Issuu

LOUGHS AGENCY OF THE FOYLE CARLINGFORD AND IRISH LIGHTS COMMISSION

Loughs Agency Water Framework Directive Fish in Rivers Classification Report 2012 Water Framework Directive Fish Population Assessment Art Niven, Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission Art Niven, May 2013

This report outlines results and classifications from Water Framework Directive fish surveillance and routine monitoring programmes within rivers of the Foyle and Carlingford areas of Northern Ireland.

Headquarters 22, Victoria Road 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/WFDFIRNI/12 CITATION: Niven, A.J. & Scott, R. (2013) Loughs Agency Water Framework Directive Fish in Rivers Northern Ireland Classification Report 2012. Loughs Agency, 22, Victoria Road, Derry~Londonderry Page | 2

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 2012 Fisheries Biologist/Project Manager

Art Niven

GIS Officer

Rachel Scott

Assistant Scientific Officer

Mark McCauley

Assistant Scientific Officer

Simon Guist

Fisheries Intern

Luke Murphy

Fisheries Intern

Sylvain Poral

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

Page | 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 10

2.0

BASIS FOR WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE FISH CLASSIFICATION......... 10 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 .................................................................... 12 Figure 1. WFD Fish surveillance river sites within the Foyle area, Northern Ireland and Ireland. .................................................................................. 13 Fig 2. WFD fish surveillance river sites within the Carlingford area, Northern Ireland. There are no sites within Ireland in the Carlingford area. ................................................................................................................. 14

3.0

CLASSIFICATIONS .................................................................................... 15

3.1 F10020 Dunnyboe Burn at Dunnyboe Bridge GBNI1NW010101072 Burndenett WFD Fish Classification 2012 .................................................... 15 Table 2. Removal sampling results ........................................................... 15 Fig 3. Site F10020 ..................................................................................... 15 Fig 5. Density/100m² ................................................................................ 16 Fig 6. Length weight relationship of all salmon ........................................ 17 Fig 7. Length weight relationship of all trout caught ................................ 17 Fig 8. Length frequency distribution for all juvenile salmon caught (this can be used to assess the presence of different age classes/cohorts). ..... 18 Fig 9. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught. ......................... 18 3.2 F10763 Skeoge River at Elagh Road GBNI1NW393901002 Burnfoot WFD Fish Classification 2012........................................................................ 22 Table 3. Removal sampling results ........................................................... 22 Fig 10. Site F10763 ................................................................................... 22 Fig 11. Total catch .................................................................................... 23 Fig 12. Density/100m2 .............................................................................. 23 Page | 4

Fig 13. Length weight relationship of all juvenile trout caught. ................ 24 Fig. 14. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught. ...................... 24 3.3 F10025 River Finn (Foyle) at Clady Bridge GBNI1NW010103063 Finn WFD Fish Classification 2012........................................................................ 28 Table 4. Sampling results ......................................................................... 28 Fig 15. Site F10025 ................................................................................... 28 Fig 16. Total catch .................................................................................... 29 Fig 17. Length weight relationship of all Trout ......................................... 30 Fig 18. Length weight relationship of all Roach ........................................ 30 Fig 19. Length weight relationship of all Eels ............................................ 31 Fig 20. Length weight relationship of all Flounder .................................... 31 Fig 21. Length frequency distribution for all Trout caught (this can be used to assess the presence of different age classes/cohorts). ........................ 32 Fig22. Length frequency distribution for all Roach. .................................. 32 Fig 23. Length frequency distribution for all Flounder. ............................. 33 Fig 24. Length frequency distribution for all Eels...................................... 33 3.4 F10014 Glenmornan River GBNI1NW010101075 Foyle (with Deele) WFD Fish Classification 2012........................................................................ 37 Table 5. Removal sampling results ........................................................... 37 Fig 25. Site F10014 ................................................................................... 37 Fig 26. Total catch .................................................................................... 38 Fig 27. Density/100m² .............................................................................. 38 Fig 28. Length weight relationship of all trout caught .............................. 39 Fig 29. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught. ....................... 39 3.5 F10626 Jerrettspass R (Jerrettspass) GBNI1NB060604047 Newry WFD Fish Classification 2012........................................................................ 43 Table 6. Removal sampling results ........................................................... 43 Fig 30. Site F10626 ................................................................................... 43 Fig 31. Total catch .................................................................................... 44 Page | 5

