2010 Loughs Agency Water Framework Directive Fish in Rivers Classification Report
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Report Ref: LA/WFDFISHNI/10
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Loughs Agency Fish in Rivers Water Framework Directive Fish Classification Report 2010
For Northern Ireland Environment Agency 2011
For further information contact: Art Niven (Fisheries Research Officer) Loughs Agency
Written and prepared by:
22, Victoria Road
Art Niven
Londonderry
Maps Prepared by Rico Santiago
BT47 2AB 028 71 34 21 00 art.niven@loughs‐agency.org 2
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 6 LA fish classification 2010 based on five sites surveyed within the Foyle and Carlingford areas .. 6 1.0
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7
2.0
Basis for Water Framework Directive Fish Classification............................................................ 7 Table 1. Professional judgement criteria after O’Connor 2009, AFBI ............................................. 8 Table 2. Habitat classification based on Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland (Fisheries Division) advisory leaflet on the evaluation of habitat for salmon and trout ................ 9
3.0
Classifications ............................................................................................................................ 10
3.1 F10022 Burndennet R at Burndennet Br GBNI1NW010101070 Burndennett WFD Fish Classification 2010 ............................................................................................................................ 10 Table 3. Removal sampling results *Note SB = Stickle Back and SL = Stone Loach ...................... 10 Fig 1. Total catch ........................................................................................................................... 10 Fig 2. Density/100m² ..................................................................................................................... 10 Fig 3. Length weight relationship of all age classes of salmon (this can be used to visually assess the presence of different age classes/cohorts) ............................................................................ 11 Fig 4. Length weight relationship of all age classes of trout ......................................................... 11 Fig 5. Length frequency distribution for all juvenile salmon caught (this can also be used to assess the presence of different age classes/cohorts) ................................................................. 12 Fig 6. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught .............................................................. 12 Fig 7. F10022 ................................................................................................................................. 13 3.2 F10049 Glendergan River at Sraghcumber GBNI1NW010102067 Derg WFD Fish Classification 2010 ............................................................................................................................ 14 Table 4. Removal sampling results................................................................................................ 14 Fig 8. Total catch ........................................................................................................................... 14 Fig 9. Density/100m² ..................................................................................................................... 14 Fig 10. Length weight relationship of all salmon .......................................................................... 15 Fig 11. Length weight relationship of all trout caught .................................................................. 15 Fig 12. Length frequency of all salmon caught ............................................................................. 16 Fig 12. Length frequency of all trout caught ................................................................................. 16 Fig 13. F10049 ............................................................................................................................... 17 3.3 F10079 Glenelly River at Clogherny Br GBNI1NW010102048 Glenelly WFD Fish Classification 2010 ............................................................................................................................ 18
3
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission Table 5. Removal sampling results *Note La = Lamprey and Mi = Minnow ................................. 18 Fig 14. Total catch ......................................................................................................................... 18 Fig 15. Density/100m² ................................................................................................................... 18 Fig 16. Length weight relationship of all salmon .......................................................................... 19 Fig 17. Length weight relationship of all trout caught .................................................................. 19 Fig 18. Length frequency of all salmon caught ............................................................................. 20 Fig 19. Length frequency of all trout caught ................................................................................. 20 Fig 13. F10079 ............................................................................................................................... 21 3.4 F10115 Cloghfin River at Lisboy Br GBNI1NW010102035 Camowen WFD Fish Classification 2010 23 Table 6. Removal sampling results *Note La = Lamprey, Mi = Minnow & SB = Stickleback......... 23 Fig 20. Total catch ......................................................................................................................... 23 Fig 21. Density/100m² ................................................................................................................... 23 Fig 22. Length weight relationship of all salmon .......................................................................... 24 Fig 23. Length weight relationship of all trout caught .................................................................. 24 Fig 24. Length frequency of all salmon caught ............................................................................. 25 Fig 25. Length frequency of all trout caught ................................................................................. 25 Fig 26. F10115 ............................................................................................................................... 26 3.5
