community engagement and introduction of substrate suitable for native fish species.

Page 60 of 79

Fig 50. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Bar charts of the probability of class

Page 61 of 79

Fig 51. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Density estimates of the EQR variable

Page 62 of 79

3.7 F10020 Burndenett

Dunnyboe Burn at Dunnyboe Bridge WFD Fish Classification 2015

GBNI1NW010101072

HIGH FISHING

Salmon 0+

Salmon 1+

Trout 0+

Trout 1+

Eel

Total

1st

2nd

3rd

TOTAL

Table 8. Removal sampling results

Fig 52. Site F10020 3.71

Results

Site F10020 was surveyed using a quantitative electrofishing method. This involved stop netting the river at both upstream and downstream limits of the selected site. Between the stop nets removal sampling was conducted. From this data density estimates have been calculated for all species and age classes present. Page 63 of 79

35 30

Number of Fish

25 20

10 5

2 Eel

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Species

Fig 53. Total catch

100 90

No. of Fish/100m²

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Eels

Total Salmonids

Fish Species

Total Tro

Total Sal

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon1+

Salmon 0+

Fig 54. Density/100m²

Page 64 of 79

16 y = 2E-05x2.8825 R² = 0.9746

14 12

Weight (g)

10 8 6 4 2 0 30

100

110

120

130

Length (mm)

Fig 55. Length weight relationship of all salmon n = 50

30 y = 2E-05x2.8652 R² = 0.9923

Weight (g)

0 40

80 90 Length (mm)

100

Fig 56. Length weight relationship of all trout caught n = 30

Page 65 of 79

2009 2012 2015

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 57. Length frequency distribution for all juvenile salmon caught (this can be used to assess the presence of different age classes/cohorts). 2009 n = 42, 2012 n = 31 & 2015 n = 50

2009

2012 2015

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 58. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught. 2009 n = 13, 2012 n = 11 & 2015 n = 30

Page 66 of 79

This site is composed predominantly of grade 1 nursery habitat (80%) with grade 3 spawning habitat (10%) and grade holding habitat (10%). Additional biological information is available in the spreadsheets provided. This water body has natural channel form at the surveillance site, although there is some tunnelling by bank side tree cover. The left hand bank is planted with a dense stand of conifers which over shadows the water course. There are further issues with tunnelling on this water body which could be limiting primary productivity.

Page 67 of 79

3.72

Proposed Programme of Measures

Page 68 of 79

Fig 59. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Bar charts of the probability of class

Page 69 of 79

Fig 60. FCS2 (Ireland) output. Density estimates of the EQR variable

Page 70 of 79

4.0

OVERVIEW OF WFD FISH SURVEILLANCE RESULTS

The results for WFD river fish monitoring within the Loughs Agency areas for 2015 are outlined in the table below. In 2015 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 2015.

Page 71 of 79

Site Code

Catchment

F10086

Year of 1st Survey 2008

F10089

2009

Strule

Mod

Good

F10076

2009

Owenkillew

Good

Mod

Good

F10020

2009

Burndennet

Good

High

F10014

2009

Glenmornan

Mod

Good

Mod

F10626

2009

Newry

Mod

Good

F10644

2009

Killbroney

Mod

Poor

F10077

2009

Owenkillew

Good

F10763

2009

Skeoge

Poor

Mod

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

2015

Good

Mod

High

Poor

Page 72 of 79

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

2015

Table 9. WFD fish surveillance stations surveyed by the Loughs Agency 2008-2015

Page 73 of 79

Fig 61. Loughs Agency WFD fish surveillance water body classifications 2015 Foyle area

Page 74 of 79

5.0

SEMI QUANTITATIVE/SALMON MANAGEMENT PLAN CLASSIFICATIONS

For classification in 2015 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 Glenmornan Burndennett Coneyglen Owenkillew Glenelly Skeoge Dunnyboe

In Agreement Yes No No No No No No

SMP Class Moderate Moderate Moderate Good Good Unclassified Unclassified

WFD Class Moderate Moderate Good Good High Moderate High

Table 10. 2015 method comparisons

The maps below provide an overview of results for the application of this method within the Foyle and Carlingford areas in 2015. GIS shape files containing the raw data behind these maps including site id’s has been provided to NIEA. Page 75 of 79

Fig 62. Foyle area Semi quantitative/salmon management plan derived indicative water body classifications 2015

Page 76 of 79

Fig 63. Carlingford area Semi quantitative/salmon management plan derived indicative water body classifications 2015

Page 77 of 79

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 2015. 2015 marked the first year in the second monitoring period/cycle of the Water Framework Directive. In 2015 a number of sites were surveyed using a single pass electrofishing survey. When it was not possible to install stop nets due to excessive flow, depth and or width a single pass survey within a defined area was conducted. This approach was instead of the previously utilised multi method approach. 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. During the second cycle of The WFD more emphasis will be placed on reasons for waterbody failures and the development of appropriate programmes of measures to address these. This approach will involve wider utilisation of existing fisheries data sets, additional empirical data collection and expert analysis of this information. A degree of flexibility will need to be maintained in collecting and analysing fisheries data which can be utilised for WFD classification purposes. Early consultation on any potential developments to the FCS2 (Ireland) model should be encouraged through the relevant technical advisory group.

REFERENCES CEN (2003) Water Quality – Sampling of Fish with Electricity. European Standard. Ref. No. EN14011:2000.

Page 78 of 79

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 79 of 79