Fig 32. Density/100m² .............................................................................. 44 Fig 33. Length weight relationship of all trout caught .............................. 45 Fig. 34. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught. ...................... 45 3.6 F11204 Newry River at Damolly Row GBNI1NB060604046 Newry WFD Fish Classification 2012........................................................................ 49 Table 7. Removal sampling results ........................................................... 49 Fig 35. Site F11204 ................................................................................... 49 Fig 36. Total catch .................................................................................... 50 Fig 37. Density estimate/100m2 ............................................................... 50 Fig 38. Length weight relationship of all Trout caught .............................. 51 Fig 39. Length weight relationship of all Eels caught ................................ 51 Fig 40. Length weight relationship of all lamprey caught ......................... 52 Fig 41. Length frequency distribution of all trout caught ......................... 52 3.7 F10076 Coneyglen Burn at Coneyglen Br GBNI1NW010102085 Owenkillew WFD Fish Classification 2012 .................................................... 56 Table 8. Removal sampling results ........................................................... 56 Fig 42. Site F10076 ................................................................................... 56 Fig 43. Total catch .................................................................................... 57 Fig 44. Density estimate/100m2 ............................................................... 57 Fig 45. Length weight relationship of all juvenile Salmon caught ............. 58 Fig 46. Length frequency distribution for all salmon caught ..................... 58 3.8 F10077 Owenkillew R at Monanameal Br GBNI1NW010102086 Owenkillew WFD Fish Classification 2012 .................................................... 62 Table 9. Removal sampling results ........................................................... 62 Fig 47. Site F10077 ................................................................................... 62 Fig 48. Total catch .................................................................................... 63 Fig 49. Density estimate/100m2 ............................................................... 63 Fig 50. Length weight relationship of all Salmon caught........................... 64 Fig 51. Length frequency distribution of all Salmon caught ...................... 64 Page | 6

3.9 F10086 Strule R at Moyle Br GBNI1NW010102020 Strule WFD Fish Classification 2012 ....................................................................................... 68 Table 10. Sampling results ....................................................................... 68 Fig 52. Site F10086 ................................................................................... 68 Fig 53. Total catch .................................................................................... 69 Fig 54. Length weight relationship of all juvenile Salmon ......................... 70 Fig 55. Length weight relationship of all Trout ......................................... 70 Fig 56. Length frequency distribution of all juvenile Salmon .................... 71 Fig 57. Length frequency distribution of all Trout .................................... 71 3.10 F10089 Cappagh Burn at Tattynure Br GBNI1NW010102021 Strule WFD Fish Classification 2012........................................................................ 75 Table 11. Removal sampling results ......................................................... 75 Fig 58. Site F10089 ................................................................................... 75 Fig 59. Total catch .................................................................................... 76 Fig 60. Density estimate/100m2 ............................................................... 76 Fig 61. Length weight relationship of all juvenile Salmon caught ............. 77 Fig 62. Length weight relationship of all trout caught .............................. 77 Fig 63. Length frequency distribution for all juvenile salmon caught ....... 78 Fig 64. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught ........................ 78 3.11 F10644 Kilbroney River at Newtown Br GBNI1NB060604041 Kilkeel and Mourne WFD Fish Classification 2012 .................................................. 82 Table 12. Removal sampling results ......................................................... 82 Fig 65. Site F10644 ................................................................................... 82 Fig 66. Total catch .................................................................................... 83 Fig 67. Density estimate/100m2 ............................................................... 83 Fig 68. Length weight relationship of all Trout caught .............................. 84 Fig 70. Length frequency distribution for all Trout caught........................ 84 4.0

OVERVIEW OF WFD FISH SURVEILLANCE RESULTS.................................. 88 Page | 7

Table 13. WFD fish surveillance stations surveyed by the Loughs Agency 2008-2012 ................................................................................................ 89 Fig 71. Loughs Agency WFD fish surveillance water body classifications 2012 Foyle area ........................................................................................ 90 Fig 72. Loughs Agency WFD fish surveillance water body classifications 2012 Carlingford area .............................................................................. 91 5.0

SEMI QUANTITATIVE/SALMON MANAGEMENT PLAN CLASSIFICATIONS 92 Fig 73. Foyle area Semi quantitative/salmon management plan derived indicative water body classifications 2012 ............................................... 93 Fig 74. Carlingford area Semi quantitative/salmon management plan derived indicative water body classifications 2012 .................................. 94 Fig 75. Foyle area combined WFD surveillance and semi quantitative/salmon management plan classifications 2012.................... 95 Fig 76. Carlingford area combined WFD surveillance and semi quantitative/salmon management plan classifications 2012.................... 96

6.0

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 97 Table 14. WFD surveillance site classifications 2012. Comparison with professional opinion, FCS2 (Ireland) and professional opinion over ride. . 97 Fig 77. Percentage of water bodies in each class determined using professional opinion and FCS2 (Ireland) classification methods for the Foyle and Carlingford areas 2012. ............................................................ 98

Page | 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Eleven Water Framework Directive fish surveillance monitoring stations were surveyed within the Loughs Agency jurisdiction in 2012. All of these were within Northern Ireland. 9% of sites surveyed were classified as high status, 46% as good status, 27% as moderate status and 27% as poor status. 0% of sites were classified as bad status.