F10170 River Roe up from Roe Br GBNI1NW020202024 Roe WFD Fish Classification 2010 27
Table 7. Multi method large river sampling results ...................................................................... 27 Fig 27. Total catch ......................................................................................................................... 27 Fig 28. Salmon 1+ length weight relationship. * This does not include the adult Atlantic salmon caught ........................................................................................................................................... 28 Fig 29. Length frequency of all salmon caught. * This does include the adult Atlantic salmon caught ........................................................................................................................................... 28 Fig 30. F10170 ............................................................................................................................... 29 4.0
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 31 Table 8. WFD fish surveillance stations surveyed by the Loughs Agency 2008‐2010 .................. 31 Fig 32. WFD Fish surveillance river and lake sites within the Foyle area, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland ........................................................................................................................ 32 Fig 33. WFD Fish surveillance river and lake sites within the Carlingford area, Northern Ireland. There are no sites within ROI in the Carlingford area .................................................................. 33 Fig 34. WFD fish surveillance river classifications within the Foyle area, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland 2010. .............................................................................................................. 34
4
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission Fig 35. WFD fish surveillance river classifications within the Carlingford area, Northern Ireland 2010. There were no sites surveyed within ROI. .......................................................................... 35 Fig 36. WFD fish surveillance river classifications within the Foyle and Carlingford areas 2010. 36
The Loughs Agency sponsoring departments and staff are gratefully acknowledged for the assistance provided to conduct Water Framework Directive fish monitoring in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. 5
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Executive Summary Eight Water Framework Directive fish surveillance monitoring stations were surveyed within the Loughs Agency jurisdiction in 2010. Five of these were in Northern Ireland and three were in the Republic of Ireland. This report presents the results for the monitoring stations within Northern Ireland. 0% were classified as high status, 100% classified as good status, 0% as moderate status 0% as poor status and 0% as bad status. An overview of the classification system utilised is provided and a synopsis of the biological and habitat data presented. Additional data and information has been presented in a series of excel spreadsheets submitted to Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), this includes data from other sites not included in the WFD surveillance monitoring programme. WFD fish classifications have been applied to these additional sites using the same methodology. 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 where available and outline recommendations made for consideration as part of any programmes of measures.
Loughs Agency/Foyle and Carlingford Area WFD Fish Classification 2010 (N = 5) High Good Moderate Poor Bad 100%
LA fish classification 2010 based on five sites surveyed within the Foyle and Carlingford areas
6
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
1.0 Introduction This report is submitted to Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) by way of part fulfilment of the Loughs Agency agreement to survey and provide classifications for Water Framework Directive river fish monitoring. The report provides classifications for monitoring stations within the Loughs Agency jurisdictions of the Foyle and Carlingford areas for 2010. Additional information has been provided in electronic format. A synopsis of targeted Water Framework Directive river fish sampling within the Foyle and Carlingford areas has been provided below for fieldwork conducted in 2010. Other sites outside of the Foyle and Carlingford areas have been monitored by the Agri Food and Bioscience Institute (AFBI) under contract to NIEA.
2.0 Basis for Water Framework Directive Fish Classification 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 final ecological status classifications. Data collection was conducted in the field during June, July, August and September 2010 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. 7
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Additional habitat variables were recorded and the exact location of upstream and downstream stop nets were recorded using a Trimble Geo HX hand held GPS unit. Classification
Criteria
High
All age classes of salmon (not adult salmon) and trout present in reasonable abundance
Good
Salmon and trout present in reasonable abundance but disruption of one age class of either species
Moderate
All age classes of salmon (not adult salmon) and trout present but in low abundance OR Salmon and trout present in but one age class absent from both species OR No salmon present but two or more age classes of trout present in reasonable abundance
Poor
No salmon present; trout present but two age classes absent OR Salmon and trout both present but only one age class of each species
Bad
No salmonids present
Table 1. Professional judgement criteria after O’Connor 2009, AFBI
8
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
NURSERY AREA • 50 -80mm water depth • 0.5 – 8% gradient • Stable cobble/boulder substrate > or = 70% bed cover • Providing adequate cover Marginally outside grade 1 on one count only
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Well outside grade 1 on one or more counts
Grade 4
Absent, deep, channelized, silty etc.
