Issuu

STATUS REPORT 2010

2010 River Finn and Tributaries Catchment Status Report

Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission

Page 1 of 78 Report Ref: LA/CSR/09/11

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

River Finn and Tributaries Catchment Status Report 2010

Report Reference LA/CSR/09/11 Headquarters 22, Victoria Road Londonderry BT47 2AB Northern Ireland

Picture of maturing cock salmon courtesy of Atlantic Salmon Trust

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

Written and prepared by: Art Niven Rico Santiago Mairead O’Connor & Declan Lawlor

Tel+353(0)42 938 3888 Fax+353(0)42 938 3888 carlingford@loughs‐ agency.org www.loughs‐agency.org Page 2 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Table of Contents

1.0

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 8

1.1

The Finn Catchment .................................................................................................. 10

Fig 1.1 Mid section and upper section of the River Finn. ............................................... 10 Fig 1.11. Finn catchment topographical map with river network. ................................. 11 1.2

Atlantic Salmon and Sea Trout .................................................................................. 12

1.3

Non Salmonid Fish Species ........................................................................................ 12

Fig 1.3 Sample of fish from the Foyle estuary ................................................................ 12 2.0

ATLANTIC SALMON STOCKS ........................................................................................... 13

2.1

Redd Counts .............................................................................................................. 13

Table 2.1 Redd counts for Foyle system and Finn catchment 2005/06 – 2010/11. *Note 2006/07 had extremely poor water conditions for redd counting ................................ 13 Fig 2.1 Redd counts for Foyle system and Finn catchment 2005/06 – 2010/11. *Note 2006/07 had extremely poor water conditions for redd counting. ............................... 14 Fig 2.11 Redd counts for Foyle system 1952/53 – 2010/11 ........................................... 14 2.2

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

Table 2.2 Loughs Agency semi‐quantitative electrofishing classification system for 0+ salmon and trout ............................................................................................................ 16 Fig 2.21 River Finn catchment salmon fry index 2005‐2010, based on mean salmon fry numbers at 11 standard sites surveyed annually........................................................... 16 Fig 2.22. The mean abundance of salmon fry in 16 catchments in 2010 from semi quantitative electrofishing. *Note above graph is mean for 2010 at all sites surveyed. ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Fig 2.23 Salmon 0+ electrofishing site classification 2010 ............................................. 18 3.0

TROUT STOCKS................................................................................................................ 19 Fig 3 Electrofishing survey and trout parr ...................................................................... 19 Fig 3.1 River Finn catchment trout fry index 2005‐2010, based on mean salmon fry numbers at 11 standard sites surveyed annually........................................................... 19 Fig 3.11. The mean abundance of trout fry in 16 catchments in 2010 from semi quantitative electrofishing. *Note above graph is mean for 2010 at all sites surveyed. ........................................................................................................................................ 20 Fig 3.12 Trout 0+ electrofishing site classification 2010 ................................................ 21 Page 3 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Fig 3.13 Salmon and Trout fry distribution 2010............................................................ 22 Fig 3.15 Total salmonid (salmon/trout fry and parr) distribution 2010 ......................... 23 Fig 3.16 Eel presence as recorded during semi quantitative electrofishing surveys 2010. *Note technique used is designed specifically for salmonids. ....................................... 24 Fig 3.17 Lamprey presence as recorded during semi quantitative electrofishing surveys 2010. *Note technique used is designed specifically for salmonids. Further surveys will be required to accurately monitor lamprey populations. .............................................. 25 Fig 3.18 Stickleback presence as recorded during semi quantitative electrofishing surveys 2010. *Note technique used is designed specifically for salmonids. ................ 26 Fig 3.18 Stoneloach presence as recorded during semi quantitative electrofishing surveys 2010. *Note technique used is designed specifically for salmonids. ................ 27 Fig 3.19 Minnow presence as recorded during semi quantitative electrofishing surveys 2010. *Note technique used is designed specifically for salmonids. ............................. 28 4.0

MARINE SURVIVAL .......................................................................................................... 29 Table 4 Marine survival rates for the River Bush of 1SW grilse (after exploitation at sea) pre 1996 and 2002‐2009 smolt cohort. Data supplied by Agri Food and Bioscience Institute, River Bush Salmon Research Station .............................................................. 29 Fig 4 Marine survey areas for salmon in 2008 ............................................................... 30 Fig 4.1 Marine survey areas for salmon in 2009 ............................................................ 31 Fig 4a RV Celtic Explorer SALSEA research cruise........................................................... 32 Figure 4c Rotary screw trap in position on the River Finn directly below the adult trap at Killygordon fish counting station................................................................................ 33 Table 4.01 Numbers and average weight and length of salmon smolts tagged on the River Finn 2002‐2006. Coded Wire Tagging equipment was purchased by the Loughs Agency in 2005 with funding secured from the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IIIA Programme, administered by the Environment and Heritage Service, on behalf of the Department of Environment. .................................. 33 Table 4.02 Recapture data from River Finn CWT programme. Tagging has not taken place on the River Finn since 2006 ................................................................................. 34 Figure 4d Salmon smolt run timing and abundance from rotary screw trap sub sample, River Finn 2004‐2006. Breaks in data are due to closure of trap during high water conditions ....................................................................................................................... 34 Fig 4e From top to bottom, Atlantic salmon smolts from the Finn Catchment, sea lamprey, brook lamprey and river lamprey also caught in the River Finn smolt trap ... 35