18%

High Good Moderate

27%

46%

Poor Bad

Classification in 2012 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 2012. 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 submitted to Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). 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 programmes 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 | 9

1.0

INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared for Northern Ireland Environment Agency 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 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 2012. 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 2012. 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 collaborated on one large river site in 2012 to ensure continuity of sampling methods.

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 | 10

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, August and September 2012 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 Geo XT 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 in to 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 | 11

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 | 12

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

Page | 13

Fig 2. WFD fish surveillance river sites within the Carlingford area, Northern Ireland. There are no sites within Ireland in the Carlingford area.

Page | 14

3.0

CLASSIFICATIONS

3.1 F10020 Burndenett

Dunnyboe Burn at Dunnyboe Bridge WFD Fish Classification 2012

GBNI1NW010101072

HIGH FISHING

Salmon 0+

Salmon 1+

Trout 0+

Trout 1+

Eel

Total

1st

2nd

3rd

TOTAL

Table 2. Removal sampling results

Fig 3. Site F10020

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 present. Page | 15

Fish Species and Number Caught, Dunnyboe Burn (F10020) 2012 20

Number of Fish

16 13

14 12 10

8 6 3

Eel

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Species

Fig 4. Total catch 60

Density Estimate of Fish Species

No. of Fish/100m²

50 40

30 21 20

Eel

Total Salmonids

Total Trout

Total Salmon

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon1+

Salmon 0+

Fish Species

Fig 5. Density/100m²

Page | 16

Length Weight Relationship of Juvenile Salmon Dunnyboe Burn (N=31)

16 14

y = 2E-05x2.8488 R² = 0.9734

Weight (g)

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 25

105

115

Length (mm)

Fig 6. Length weight relationship of all salmon

Length Weight Relationship of Juvenile Trout Dunnyboe Burn (N=11)

Weight (g)

y = 1E-05x2.9477 R² = 0.9963

0 50

100

110

120

130

140

Length (mm)

Fig 7. Length weight relationship of all trout caught

Page | 17

2012

8 7

Number of Fish

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1

Length (cm)

Fig 8. Length frequency distribution for all juvenile salmon caught (this can be used to assess the presence of different age classes/cohorts).

5 2012

Number of Fish

0 1

Length (cm)

Fig 9. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught.

Page | 18

This site is composed predominantly of grade 2 nursery habitat (90%) with grade 3 spawning habitat (10%) and no holding habitat. 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 | 19

Page | 20

Page | 21

3.2

F10763 Burnfoot

Skeoge River at Elagh Road WFD Fish Classification 2012

GBNI1NW393901002

POOR FISHING

Salmon 0+

Salmon 1+

Trout 0+

Trout 1+

Stickleback Total

1st

2nd

TOTAL

Table 3. Removal sampling results

Fig 10. Site F10763

Site F10763 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. Due to the low numbers of fish present at this site only two passes were made. From this data density estimates have been calculated for all species present.

Page | 22

Fish Species and Number Caught, Skeoge River 2012 (F10763) 3

2 1

Stickleback

Trout 0+

Minnow

Salmon 1+

Lamprey

Eel

Trout 1+

Salmon 0+

Stone Loach

Number of Fish

Species

Fig 11. Total catch

Density Estimate of Fish Species, Skeoge River 2012 (F10763) 4

3.53

No. of Fish/100m²

2 1.18

0.00

Lamprey

Minnow

Stone Loach

0.00

Stickleback

0.00

Eel

Tot Salmonids

Trout 0+

0.00

Tot Tro

Tot Sal

Trout 1+

Salmon1+

Salmon 0+

Fish Species

Fig 12. Density/100m2

Page | 23

Length Weight relationship of Juvenile Trout Skeoge River 2012 (n=3) (F10763)

80 70 60

y = 8E-06x3.1206 R² = 0.9989

Weight (g)

50 40 30 20 10 0 70

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

Length (mm)

Fig 13. Length weight relationship of all juvenile trout caught.

Frequency

2012

0 1

Length (cm)

Fig. 14. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught.

Page | 24

This site is composed predominantly of grade 3 holding habitat (90%) with grade 4 nursery habitat (5%) and grade 4 spawning habitat (5%). This channel has little diversity in river bed substrate and demonstrates significant signs of being arterially drained in the past. 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 | 25