SPAWNING AREA • Flow 300 – 600mm/sec • Water depth 150 – 700mm • 70% substrate 30-80mm diameter • Gravel depth: Trout = 50-150mm
Grade 1
Salmon = 200-500mm Grades 2-4
Failing as for nursery habitat above
HOLDING AREA • Depth minimum m ideally > or = 2m • Suitable cover • Bankside/substrate stability Failing as for nursery habitat above
Grade 1
Grades 2-4
Table 2. Habitat classification based on Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland (Fisheries Division) advisory leaflet on the evaluation of habitat for salmon and trout
9
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
3.0 Classifications 3.1 F10022 Burndennett
Burndennet R at Burndennet Br WFD Fish Classification 2010
GBNI1NW010101070
GOOD FISHING 1st 2nd 3rd TOTAL
Salmon 0+ Salmon 1+ Trout 0+ Trout 1+ Eel *SB *SL Total 137 14 2 3 1 11 1 169 134 3 0 0 2 1 1 141 55 3 0 0 0 2 1 61 326 20 2 3 3 14 3 371
Table 3. Removal sampling results *Note SB = Stickle Back and SL = Stone Loach
Total Number of Fish Caught, Burndennet 2010 350
326
Number of Fish
300 250 200 150 100 20
50
2
3
3
Trout 0+
Trout 1+
Eel
14
3
0 Salmon 0+
Salmon 1+
Stickleback Stone Loach
Species
Fig 1. Total catch
200
Density Estimate of Fish Species, Burndennet 176
166
178
No. of Fish/100m²
150 100 50 11
1
2
3
0 Salmon 0+
Salmon 1+ Total Salmon Trout 0+ Fish Species
Fig 2. Density/100m²
10
Trout 1+
Total Trout Total Salmonids
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Length Weight Relationship of Salmon 0+ and Salmon 1+ Burndennet (N=125) 30 y = 1E‐05x3.0104 R² = 0.9747
25
Weight (g)
20 15 10 5 0 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Length (mm)
Fig 3. Length weight relationship of all age classes of salmon (this can be used to visually assess the presence of different age classes/cohorts)
Length Weight Relationship of Trout 0+ and Trout 1+ Burndennet (N=5) 70 y = 1E‐05x3.055 R² = 0.9998
60
Weight (g)
50 40 30 20 10 0 0
20
40
60
80
100
Length (mm)
Fig 4. Length weight relationship of all age classes of trout
11
120
140
160
180
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Length Frequency of Salmon 0+ and Salmon 1+ Burndennet (N=125) 14 12
Frequency
10 8 6 4 2 0 32
37
42
47
52
57
62
67
72
77
82
87
92
97 102 107 112 117
Length (mm)
Fig 5. Length frequency distribution for all juvenile salmon caught (this can also be used to assess the presence of different age classes/cohorts)
Length Frequency of Trout 0+ and Trout 1+ Burndennet (N=5) 1.2 1
Frequency
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 49
59
69
79
89
99
109
Length (mm)
Fig 6. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught
12
119
129
139
149
159
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
This site is composed predominantly of grade 2 nursery habitat (50%) with grade 1 spawning habitat (40%) and grade 2 holding habitat (10%). Additional biological information is available in the spreadsheets provided. This site had swift flows even during low water/drought conditions as experienced during survey. Stop nets were not utilised due to prevailing flow conditions which prevented successful deployment. The limits of the site were delineated using a natural feature in the form of the start and end of a riffle. Some immigration or emigration to/from the site was possible but it is the opinion of the author that this was negligible and that the data obtained is suitable for inclusion in the classification. In future years this site may have to be treated as a large site and surveyed using the multi method approach.