5.0

ADULT ABUNDANCE ....................................................................................................... 36

5.1

Recreational Fisheries ............................................................................................... 36 Page 4 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Table 5.1 Declared rod catch returns for salmon and trout in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. Note figures include the Clanrye and Whitewater in the Carlingford area from 2001 onwards. Carcass tagging was introduced in 2001. *Denotes all trout. ^ Compulsory catch and release introduced in 2010 ........................................................ 36 Table 5.1 Salmon rod catch ............................................................................................ 37 Table 5.11 Declared catch from the Finn catchment for salmon and sea trout 2001‐ 2010 *Denotes all trout. ^ Compulsory catch and release introduced in 2010. ........... 38 Fig 5.1 Angler on the river .............................................................................................. 38 5.2

Commercial Fisheries ................................................................................................ 38

Table 5.2 Declared catch from the commercial salmon fisheries 1998‐2009. Note 100% rate of catch returns. * Reduced numbers of commercial nets operating in the Foyle area from 2007. No commercial Atlantic salmon fisheries have been pursued in the Foyle area since 2009 as a result of the enforcement of The Foyle Area (Control of Fishing) Regulations 2010, this does not prevent the reinstatement of commercial fisheries if prescribed conditions are met in the future. ............................................... 39 Fig 5.21 Commercial Fishing. Draft netting on the tidal River Foyle and drift netting in Lough Foyle ..................................................................................................................... 39 5.3

Counters .................................................................................................................... 40

Fig 5.3 Fish counting facilities at Killygordon, River Finn ............................................... 40 Table 5.3 Killygordon fish counter figures 2002‐2010 ................................................... 40 Fig 5.31 Monthly fish count at Killygordon in 2010........................................................ 41 Fig 5.32 Annual fish counts on the River Finn 2001‐2010 .............................................. 42 5.4

Conservation Limits/Spawning targets ..................................................................... 43

Table 5.4 River Finn declared salmon rod catch as a % of fish over the fish counter .... 43 Table 5.41 River Finn estimated egg deposition 2002‐2010 .......................................... 44 6.0

HABITAT MONITORING................................................................................................... 45 Fig 6.0 Life cycle unit depicting the type of habitat found in spawning, nursery and holding zones .................................................................................................................. 45 Fig 6.01 Examples of spawning, nursery and holding habitat ........................................ 45 Fig 6.02 Habitat overview key for Finn catchment......................................................... 46 Fig 6.03 Finn catchment habitat survey map 1 .............................................................. 47 Fig 6.04 Finn catchment habitat survey map 2 .............................................................. 48 Fig 6.05 Finn catchment habitat survey map 4 .............................................................. 49 Fig 6.06 Finn catchment habitat survey map 5 .............................................................. 50 Page 5 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Fig 6.07 Finn catchment habitat survey map 6 .............................................................. 51 7.0

LAND USE ........................................................................................................................ 52 Fig 7.0 Finn catchment land use classification ............................................................... 52 Fig 7.01 Finn catchment land use classification map ..................................................... 53

8.0

WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................. 54 Fig 8.0 Loughs Agency chemical water quality testing in the laboratory....................... 54 Figure 8.0. Flattened mayfly nymph, high scoring macro invertebrate indicative of good water quality.......................................................................................................... 56 Fig 8.01 Finn catchment average suspended solids results 2010. Values are in mg/l ... 57 Fig 8.02 Finn catchment Ammonia results 2010. Values are in mg/l ............................. 58 Fig 8.03 Finn catchment phosphorous results 2010. Values are in mg/l ....................... 59 Fig 8.04 Finn catchment Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) results 2010. Values are in mg/l ................................................................................................................................. 60 Fig 8.05 Finn catchment Biological Monitoring Working Party results 2010 ................. 61 Table 8.0. Favourable condition targets for Atlantic salmon ......................................... 63 Figure 8.06. Overall WFD surface water status for the Finn catchment 2009. No updates available for 2010 at time of writing ................................................................ 64

8.1

WFD Fish Classifications 2010 ................................................................................... 65

Figure 8.13. WFD fish classifications in the Foyle system. Note classifications are based on professional judgement. All data needs to be run through final fish tool model ..... 67 Table 9.14 Depletion sampling results from quantitative electrofishing survey on the Stranagoppoge, tributary of the River Finn, 2010 .......................................................... 68 Table 9.15 Species and numbers caught ........................................................................ 68 Table 9.16 Density of species by age class per 100m2................................................... 68 Figure 9.17 Length frequency distribution of juvenile salmon ...................................... 69 Figure 9.18 Length weight relationship of juvenile trout ............................................... 69 9.0

CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION ................................................................................ 70 Table 9.0 Breakdown of conservation and protection duties, Finn catchment 2006‐ 2010. ............................................................................................................................... 70 Table 10.1 Seized nets, salmon, rod/reels and vehicles in the Foyle system 2002‐2010 ........................................................................................................................................ 70 Table 9.02 Seizures in the Finn catchment 2006‐2010 .................................................. 70

10.1

Habitat Improvement Works ................................................................................. 71

Page 6 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ............................................................................................. 71 11.0 DESIGNATED AREAS ...................................................................................................... 72 12.0 GENETIC STUDY ............................................................................................................. 73 13.0 POLLUTION MONITORING ............................................................................................ 74 14.0 OTHER SURVEYS ............................................................................................................ 74 15.0 FISHERY OFFICERS FINN AREA REPORT 2010 ............................................................... 75 15.1

Fishery Officers Report .......................................................................................... 75

16.0 ACTIONS FOR 2011 ....................................................................................................... 75 16.1

Foyle and Carlingford Areas Ongoing Actions for 2011 ........................................ 75

16.2

Finn Catchment Potential Habitat Improvement Schemes for 2011 .................... 77

16.3

Finn Catchment Specific Actions for 2011 ............................................................. 77

Page 7 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

River Finn and Tributaries Catchment Status Report 2010 1.0

INTRODUCTION

Welcome to the 2010 series of Loughs Agency catchment status reports. Written in 2011 and reporting on 2010 the reports provide a review of fisheries and other associated information collected and management measures implemented within the freshwater catchments of the Foyle and Carlingford areas. This is one of an annual series of catchment status reports produced by the Loughs Agency. The primary objective of the catchment status reports is to disseminate catchment specific information to all interested stakeholders. The reports continue to be consulted widely by a variety of stakeholders including local angling associations, fishery owners, statutory bodies, environmental consultants, students, conservation Non Governmental Organisations and private individuals. The catchment status reports provide summary data which demonstrates the work that the Loughs Agency conducts within specific catchments and outlines catchment specific objectives. 2010 witnessed significant regulatory change within the Foyle area with the implementation of the Foyle Area (Control of Fishing) Regulations 2010. This regulation expanded upon existing regulation governing the in season management of commercial and recreational Atlantic salmon and trout fisheries. The regulation also created a mechanism for regulating fisheries based on an assessment of the attainment of management targets for returning adult Atlantic salmon. In the event that set numbers of fish have not ascended key fish counter sites on the Rivers Roe, Faughan, Mourne and Finn prescribed management actions including suspension of commercial fisheries and recreational fisheries can be made. Additionally if management targets have not been met for a prescribed number of years the recreational fisheries can be made to adhere to compulsory catch and release and the commercial fisheries curtailed until prescribed conditions are met. Due to the failure of the River Finn in Co Donegal to meet its management target for the prescribed period the commercial fisheries in Lough Foyle and the River Foyle were suspended in 2010 and the recreational game fisheries in the Rivers Foyle and Finn became compulsory catch and release. Populations of Atlantic salmon are currently experiencing the lowest levels of marine survival on record. The Loughs Agency is continuing to conserve and protect the freshwater resources and habitats of the Foyle and Carlingford areas to ensure optimum conditions are available for all fish populations and the aquatic and riparian ecosystems that they form an integral part of. Page 8 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

The theme for the 2010 series of catchment status reports is fisheries biodiversity, monitoring and conservation. In 2010 the Loughs Agency in partnership with other statutory agencies has developed monitoring programmes for salmonids, lake fish, lampreys and European smelt. A series of individual reports on these surveys are available at www.loughs-agency.org under the publications section. 2010 saw the first specific lamprey surveys which we hope can contribute towards condition monitoring reports under reporting requirements for the European Union Habitats Directive. Baseline surveys of the native European smelt another fish species of conservation importance were also conducted demonstrating the diversity of fish populations within the Foyle and Carlingford areas. A number of lake fish surveys following sampling methodologies developed under the Water Framework Directive were conducted in addition to the annual Water Framework Directive fish in rivers monitoring programme. Other partnership programmes were also developed including the Lough Derg, wild trout conservation project. The increasing diversity of freshwater monitoring programmes within the Foyle and Carlingford areas contributes towards the development of the area for sustainable recreation sympathetic towards the significant biodiversity resources present throughout the catchments. All these programmes and more are presented and discussed across the 2010 series of fourteen catchment status reports. Loughs Agency staff have continued to contribute significantly towards the conservation and protection of the fishery and aquatic resources of the Foyle and Carlingford areas, encouraging partnership building and actively engaging in participatory processes designed to ensure the sustainable development of our aquatic resources.