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 | 26

Page | 27

3.3

F10025 Finn

River Finn (Foyle) at Clady Bridge WFD Fish Classification 2012

GBNI1NW010103063

MODERATE METHOD

Sal 1+

Tro 1+ Eel

Minn

Flounder

Seine Net

1st Fyke

2nd Fyke TOTAL

Roach Gudgeon Total

Table 4. Sampling results

Fig 15. Site F10025

Site F10025 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 usually conducted across a range of habitats and combines electrofishing at a suitable riffle habitat, seine netting and fyke netting. Due to the high river flows which dominated the 2012 field Page | 28

season the electrofishing component of the survey was unable to be completed. The results presented here are for the seine netting and fyke netting components of the multi method survey only. The data collected during survey was combined and entered into the FCS2 (Ireland) model as a single pass electrofishing exercise. At present the FCS2 (Ireland) model can only accept electrofishing data. Both the professional opinion and FCS2 (Ireland) model classified this site as moderate. If a single pass electrofishing exercise had been conducted this would also have been run through the model both as an independent data set and as a combined data set with the seine and fyke netting results. This would have provided for three independent classifications which would provide the basis for a professional opinion over ride. 30

Fish Species and Number Caught, Finn F10025 (2012) 26

25 21

Number of Fish

15 13

Gudgeon

Roach

Flounder

Minnow

Eel

Trout 1+

Species

Sticklebac k

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Fig 16. Total catch

Page | 29

Length Weight Relationship of Trout River Finn F10025 (2012) n = 21

120

Weight (g)

100 y = 4E-05x2.7585 R² = 0.9653

0 100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

Length (mm)

Fig 17. Length weight relationship of all Trout 80

Length Weight Relationship of Roach, Finn F10025 (2012) n = 26

70 60 50

Weight (g)

y = 8E-05x2.6732 R² = 0.9001

40 30 20 10 0 70

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

Length (mm)

Fig 18. Length weight relationship of all Roach

Page | 30

300

Length Weight Relationship of Eels, Finn F10025 (2012) n = 13

250

y = 3E-07x3.2866 R² = 0.8122

Weight (g)

200

150

100

0 300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Length (mm)

Fig 19. Length weight relationship of all Eels

180

Length Weight Relationship of Flounder, Finn F10025 (2012) N = 12

160

y = 5E-05x2.744 R² = 0.9802

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0

100

150

200

250

300

Length (mm)

Fig 20. Length weight relationship of all Flounder

Page | 31

Frequency

0 1

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Length (cm)

Fig 21. Length frequency distribution for all Trout caught (this can be used to assess the presence of different age classes/cohorts).

2012

Frequency

0 1

8 9 10 Length (cm)

Fig22. Length frequency distribution for all Roach.

Page | 32

3 2012

Frequency

0 1

Length (cm)

Fig 23. Length frequency distribution for all Flounder.

2012

Frequency

0 1

26 31 Length (cm)

Fig 24. Length frequency distribution for all Eels.

Page | 33

The site surveyed was uniformly deep and wide in nature with vegetated banks and flood embankments present throughout. Land use adjacent to the site is agricultural in nature alternating between grazing, silage production and arable crops. A suitable site was chosen downstream at a riffle area for electrofishing. It was not possible to survey this site in 2012 due to high water levels. Additional biological information is available in the spreadsheets provided.

Page | 34

Page | 35

Page | 36

3.4

F10014 Glenmornan River GBNI1NW010101075 Foyle (with Deele) WFD Fish Classification 2012

GOOD FISHING Trout 0+ 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th TOTAL Table 5. Removal sampling results

Trout 1+ 21 7 6 5 3 42

Total 15 0 2 1 0 18

36 7 8 6 3 60

Fig 25. Site F10014

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 present. Page | 37

45 40

Fish Species and Number Caught, Glenmornan 42 (F10014) 2012

Number of Fish

35 30 25 18

20 15 10

Stone Loach

Stickleback

Minnow

Lamprey

Eel

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Species

Fig 26. Total catch

Density Estimate of Fish Species

60 47

50 40 30

Stickleback

Stone Loach

Minnow

Total Salmonids

Tot Tro

Tot Sal

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon1+

Lamprey

Salmon 0+

No. of Fish/100m²

Fish Species

Fig 27. Density/100m²

Page | 38

Length Weight Relationship of Trout Glenmornan River (N=60)

80 70 60

y = 1E-05x3.0028 R² = 0.9798

Weight (g)

50 40 30 20 10 0 40

100

120 Length (mm)

140

160

180

200

Fig 28. Length weight relationship of all trout caught 25

Frequency

15 2012

0 1

9 10 11 Length (cm)

Fig 29. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught.

Page | 39

This site is composed predominantly of grade 3 nursery habitat (75%) with grade 3 spawning habitat (5%) and grade 3 holding habitat (20%). 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 was heavily trampled by livestock. Himalayan balsam was present on both banks and there was some fly tipping also on the right hand bank. Excellent trout holding water upstream. The FCS 2 (Ireland) model classified this site as Good. The professional opinion over ride has not been used here to reflect the author’s opinion that this site is at least good as demonstrated by the good presence of trout. It should be noted that there is a natural barrier downstream of this site which would inhibit upstream salmonid migration which may have justified a High status classification.