Fig 7. F10022
Erosion is occurring on the left hand bank but is not severe and is providing a source of suitable substrate. Japanese Knotweed is present on the right hand bank. Potential programmes of measures could include treatment/removal of invasive species at the site, the introduction of some large woody debris (LWD) and the introduction of more nursery and spawning substrate. The site is immediately downstream of a main road bridge where sporadic littering is a problem. 13
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
3.2 F10049 Derg
Glendergan River at Sraghcumber GBNI1NW010102067 WFD Fish Classification 2010 GOOD
FISHING 1st
Salmon 0+ Salmon 1+ Trout 0+ 34 3
Trout 1+
Total
0
0
37
2nd
5
2
1
2
10
3rd
13
2
0
2
17
4th
9
0
0
1
10
5th
5
0
0
0
5
Total
66
7
1
5
79
Table 4. Removal sampling results
Number of Fish
80
Total Number of Fish Caught, Glendergan 2010 66
60 40 20
7
5
1
0 Salmon 0+
Salmon 1+
Species
Trout 0+
Trout 1+
Fig 8. Total catch
No. of Fish/100m²
Density Estimate of Fish Species, Glendergan 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
64
59
54
5 Salmon 0+
Salmon1+ Total Salmon
1 Trout 0+ Fish Species
Fig 9. Density/100m²
14
9
8
Trout 1+
Total Trout
Total Salmonids
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Length Weight Relationship of Salmon 0+ and 1+ Glendergan (N=73) 12
y = 5E‐05x2.6518 R² = 0.9312
10
Weight (g)
8 6 4 2 0 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Length (mm)
Fig 10. Length weight relationship of all salmon
Length Weight Relationship of Trout 0+ and 1+ Glendergan (N=6) 35 y = 2E‐05x2.9094 R² = 0.9951
30
Weight (g)
25 20 15 10 5 0 0
20
40
60
80
Length (mm)
Fig 11. Length weight relationship of all trout caught
15
100
120
140
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Length Frequency of Salmon 0+ and 1+ Glendergan (N=73) 12 10
Frequency
8 6 4 2 0 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 Length (mm)
Fig 12. Length frequency of all salmon caught
Length Frequency of Trout 0+ and 1+ Glendergan (N=6)
Frequency
2
1
0 63
68
73
78
83
88
93
98
103
Length (mm)
Fig 12. Length frequency of all trout caught
16
108
113
118
123
128
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
This site is composed predominantly of grade 2 nursery habitat (50%) with grade 2 spawning habitat (35%) and grade 3 holding habitat (15%). Additional biological information is available in the spreadsheets provided. This site has a natural channel form with no obvious signs of drainage. In-channel habitat is diverse. Riparian habitat is dominated by native deciduous tree species.
Fig 13. F10049
Potential programmes of measures could include the introduction of some large woody debris (LWD). The site is potentially used as a fording point with localised littering a problem.
17
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
3.3 F10079 Glenelly
Glenelly River at Clogherny Br WFD Fish Classification 2010
GBNI1NW010102048
GOOD FISHING 1st
Salmon 0+ Salmon 1+ Trout 0+ Trout 1+ Eel *La *Mi Total 267 13 0 1 0 1 1 283
2nd
199
23
4
1
1
1
1
230
3rd
126
9
1
0
0
0
0
136
TOTAL
592
45
5
2
1
2
2
649
Table 5. Removal sampling results *Note La = Lamprey and Mi = Minnow
Number Caught
Total Number of Fish Caught, Glenelly River 2010 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
592
Salmon 0+
45
5
2
1
2
2
Salmon 1+
Trout 0+
Trout 1+
Eel
Lamprey
Minnow
Species
Density Estimate of Fish Species, Glenelly River
640
628
569
Fig 15. Density/100m²
18
1
4
Trout 1+
Total Trout
Fish Species
Total Salmonids
3 Trout 0+
Total Salmon
Salmon 1+
1 Salmon 0+
1
Minnow
87 1
Lamprey
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Eel
No. of Fish/100m²
Fig 14. Total catch
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Length Weight Relationship of Salmon 0+ and Salmon 1+ Glenelly River (N=115) 25 y = 1E‐05x3.042 R² = 0.9744
Weight (g)
20
15
10
5
0 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Length (mm)
Fig 16. Length weight relationship of all salmon
Length Weight Relationship of Trout 0+ and Trout 1+ Glenelly River (N=7) 25 y = 1E‐05x2.9921 R² = 0.9958
Weight (g)
20
15
10
5
0 0
20
40
60
80
Length (mm)
Fig 17. Length weight relationship of all trout caught
19
100
120
140
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Length Frequency of Salmon 0+ and Salmon 1+ Glenelly River (N=115) 12 10
Frequency
8 6 4 2 0 27
32
37
42
47
52
57
62
67
72
77
82
87
92
97 102 107 112
Length (mm)
Fig 18. Length frequency of all salmon caught
Length Frequency of Trout 0+ and Trout 1+ Glenelly River (N=7)
Frequency
2
1
0 51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
Length (mm)
Fig 19. Length frequency of all trout caught
20
96
101
106
111
116
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
This site is composed predominantly of grade 2 nursery habitat (50%) and grade 1 spawning habitat (50%). There was no holding habitat present within the site. Additional biological information is available in the spreadsheets provided. This site has a natural channel form with no obvious signs of drainage. In-channel habitat is diverse. Riparian habitat is dominated by native deciduous tree species. There is some non permitted gravel/substrate removal immediately below Clogherny Bridge. Banks on both sides are unfenced with regular access by cattle. This has lead to bankside trampling and direct in-channel effects. The site is also a fly tipping location with household, mechanical and farm waste present throughout. Numerous sheep pour on bottles were found in the river and removed at the time of sampling. Boxes with warning labels for the herbicide MCPA were also found in the river. MCPA has been recorded at high concentrations at a number of investigative monitoring stations and inappropriate use or disposal of containers may be having a significant impact on the aquatic environment.