Page 9 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

1.1

The Finn Catchment

The River Finn rises in the Bluestack mountain range in central County Donegal, Republic of Ireland and drains in a predominantly easterly direction until its confluence with the tidal River Foyle in the Lifford/Strabane area. The underlying geology of the catchment is dominated by Dalradian schists and gneiss with quartzites forming the hills around Lough Finn. The catchment contains habitats and species of great diversity with blanket bog present throughout much of the upland area along the edges of the rivers and tributaries. Many oligotrophic (nutrient poor) lakes are present throughout the catchment. The dominant land use types include commercial coniferous forestry plantations and upland grazing changing to lowland grazing with arable farmland in the lower reaches. The River Finn and tributaries have a channel length of approximately 101 km and has a catchment area of 494 km².The Finn catchment is impacted upon by a wide range of anthropogenic factors within both the terrestrial and aquatic environments. A diverse array of impacts include amongst others; agriculture, sand and gravel extraction, commercial forestry, commercial and recreational fishing, industry, water abstraction, sewage treatment, diffuse and point source pollution, invasive plant species, urban sprawl and flood defences. Increasing pressures on the aquatic environment within the Finn catchment requires appropriate monitoring, control and remediation if native biodiversity is to be preserved. As the competent authority for fishery issues within the catchment the Loughs Agency are required to fulfil a variety of national and international obligations. European Directives including the Habitats Directive and Water Framework Directive and the transposing national legislation have assisted in creating a legislative framework in which to drive forward sustainable management of riparian and aquatic habitats and the native species which inhabit them.

Fig 1.1 Mid section and upper section of the River Finn.

Page 10 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

Fig 1.11. Finn catchment topographical map with river network.

Page 11 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

1.2

Atlantic Salmon and Sea Trout

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

Non Salmonid Fish Species

As highlighted earlier populations of other non salmonid fish species occur within the Finn catchment. In the past monitoring was targeted at salmonid species however with obligations under the Water Framework Directive other non salmonid fish species are being monitored more closely. Fish species presence and abundance can act as a good environmental/ecological indicator demonstrating the ability of the aquatic habitat to support a diverse array of native species. Populations of the European Eel, Stickleback, smelt, River/Brook and Sea Lamprey form an important part of the native fisheries biodiversity of the Finn catchment. Maintaining high standards of water quality and appropriate habitat for these species is essential for the overall health of the aquatic ecosystem.

Fig 1.3 Sample of fish from the Foyle estuary

Page 12 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

2.0

ATLANTIC SALMON STOCKS

In order to describe the status of salmon stocks each of the following points need to be considered: • • • • •

2.1

Redd Counts Juvenile abundance Marine survival Adult abundance Exploitation

Redd Counts

Redds are spawning nests created by salmon or trout. Differentiation between salmon and trout redds can be made as salmon redds tend to be larger in size and trout tend to spawn earlier than salmon within the Foyle system. Research within the Foyle system using extensive annual redd count data has highlighted a good relationship between the number of redds and the total annual catch of salmon. Table 2.1 shows redd count data for the Finn catchment and the Foyle. Water flow is of significance when monitoring redds as in high water conditions the ability to see and count redds in rivers is impaired. Figure 2.12 outlines redd counts within the Foyle area and the Finn catchment. 2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

2010/11

Foyle System

5354

*1338

3039

5507

4000

3382

Finn Catchment

684

*282

646

586

401

471

Finn as a % of Foyle

*21

Table 2.1 Redd counts for Foyle system and Finn catchment 2005/06 – 2010/11. *Note 2006/07 had extremely poor water conditions for redd counting

Page 13 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Finn Redd Count 6000

5507

5354

Finn Catchment Foyle System

5000

Number of Redds

4000 4000 3382 3039 3000 2000 1338 1000

684

646

586

2007/8

2008/9

282

401

471

2009/10

2010/11

0 2005/6

2006/7

Year Fig 2.1 Redd counts for Foyle system and Finn catchment 2005/06 – 2010/11. *Note 2006/07 had extremely poor water conditions for redd counting.

Foyle Area Redd Count 1952/53‐2010/11 25000

Number of Redds

20000

15000

10000

5000

1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002/3 2004/5 2006/7 2008/9 2010/11