Page | 40

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. Some improvement of in-channel substrate could be conducted by either loosening compacted gravels or by importing new substrate. Treatment of riparian invasive species is also required.

Page | 41

Page | 42

3.5

F10626 Newry

Jerrettspass R (Jerrettspass) WFD Fish Classification 2012

GBNI1NB060604047

GOOD FISHING Trout 0+ Trout 1+ Eels SB 1st 3 13 2 2nd 4 4 4 3rd 4 0 1 TOTAL 11 17 7 Table 6. Removal sampling results

SL 4 0 2 6

Total 13 6 3 22

35 18 10 63

Fig 30. Site F10626

Site F10626 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 present.

Page | 43

Fish Species and Number Caught, Newry River 22 (F10626) 2012

Number of Fish

17 15 11 10 7

Minnow

Stone Loach

Stickleback

Lamprey

Eel

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Species

Fig 31. Total catch

Density Estimate of Fish Species 40

36 28

30 25

Stone Loach

Minnow

Eel

Tot Salmonids

Tot Tro

Tot Sal

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon1+

Lamprey

Salmon 0+

No. of Fish/100m²

Fish Species

Fig 32. Density/100m²

Page | 44

Length Weight Relationship of Trout Newry River (N=28)

y = 1E-04x2.5537 R² = 0.928

Weight (g)

0 50

100

110

120

130

140

150

Length (mm)

Fig 33. Length weight relationship of all trout caught

2012

Frequency

0 1

7 8 Length (cm)

Fig. 34. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught.

Page | 45

This site is composed of grade 3 nursery habitat (70%), grade 3 spawning habitat (10%) and grade 3 holding habitat (20%). This site is located at a Rivers Agency gauging station. There is tunnelling by overhanging trees downstream of the site. Green sponges and aquatic vegetation are growing within the channel.

made by importing new nursery and spawning substrate and by creating some holding water developing a functional habitat unit. Some bank side maintenance is required.

Page | 47

Page | 48

3.6

F11204 Newry

Newry River at Damolly Row WFD Fish Classification 2012

GBNI1NB060604046

MODERATE FISHING

Tro 0+

Tro 1+

Eel

Lamp

Minn

Total

1st

TOTAL

Table 7. Removal sampling results

Fig 35. Site F11204

Site F11204 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. This site was surveyed in higher than desired water conditions. Due to the prevailing water conditions the decision was taken to survey in sub optimal conditions. Minimum density estimates were calculated for all species based on the single pass electrofishing results and the area surveyed.

Page | 49

16 14

Fish Species and Number Caught, Newry River (F11204) 2012 14 12

Number of Fish

12 10 8

4 2

Stone Loach

Stickleback

Trout 0+

Minnow

Salmon 1+

Lamprey

Eel

Trout 1+

Salmon 0+

Species

Fig 36. Total catch

Density Estimate of Fish Species 4 3.51 3.01

No. of Fish/100m²

2.01

1.76

Salmon 0+

Salmon1+

Trout 0+

Trout 1+

Lamprey

Minnow

Stone Loach

Fish Species

Fig 37. Density estimate/100m2

Page | 50

Length Weight Relationship of Trout Newry River (N=6)

120

y = 2E-05x2.9355 R² = 0.9993

Weight (g)

100 80 60 40 20 0 0

100

150

200

250

Length (mm)

Fig 38. Length weight relationship of all Trout caught 30

Length Weight Relationship of Eels Newry River (N= 5)

y = 5E-07x3.2313 R² = 0.9948

Weight(g)

0 0

100

150 Length (mm)

200

250

300

Fig 39. Length weight relationship of all Eels caught

Page | 51

Length Weight Relationship of Lamprey Newry River (N= 8)

y = 2E-07x3.4265 R² = 0.9777

Weight(g)

0 0

60 80 Length (mm)

100

120

140

Fig 40. Length weight relationship of all lamprey caught 4

2012

Frequency

0 1

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Length (cm)

Fig 41. Length frequency distribution of all trout caught

Page | 52

This site is composed of grade 4 nursery habitat (45%) and grade 3 holding habitat (55%). This site was surveyed in higher than desired water conditions which made it difficult to fully appraise the in-channel habitat.

Page | 53

This site demonstrates evidence of being arterially drained. Potential programmes of measures could include importing new spawning and nursery substrate to compensate for substrate lost at the time of drainage. It should be noted that at the downstream end of the site underneath the clear span road bridge there is good lamprey ammocoete habitat which should be left undisturbed.

Page | 54

Page | 55

3.7

F10076 Owenkillew

Coneyglen Burn at Coneyglen Br WFD Fish Classification 2012

GBNI1NW010102085

Moderate FISHING

Sal 0+

Sal 1+

Tro 0+

Eel

Total

1st

2nd

3rd

TOTAL

Table 8. Removal sampling results

Fig 42. Site F10076

Site F10076 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 present.