Fig 13. F10079
21
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Potential programmes of measures could include appropriate bankside fencing with access points for limited grazing and riparian zone maintenance. A community litter pick and local environmental education programmes should be developed to tackle the fly tipping problem. Targeted information should be provided to the agricultural community on appropriate stock management adjacent to watercourses, unpermitted gravel extraction and waste management.
22
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
3.4 F10115 Camowen
Cloghfin River at Lisboy Br WFD Fish Classification 2010
GBNI1NW010102035
GOOD FISHING
Salmon 1+ 4
Trout 0+ 1
Trout 1+ 1
Eel
*La
*Mi
*SB
Total
1st
Salmon 0+ 166
1
4
4
8
189
2nd
117
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
123
3rd
60
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
63
TOTAL
343
6
2
1
1
7
6
9
375
Table 6. Removal sampling results *Note La = Lamprey, Mi = Minnow & SB = Stickleback
Number of Fish Caught, Cloghfin 2010 Number of Fish
400
343
300 200 100 6
1
1
7
Trout 1+
Eel
Lamprey
2
9
6
0 Salmon 0+ Salmon 1+ Trout 0+
Minnow Stickleback
Species
Fig 20. Total catch
250
215
214
212
200 150
4 Stickleback
3
1
0
1 Total Trout
3
Trout 1+
4
Trout 0+
0
Minnow
50
Lamprey
100
Eel
Fish Species
Fig 21. Density/100m²
23
Total Salmonids
Total Salmon
Salmon1+
0 Salmon 0+
No. of Fish/100m²
Density Estimate of Fish Species, Cloghfin
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Length Weight Relationship of Salmon 0+ & 1+ Cloghfin (N=111) 25 y = 2E‐05x2.9149 R² = 0.9117
Weight (g)
20 15 10 5 0 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Length (mm)
Fig 22. Length weight relationship of all salmon
Length Weight Relationship of Trout 0+ and 1+ Cloghfin (N=3) 60 50
y = 2E‐05x2.9037 R² = 0.9915
Weight (g)
40 30 20 10 0 0
20
40
60
80
100
Length (mm)
Fig 23. Length weight relationship of all trout caught
24
120
140
160
180
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Length Frequency of Salmon 0+ and 1+ Cloghfin (N=111) 14 12
Frequency
10 8 6 4 2 0 44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96 100 104 108 112 116
Length (mm)
Fig 24. Length frequency of all salmon caught
Length Frequency of Trout 0+ and Trout 1+ Cloghfin (N=3)
Frequency
2
1
0 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 Length (mm)
Fig 25. Length frequency of all trout caught
25
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
This site is composed predominantly of grade 3 nursery habitat (60%) with grade 2 spawning habitat (30%) and grade 4 holding habitat (10%). Additional biological information is available in the spreadsheets provided. Significant numbers of stoneloach >1000 were observed within the site. This site shows evidence of being heavily drained and has a low level of in-channel diversity as a result.
Fig 26. F10115
Potential programmes of measures could include reinstatement of a diverse in-channel habitat including 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.