Year Fig 2.11 Redd counts for Foyle system 1952/53 – 2010/11

Page 14 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

2.2

Juvenile Abundance

Within the Loughs Agency jurisdiction trends in abundance of juvenile salmonids are monitored by annual semi-quantitative electrofishing surveys. The numbers, age and species of fish captured during five minute timed electrofishing surveys are compared with previous year’s data allowing for change to be monitored, facilitating suitable fishery management practices to be implemented. In 2010 a total of 473 sites were semi-quantitatively electrofished within the Foyle system. The results for each site for salmon and trout are classified as excellent (>25 fish), good (15-24 fish), fair (5-15 fish), poor (1-4 fish) and absent (0 fish), Table 2.2. Figures 2.21 - 2.22 outline the salmon 0+ electrofishing results and site classifications for the Finn catchment in 2010. Please consult previous status reports for site classifications in other years. Semi-quantitative electrofishing was developed to monitor 0+ salmonids (fry/young of the year). In order to quantify the abundance of 1+ salmonids (parr and older) fully quantitative electrofishing surveys are required which can be used to calculate fish densities within a defined area. Rivers and tributaries with good environmental quality are more likely to support good populations of each year class. Fish populations can vary considerably over time and location, it is therefore necessary to monitor the populations over a period of years to highlight meaningful trends before considering remedial activities such as habitat improvement works. These trends are being continually monitored by the Loughs Agency and the most appropriate management options considered. There are a variety of reasons why electrofishing sites may be perceived to be under producing, these can include, lack of suitable juvenile habitat, the presence of impassable obstacles to migratory fish species on lower sections of a tributary, pollution, inconsiderate channel maintenance, tunnelling by bank side vegetation, stream gradient and poor forestry practices etc. The critical point is to recognise the major factors at play and to investigate all possible reasons for underproduction accepting that there may be inherent reasons as to why production may not be improved upon in certain areas. When the same areas are surveyed for other non salmonid species it may be discovered that they provide habitat more suited to these species. Habitat improvement works and the rationale behind them are discussed in greater detail later. Obligations under the Water Framework Directive are driving quantitative surveys of both salmonid and non salmonid species under proposed Surveillance, Operational, Investigative and Protected Area monitoring programmes.

Page 15 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Symbol

Grade

Number of 0+ Salmonids

Excellent

>25

Good

15-24

Fair

5-14

Poor

1-4

Absent

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

Finn Average Salmon Fry (2005‐2010) 14 12 Average Fry/5 Minute Fishing

12 Salmon 0+

10 10

9 8

8 6

4 2 0 2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year Fig 2.21 River Finn catchment salmon fry index 2005-2010, based on mean salmon fry numbers at 11 standard sites surveyed annually.

Page 16 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

Summary of Salmon Fry Semi Quantitative Electrofishing Results 2010 70 61

47 44 38

23 20

5 2

1 Fairywater

Glenmornan

Owenreagh S

Average Fry/5 Minute Fishing

0 Foyle South

Deele

Strule

Finn

Drumagh

Camowen

Glenelly

Derg

Burn Dennet

Owenkillew

Roe

Faughan

Owenreagh East

Catchment

Fig 2.22. The mean abundance of salmon fry in 16 catchments in 2010 from semi quantitative electrofishing. *Note above graph is mean for 2010 at all sites surveyed.

Page 17 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Fig 2.23 Salmon 0+ electrofishing site classification 2010 Page 18 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

3.0

TROUT STOCKS

Annual trends in the populations of juvenile trout are also monitored within the Loughs Agency jurisdiction using the same methodology and classification system as those employed for salmon. The semi quantitative electrofishing results for trout fry in the Finn catchment and site classifications are displayed in Figs 3.1, 3.11 & 3.12.

Fig 3 Electrofishing survey and trout parr

Finn Average Trout Fry (2005‐2010) 8 7 7 Average Fry/5 Minute Fishing

Trout 0+ 6 5 4 3

3 2

1 1 0 2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

Fig 3.1 River Finn catchment trout fry index 2005-2010, based on mean salmon fry numbers at 11 standard sites surveyed annually. Page 19 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

Summary of Trout Fry Semi Quantitative Electrofishing Results 2010

60 51

20 13

1 Finn

Derg

Fairywater

Deele

Drumagh

Owenreagh East

Owenreagh S

Glenelly

Strule

Camowen

Burn Dennet

Roe

Faughan

Glenmornan

Foyle South

0 Owenkillew

Average Fry/5 Minute Fishing

Catchment

Fig 3.11. The mean abundance of trout fry in 16 catchments in 2010 from semi quantitative electrofishing. *Note above graph is mean for 2010 at all sites surveyed. Page 20 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

Fig 3.12 Trout 0+ electrofishing site classification 2010 Page 21 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

Fig 3.13 Salmon and Trout fry distribution 2010.

Page 22 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Fig 3.15 Total salmonid (salmon/trout fry and parr) distribution 2010

Page 23 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

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

Page 24 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Fig 3.17 Lamprey presence as recorded during semi quantitative electrofishing surveys 2010. *Note technique used is designed specifically for salmonids. Further surveys will be required to accurately monitor lamprey populations.