Page | 56

Fish Species and Number Caught, Owenkillew 29 (F10076) 2012

35 30

Number of Fish

25 20 15 10

Stickleback

Stone Loach

Minnow

Trout 1+

Salmon 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon 0+

Lamprey

Eel

Species

Fig 43. Total catch

Density Estimate of Fish Species Owenkillew River53 52

40 30

29 24

Stone Loach

Stickleback

Minnow

Total Salmonids

Trout 1+

Salmon1+

Salmon 0+

Total Tro

Total Sal

Trout 0+

Lamprey

Eel

No. of Fish/100m²

Fish Species

Fig 44. Density estimate/100m2

Page | 57

Length Weight Relationship of Salmon Owenkillew River (N=53)

30 25

y = 9E-06x3.064 R² = 0.9634

Weight (g)

20 15 10 5 0 30

110

130

Length (mm)

Fig 45. Length weight relationship of all juvenile Salmon caught 18

2012

16 14 12

Frequency

10 8 6 4 2 0 1

7 8 Length (cm)

Fig 46. Length frequency distribution for all salmon caught

Page | 58

This site is composed of grade 2 nursery habitat (70%), grade 3 spawning habitat (15%) and grade 3 holding habitat (15%). This site is located downstream of a ford connecting two fields. The FCS 2 (Ireland) model classified this site as Poor, the professional opinion over ride has been used here to reflect the author’s opinion that this site is at least moderate as demonstrated by the good presence of salmon and the presence of trout and eels.

Page | 59

Potential programmes of measures could include installing a clear span bridge to replace the existing ford or the creation of alternative access.

Page | 60

Page | 61

3.8

F10077 Owenkillew

Owenkillew R at Monanameal Br WFD Fish Classification 2012

GBNI1NW010102086

GOOD FISHING

Sal 0+

Sal 1+

Tro 1+

Eel

Total

1st

138

171

TOTAL

138

171

Table 9. Removal sampling results

Fig 47. Site F10077

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. This site was surveyed in higher than desired water conditions. Due to the prevailing water conditions the decision was taken to survey in sub optimal conditions. Minimum density estimates were calculated for all species based on the single pass electrofishing results and the area surveyed. Page | 62

160 140

138

Fish Species and Number Caught, Owenkillew (F10077) 2012

Number of Fish

120 100 80 60 40

Stone Loach

Lamprey

Minnow

Stickleback

Eel

Trout 1+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Trout 0+

Species

Fig 48. Total catch

Density Estimate of Fish Species 70

62 60

No. of Fish/100m²

40 30 20 11

Fish Species

Lamprey

Minnow

Stone Loach

Total Salmonids

Total Tro

Total Sal

Trout 1+

Salmon1+

Salmon 0+

Trout 0+

10 0

Fig 49. Density estimate/100m2

Page | 63

Length Weight Relationship of Salmon Owenkillew (N=100)

Weight (g)

20 y = 2E-05x2.9336 R² = 0.9799

0 30

Length (mm)

110

130

Fig 50. Length weight relationship of all Salmon caught 40

2012

35 30

Frequency

25 20 15 10 5 0 1

Length (cm)

Fig 51. Length frequency distribution of all Salmon caught

Page | 64

This site is composed of grade 1 nursery habitat (85%), grade 3 spawning habitat (10%) and grade 3 holding habitat (5%). This site was surveyed in higher than desired water conditions which made it difficult to fully appraise the in-channel habitat. The FCS 2 (Ireland) model classified this site as moderate. The professional opinion over ride has been used here to reflect the author’s opinion that this site is at least good as demonstrated by the good presence of salmon and the presence of trout and eels as recorded during less than optimal conditions.

Page | 65

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

Page | 66

Page | 67

3.9

F10086 Strule

Strule R at Moyle Br WFD Fish Classification 2012

GBNI1NW010102020

GOOD METHOD

Sal 1+

Tro 1+ Eel

Minn

Gudgeon Total

EF Single Pass Seine Net

1st Fyke

2nd Fyke

TOTAL

138

Table 10. Sampling results

Fig 52. Site F10086

Site F10086 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 usually conducted across a range of habitats and combines electrofishing at a suitable riffle habitat, seine netting Page | 68

and fyke netting. Due to the high river flows which dominated the 2012 field season the electrofishing component of the survey was conducted in sub optimal conditions. The data collected during this survey was pooled in three separate ways and entered into the FCS2 (Ireland) model as single pass electrofishing exercises. The three groupings were single pass electrofishing data only, netting data only and all data combined. At present the FCS2 (Ireland) model can only accept electrofishing data. Both the professional opinion and FCS2 (Ireland) model utilising all three pooled data sets classified this site as Good. This provided three independent classifications.