26
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
3.5
F10170 Roe
River Roe up from Roe Br GBNI1NW020202024 WFD Fish Classification 2010 GOOD
FISHING Seine Netting Fyke Netting TOTAL
Salmon 1+ Trout 1+ 3
Minnow
Flounder
SB
Total
1
2
5
0
11
3
0
8
7
1
19
6
1
10
12
1
30
Table 7. Multi method large river sampling results
Number of Fish Caught, Roe 2010 14 12 12 10 Number of Fish
10 8 6 6 4 2
1
1
0 Salmon 1+
Trout 1+
Minnow
Flounder
Stickleback
Species
Fig 27. Total catch
Site F10170 has been classified as a large river site, it is both wide and deep and as a result quantitative electrofishing is not possible. The Northern Ireland Water Framework Directive Fish Group has outlined that in such cases a multi method sampling approach should be taken. This should include seine netting, fyke netting and electrofishing without stop nets. This approach should best cover all possible habitats and water depths. The multi method approach was adopted at this site with successful seine netting and fyke netting operations conducted. Electrofishing was not possible at or near this site due to prevailing high water conditions 27
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
throughout the remainder of the field season. There was one possible location which may be suitable in low water conditions.
Length Weight Relationship of Salmon 1+ Roe (N=5) 45 40
y = 3E‐06x3.2768 R² = 0.9879
Weight (g)
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Length (mm)
Fig 28. Salmon 1+ length weight relationship. * This does not include the adult Atlantic salmon caught
Length Frequency of Salmon 1+ Roe (N=4)
Frequency
2
1
0 102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
118
120
122
124
126
128
Length (mm)
Fig 29. Length frequency of all salmon caught. * This does include the adult Atlantic salmon caught
28
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
This site is influenced by the tide and as a result is not ideal nursery and spawning habitat for juvenile salmonids. The river substrate is composed primarily of silt, sand and fine gravel which provides a greatly reduced potential for carrying high numbers of juvenile salmonids and other fish species. This stretch of the river is dominated by large holding pools greater than 2m in depth. Additional biological information is available in the spreadsheets provided. This site shows evidence of being heavily drained and has a low level of in-channel diversity as a result. Significant bank erosion is occurring in places and Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and Giant hogweed are present along the bank.
Fig 30. F10170
Potential programmes of measures could include removal and treatment of invasive species, introduction of large woody debris and some bank 29
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
protection. Reconnection of the river to the flood plain would also be beneficial from a hydro geomorphological perspective.
30
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
4.0 Conclusion In 2010 within the Loughs Agency jurisdiction in addition to the five WFD fish surveillance sites surveyed in Northern Ireland three WFD fish surveillance sites were surveyed in the Republic of Ireland. Twelve other sites were surveyed within the Loughs Agency jurisdiction using similar methods. This data has also been made available in electronic format as part of the WFD fish reporting procedure. The majority of sites to be surveyed in 2011 are large river sites where a multi method approach will need to be utilised. Site Code F10086 F10089 F10076 F10020 F10014 F10626 F10644 F10077 F10763 F10022 F10049 F10079 F10115 F10170
Year Surveyed 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 (AFBI) 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
Catchment Strule Strule Owenkillew Burndennet Glenmornan Newry Killbroney (NI) Owenkillew Skeoge Burndennet Derg Glenelly Camowen Roe
Classification Good Moderate Good Good Moderate Moderate Moderate Good Poor Good Good Good Good Good
Table 8. WFD fish surveillance stations surveyed by the Loughs Agency 2008‐2010
In addition to the thirteen WFD fish monitoring stations quantitatively surveyed from 2008-2010 as outlined in the table above the Loughs Agency has conducted similar quantitative surveys at an additional 65 stations throughout the Foyle and Carlingford areas between 2005 and 2010. The potential use of semi quantitative data collected in the Foyle and Carlingford areas at approximately 500 stations annually is currently being investigated by the Northern Ireland Water Framework Directive Fish Group for use in operational monitoring classification.
31
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Fig 32. WFD Fish surveillance river and lake sites within the Foyle area, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland
32
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Fig 33. WFD Fish surveillance river and lake sites within the Carlingford area, Northern Ireland. There are no sites within ROI in the Carlingford area
33
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Fig 34. WFD fish surveillance river classifications within the Foyle area, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland 2010.
34
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Fig 35. WFD fish surveillance classifications within the Carlingford area, Northern Ireland 2009‐2010. There are no sites within Carlingford area lying within ROI.
35
Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
Fig 36. WFD fish surveillance classifications within the Foyle area 2008‐2010.
36