Page 25 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

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

Page 26 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

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

Page 27 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

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

Page 28 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

4.0

MARINE SURVIVAL

The numbers of salmon that survive to return to the freshwater environment are greatly influenced by conditions in the marine environment. Climate change leading to changes in sea surface temperatures, prey abundance, high seas fishing, marine pollution, sub lethal levels of pollution and predation all have an effect on the Atlantic salmon and indeed other migratory fish species chances of survival. Marine survival trends are monitored on a number of index rivers in the North East Atlantic where total trapping facilities are available for both migrating juvenile and adult populations. Total trapping allows for an accurate count of all migrant smolts (total freshwater production) and returning adults to be made and therefore an accurate estimate of marine survival. These projects are facilitated by the use of Coded Wire Tags (CWT). Coded wire tags are small (2-3mm long) micro tags that are injected automatically by a CWT device into the snout cartilage of anaesthetised fish remaining there for the duration of the life of the fish. CWT fish also have their adipose fin (small fin between the dorsal fin and caudal fin (tail fin)) removed so that they can be identified in the various fisheries that may intercept them. In Ireland a comprehensive screening programme is conducted at all major landing ports and markets. This programme is important in monitoring the effect of the remaining salmon fisheries on salmon stocks from rivers both within and outside of the island of Ireland. Trends in marine survival for the River Bush (nearest index river to the Foyle system) confirm patterns observed elsewhere on the southern stocks of North Eastern Atlantic salmon, which indicate that marine survival can be variable between stocks and years. In the River Bush marine survival has decreased considerably over recent years as outlined in Table 4. Year of Smolt Cohort Pre 1996 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year of Returning 1SW Grilse Pre 1998 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Marine Survival % Circa 30% 5.9 4.3 4.6 4.2 13.0 7.5 3.3 4.9

Table 4 Marine survival rates for the River Bush of 1SW grilse (after exploitation at sea) pre 1996 and 2002-2009 smolt cohort. Data supplied by Agri Food and Bioscience Institute, River Bush Salmon Research Station

Page 29 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

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

Fig 4 Marine survey areas for salmon in 2008

Page 30 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Fig 4.1 Marine survey areas for salmon in 2009

Page 31 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Fig 4a RV Celtic Explorer SALSEA research cruise

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

Page 32 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

From 2002 to 2006 partial smolt trapping including CWT tagging has been conducted in the Finn catchment using a rotary screw trap, Fig 4c.

Figure 4c Rotary screw trap in position on the River Finn directly below the adult trap at Killygordon fish counting station.

Smolt trapping can have a number of objectives including the monitoring of both salmonid and non salmonid species. Sampling of the age composition, obtaining information on run timing and recording length/weight data is conducted in tandem with the tagging programme. As mentioned above total counts of migrating smolts can be made on rivers. Where this is unfeasible due to the absence of total trapping facilities, total smolt migration can be estimated by means of a mark-recapture experiment. Tables 4.01 and 4.02 outline numbers of salmon smolts tagged from 2002-2006 (no tagging took place in 2007, 2008 and 2009) and recapture data for 2003 to 2008. Year

Number of Smolts Mean Length (cm) Tagged

Mean Weight (g)

2002

690

12.5

19.8

2003

2252

12.7

20.2

2004

773

12.2

18.0

2005

390

12.9

20.5

2006

779

12.0

19.3

Table 4.01 Numbers and average weight and length of salmon smolts tagged on the River Finn 20022006. Coded Wire Tagging equipment was purchased by the Loughs Agency in 2005 with funding secured from the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IIIA Programme, administered by the Environment and Heritage Service, on behalf of the Department of Environment.

Page 33 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Year Tagged

Year Recaptured

Numbers Recaptured

Recapture Location

2002

2003 2004

10 1

Donegal, Foyle Area, North Coast, Mayo, Galway and River Finn

2003

2004

Donegal, Foyle Area, Mayo, Kerry, River Finn

2004

2005

Greencastle

2005

2006

Torr Head

2006

2007

2008

Ballycastle, River Finn, Lough Foyle and Greencastle River Finn

Table 4.02 Recapture data from River Finn CWT programme. Tagging has not taken place on the River Finn since 2006

2004

River Finn

2005

200 150 100 50

15/05/2004

13/05/2004

11/05/2004

09/05/2004

07/05/2004

05/05/2004

03/05/2004

01/05/2004

29/04/2004

27/04/2004

25/04/2004

23/04/2004

21/04/2004

19/04/2004

17/04/2004

15/04/2004

13/04/2004

11/04/2004

09/04/2004

07/04/2004

0 05/04/2004

Number of Salmon Smolt Trapped

2006

250

Date

Figure 4d Salmon smolt run timing and abundance from rotary screw trap sub sample, River Finn 2004-2006. Breaks in data are due to closure of trap during high water conditions

Page 34 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

All micro-tagged fish have had their adipose fin removed (small fin between dorsal fin and tail), if any fisher catches a salmon or grilse without this fin a bounty is payable on the return of the fish head to Loughs Agency Headquarters in Prehen, please include location and date fish was caught, length, weight and scale sample.