Fish Species and Number Caught, Strule (Moyles Bridge) 2012

Number of Fish

17 11 6

5 1

Stone Loach

Stickleback

Lamprey

Eel

Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Trout 0+

Gudgeon

Minnow

Trout 1+

Species

Fig 53. Total catch

Page | 69

Length Weight Relationship of Salmon, (Moyles Bridge) Strule (N=33)

Weight (g)

y = 3E-05x2.7885 R² = 0.983

0 50

100

110

120

130

Length (mm)

Fig 54. Length weight relationship of all juvenile Salmon

300

Length Weight Relationship of Trout, (Moyles Bridge) Strule (N=7)

250

y = 2E-05x2.9173 R² = 0.9729

Weight (g)

200

150

100

0 130

150

170

190

210 230 Length (mm)

250

270

290

Fig 55. Length weight relationship of all Trout

Page | 70

Frequency

10 8 6 4 2 0 1

7 8 Length (cm)

Fig 56. Length frequency distribution of all juvenile Salmon

Frequency

2012

0 1

Length (cm)

Fig 57. Length frequency distribution of all Trout

Page | 71

The site surveyed was composed of a deep riffle area flowing into a glide which in turn ran into a deeper pool area. The area surveyed included grade 3 nursery habitat, grade 3 spawning habitat and grade 1 holding habitat. This site was surveyed in higher than desired water conditions which made it difficult to fully appraise the in-channel habitat. Additional biological information is available in the spreadsheets provided.

Page | 72

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

Page | 73

Page | 74

3.10

F10089 Strule

Cappagh Burn at Tattynure Br WFD Fish Classification 2012

GBNI1NW010102021

GOOD FISHING

Sal 0+

Sal 1+

Tro 0+

Tro 1+

Lam

Total

1st

2nd

3rd

TOTAL

Table 11. Removal sampling results

Fig 58. Site F10089

Site F10089 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 present.

Page | 75

Fish Species and Number Caught, Cappagh Burn (F10089) 2012

Number of Fish

11 10

Lamprey

Eel

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Species

Stone Loach

Stickleback

Minnow

Fig 59. Total catch 60

40 30

26 18

Fish Species

Total Salmonids

Total Tro

Total Sal

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon1+

Salmon 0+

Stone Loach

Minnow

Lamprey

No. of Fish/100m²

Density Estimate of Fish Species in Cappagh Burn

Fig 60. Density estimate/100m2

Page | 76

Length Weight Relationship of Salmon Cappagh Burn (N=16)

Weight (g)

20 y = 2E-05x2.9561 R² = 0.921

0 40

100

110

120

130

Length (mm)

Fig 61. Length weight relationship of all juvenile Salmon caught 70

Length Weight Relationship of Trout Cappagh Burn (N=36)

y = 2E-05x2.9113 R² = 0.9868

Weight (g)

0 40

100

120

140

160

Length (mm)

Fig 62. Length weight relationship of all trout caught

Page | 77

2012

14 12

Frequency

10 8 6 4 2 0 1

Length (cm)

Fig 63. Length frequency distribution for all juvenile salmon caught 10

2012

9 8

Frequency

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1

Length (cm)

Fig 64. Length frequency distribution for all trout caught

Page | 78

This site is composed of grade 3 nursery habitat (75%), grade 3 spawning habitat (15%) and grade 4 holding habitat (10%). The site surveyed is slightly downstream of the site surveyed in 2009. There is trampling of the bank in places by livestock and no fencing. This water course experiences high energy floods which has caused erosion in places.

Programmes of measures could include stock proof fencing with gated access, tree coppicing and catchment scale initiatives to improve water quality and to ameliorate the impacts of flooding. Page | 79

Page | 80

Page | 81

3.11 F10644 Kilbroney River at Newtown Br Kilkeel and Mourne WFD Fish Classification 2012

GBNI1NB060604041

POOR FISHING

Tro 0+

Tro 1+

Total

1st

2nd

3rd

TOTAL

Table 12. Removal sampling results

Fig 65. Site F10644

Site F10644 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 present. Page | 82

Fish Species and Number Caught, Kilbroney River (F10644) 2012

Number of Fish

12 10 8 6 4

3 0

Stone Loach

Stickleback

Lamprey

Minnow

Eel

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon 1+

Salmon 0+

Species

Fig 66. Total catch

Density Estimate of Fish Species 8

7 6

No. of Fish/100m²

6 5 4 3 2

1 0

Lamprey

Minnow

Stone Loach

Eel

Tot Salmonids

Tot Tro

Tot Sal

Trout 1+

Trout 0+

Salmon1+

Salmon 0+

Fish Species

Fig 67. Density estimate/100m2

Page | 83

Length Weight Relationship for Trout in Kilbroney River

45 40

Weight (g)

35 30 25

y = 7E-06x3.1425 R² = 0.9948

20 15 10 5 0 60

100

110

120

130

140

150

Length (mm)

Fig 68. Length weight relationship of all Trout caught

2012

Frequency

0 1

8 9 Length (cm)

Fig 70. Length frequency distribution for all Trout caught

Page | 84

This site is composed of grade 3 nursery habitat (55%) and grade 3 holding habitat (45%). The site is located above the bridge and weir. Access to the bridge site is not possible. Rivers Agency bank protection works have impacted channel diversity. Fly tipping and tunnelling in places.

Possible programmes of measures could include reconnection of river with floodplain on right hand bank downstream of bridge. Tree coppicing. Community involvement and catchment scale initiatives to improve water quality. Page | 85

Page | 86

Page | 87

4.0

OVERVIEW OF WFD FISH SURVEILLANCE RESULTS

The results for WFD river fish monitoring within the Loughs Agency areas from 2008-2012 are outlined in the table below. In 2012 a total of eleven WFD river fish surveillance monitoring stations were monitored, 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. Site Code F10086

Year 1st Catchment Surveyed 2008 Strule

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

F10049

2010

Derg

Good

F10079

2010

Glenelly

Good

F10115

2010

Camowen

Good

F10170

2010

Roe

Good

F10111

2011

Camowen

Good

F10045

2011

Derg

Good

F10128

2011

Drumragh

Good

F10101

2011

Fairywater

Good

F10148

2011

Faughan

Good

F10072

2011

Owenkillew

Good

Classification 2008 2009 Good

2010

2011

2012 Good

Page | 88

Good

F10171

2011

Roe

F10025

2012

Finn

Mod

F11204

2012

Newry

Mod

Table 13. WFD fish surveillance stations surveyed by the Loughs Agency 2008-2012

Page | 89

Fig 71. Loughs Agency WFD fish surveillance water body classifications 2012 Foyle area

Page | 90

Fig 72. Loughs Agency WFD fish surveillance water body classifications 2012 Carlingford area

Page | 91

5.0

SEMI QUANTITATIVE/SALMON MANAGEMENT PLAN CLASSIFICATIONS

During 2012 the NI WFD Fish Group continued to develop and refine 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 would greatly facilitate the ability to highlight pressures within specific waterbodies and to 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 or as Poor or worse 5. Use the most recent years data The maps below provide an overview of results for the application of this method within the Foyle and Carlingford areas in 2012. GIS shape files containing the raw data behind these maps including site id’s has been provided to NIEA. It should be noted that fewer than average sites were surveyed in 2012 using the semi quantitative/salmon management plan method due to prolonged high water during the 2012 survey season. A significant number of water bodies were classified. For waterbodies that were classified using both methods one site in the Foyle area and one site in the Carlingford area were in disagreement. In all cases the FCS2 (Ireland) tool classified the waterbody one grade higher. This is deemed to be acceptable under a precautionary approach.

Page | 92

Fig 73. Foyle area Semi quantitative/salmon management plan derived indicative water body classifications 2012

Page | 93

Fig 74. Carlingford area Semi quantitative/salmon management plan derived indicative water body classifications 2012

Page | 94

Fig 75. Foyle area combined WFD surveillance and semi quantitative/salmon management plan classifications 2012

Page | 95

Fig 76. Carlingford area combined WFD surveillance and semi quantitative/salmon management plan classifications 2012

Page | 96

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 2012. Site Id

Site Name

Professional Opinion Classification

FCS2 Classification

F10020

DUNNYBOE BURN AT DUNNYBOE BR SKEOGE RIVER AT ELAGH ROAD FINN (FOYLE) R AT CLADY BR GLENMORNAN R AT CATHERINES BR JERRETTSPASS R AT JERRETTSPASS NEWRY R AT DAMOLLY ROW CONEYGLEN BURN AT CONEYGLEN BR OWENKILLEW R AT MONANAMEAL BR STRULE R AT MOYLE BR

Good

High

Poor

Moderate

Good

Moderate

Good

Moderate

Good

Moderate

Good

F10763 F10025 F10014 F10626 F11204 F10076 F10077 F10086 F10089

Good Good CAPPAGH BURN AT TATTYNURE BR Poor Moderate F10644 KILBRONEY R AT NEWTOWN BR Table 14. WFD surveillance site classifications 2012. Comparison with professional opinion, FCS2 (Ireland) and professional opinion over ride.

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 Page | 97

survey data. Adoption of the FCS2 (Ireland) model 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. 60

Professional Opinion

Percentage

27 18

20 9

FCS2

0 High

0 Good

Moderate

Poor

0 Bad

Classification

Fig 77. Percentage of water bodies in each class determined using professional opinion and FCS2 (Ireland) classification methods for the Foyle and Carlingford areas 2012.

REFERENCES CEN (2003) Water Quality – Sampling of Fish with Electricity. European Standard. Ref. No. EN14011:2000. 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 | 98