Fig 4e From top to bottom, Atlantic salmon smolts from the Finn Catchment, sea lamprey, brook lamprey and river lamprey also caught in the River Finn smolt trap

Page 35 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

5.0

ADULT ABUNDANCE

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

5.1

Recreational Fisheries

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

Declared Rod Catch Salmon

Declared Rod Catch Sea Trout

Returns as a % of Licences Issued

1999

1022

679

3.74

2000

723

417

2.55

2001

3188

450

17.68

2002

5117

1010

27.93

2003

1844

361

15.5

2004

2285

13.99

2005

4084

413

25.77

2006

3476

469

2007

4929

379

22.11

2008

4060

815

54.94

2009

2923

*550

43.88

2010

4234

329

55.75

STATUS REPORT 2010

Salmon Rod Catch 1952 ‐ 2010 18000 Reported Rod Catch 16000 Corrected Rod Catch 14000

Number of Salmon

12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

1970

1968

1966

1964

1962

1960

1958

1956

1954

1952

Year

Table 5.1 Salmon rod catch Page 37 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

Year

Declared Catch Finn Catchment Salmon 1162 2263 590 627 1128 780 805 607 557 312

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Declared Catch Finn Catchment Sea Trout 66 295 50 5 26 71 52 29 *62 3

Table 5.11 Declared catch from the Finn catchment for salmon and sea trout 2001-2010 *Denotes all trout. ^ Compulsory catch and release introduced in 2010.

Fig 5.1 Angler on the river

5.2

Commercial Fisheries

Commercial fisheries have traditionally operated within the Foyle sea area, Lough Foyle and tidal River Foyle. The drift net and draft net fisheries as well as the rod fisheries have been closely regulated with a real time management regime in place to monitor the numbers of fish migrating up key rivers. If predetermined numbers of fish have not been counted by the strategically placed electronic fish counters at Sion Mills weir (River Mourne), Campsie Barrage (River Faughan) and the Plumb Hole (River Roe) then specified closures of the commercial and/or recreational fisheries are enforced. Page 38 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

In 2007 new regulations were introduced to reduce the number of commercial nets operating within the Foyle area and all mixed stock interceptory drift nets seaward of Lough Foyle were curtailed. This decision was made to comply with the EU Habitats Directive, similar curtailment of mixed stock fisheries were introduced in the Republic of Ireland. Within the Foyle area this was achieved through a voluntary hardship scheme. Regulations were also introduced to limit the numbers of fish which could be retained by the recreational rod fishery throughout the Foyle and Carlingford areas. In 2010 The Foyle Area (Control of Fishing) Regulations 2010 were introduced which prescribes conditions for the suspension of the remaining commercial fisheries and the enforcement of catch and release on the recreational fisheries if pre determined numbers of fish are not recorded at key fish counting sites and attainment of prescribed management targets are not met against listed criteria. Year

Drift Catch

Draft Catch

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 *2007 2008 2009

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

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

Total Drift and Draft 42437 23290 32672 22976 40768 32732 22290 25534 12176 5372 4164 1937

Table 5.2 Declared catch from the commercial salmon fisheries 1998-2009. Note 100% rate of catch returns. * Reduced numbers of commercial nets operating in the Foyle area from 2007. No commercial Atlantic salmon fisheries have been pursued in the Foyle area since 2009 as a result of the enforcement of The Foyle Area (Control of Fishing) Regulations 2010, this does not prevent the reinstatement of commercial fisheries if prescribed conditions are met in the future.

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

Page 39 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

5.3

Counters

Within the Foyle system a number of river catchments have electronic fish counting facilities that provide estimates on the run timing and abundance of fish >45cm. The Killygordon fish counting station (Fig 5.3) counts fish destined for all tributaries of the River Finn located upstream of this point. A time series of counts for the Killygordon fish counting station on the River Finn is outlined in table 5.3.

Fig 5.3 Fish counting facilities at Killygordon, River Finn

Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Number of fish >45cm 5768 6461 3778 8571 5770 3278 3185 2153 1421

Table 5.3 Killygordon fish counter figures 2002-2010

Page 40 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

River Finn Fish Counter Figures 2004‐2010 5000 2004

4500

2005

4000

2006

Number of Fish > 45cm

3500

2007

3000

2008 2500 2009 2000 2010 1500 1000 500 0 JAN

FEB

MAR

‐500

APR

MAY

JUN

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Year

Fig 5.31 Monthly fish count at Killygordon in 2010

Page 41 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

River Finn Electronic Fish Counter Figures 2001‐2010 9000

8571

8000

7000

6461 5768

Number of Fish > 45cm

6000

5748

5000 3778

4000 3311

3278

3185

3000 2153 2000 1421 1000

0 2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

Fig 5.32 Annual fish counts on the River Finn 2001-2010

Page 42 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

5.4

Conservation Limits/Spawning targets

Another way to assess adult salmon stock status is to monitor run sizes on rivers and to compare them with predefined reference points called conservation limits. In the Foyle system the conservation limits define a level of spawning that optimises the sustainable catch by commercial and recreational fisheries. If exploitation rates increase above the sustainable catch levels the catch may increase in the short-term but the stock will eventually reduce. Conservation limits demarcate the spawning stock level at which recruitment would begin to decline significantly (NASCO). The real time management regime incorporating the setting of management targets and spawning targets implemented in the Foyle aims to manage the fisheries and spawning populations in a sustainable manner. The management and spawning targets are set for the various river catchments based on the amount and quality of nursery habitat present. River habitat surveys are carried out along each stretch of river and graded according to the type and quality. Egg deposition levels are set according to the quality grading of each section of nursery habitat. There are four grades of nursery habitat, however for the purpose of setting egg deposition levels only grades 1-3 are utilised. Grade 1 denotes the best quality habitat. The egg deposition rate/carrying capacity is set as follows. Grade 1 = 10 eggs per m², grade 2 = 5 eggs per m² and grade 3 = 2.5 eggs per m². The total number of eggs is calculated by multiplying the area of each grade of nursery habitat by the appropriate density of eggs per m². 25% is deducted from the management target allowing for loss of salmon by angling (15%) and poaching and predation (10%). The remaining figure is referred to as the conservation limit/spawning target. Year

No of Fish Across Counter

Declared Rod Catch (Salmon)

2002

5768

2263

Declared Rod Catch as a % of Fish Over Counter 39

2003

6461

590

2004

3778

627

2005

8571

1128

2006

5770

780

2007

3278

805

2008

3185

607

2009

2153

557

2010

1421

312

Table 5.4 River Finn declared salmon rod catch as a % of fish over the fish counter

Page 43 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Once the number of eggs required for each river has been established this can be converted to a total number of fish required to achieve the management targets and conservation limit/spawning targets. The average fecundity (number of eggs produced per female) of Foyle salmon has been estimated at 2500 and the ratio of female to male salmon estimated at 60:40. When combined with the amount of nursery habitat of the various grades this equates to the conservation limit/spawning target. A management target of 5410 adult Atlantic salmon has been set for the Finn Catchment, this equates to a conservation limit/spawning target of 4328. Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

No of Fish Across Counter 5768 6461 3778 8571 5770 3278 3185 2153 1421

Estimated Egg Deposition 6,489,000 7,268,625 4,250,250 9,642,375 6,491,250 3,687,750 3,583,125 2,422,125 1,598,625

Table 5.41 River Finn estimated egg deposition 2002-2010

Page 44 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

6.0

HABITAT MONITORING

The Loughs Agency has carried out extensive habitat surveys on all the major rivers and tributaries within the Foyle and Carlingford catchments. Habitat surveys are carried out on foot. Although time consuming this is at present the best method for classifying the various grades of habitat. Habitat is classified into one of three life cycle units Fig 6.0, the presence and order of which is essential to the productive capacity of a salmonid river. Other non salmonid species also benefit from diverse in-channel habitat. The life cycle unit categories include spawning, nursery and holding habitat. Each category is then graded on a scale of 1-4, 1 representing the best quality attainable and 4 the worst. Other data collected during these surveys include channel width and impassable barriers to migratory fish species.

Fig 6.0 Life cycle unit depicting the type of habitat found in spawning, nursery and holding zones

Fig 6.01 Examples of spawning, nursery and holding habitat

Page 45 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

5 6

3 4 2 1

Finn Habitat Overview

8 Kilometers

Fig 6.02 Habitat overview key for Finn catchment

Page 46 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Habitat Survey Ungraded 1 Nursery 2 Nursery 3 Nursery 4 Nursery 1 Holding 2 Holding 3 Holding 4 Holding 1 Spawning 2 Spawning 3 Spawning 4 Spawning

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 Kilometers

Finn Habitat Survey 1

Fig 6.03 Finn catchment habitat survey map 1

Page 47 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Habitat Survey Ungraded 1 Nursery 2 Nursery 3 Nursery 4 Nursery 1 Holding 2 Holding 3 Holding 4 Holding 1 Spawning 2 Spawning 3 Spawning 4 Spawning

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 Kilometers

Finn Habitat Survey 2

Fig 6.04 Finn catchment habitat survey map 2

Page 48 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Habitat Survey Ungraded 1 Nursery 2 Nursery 3 Nursery 4 Nursery 1 Holding 2 Holding 3 Holding 4 Holding 1 Spawning 2 Spawning 3 Spawning 4 Spawning

Reelan Habitat Survey 4 (Finn Catchment)

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 Kilometers

Fig 6.05 Finn catchment habitat survey map 4

Page 49 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Habitat Survey Ungraded 1 Nursery 2 Nursery 3 Nursery 4 Nursery 1 Holding 2 Holding 3 Holding 4 Holding 1 Spawning 2 Spawning 3 Spawning 4 Spawning

Finn Habitat Survey 5

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 Kilometers

Fig 6.06 Finn catchment habitat survey map 5

Page 50 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Habitat Survey Ungraded 1 Nursery 2 Nursery 3 Nursery 4 Nursery 1 Holding 2 Holding 3 Holding 4 Holding 1 Spawning 2 Spawning 3 Spawning 4 Spawning

Finn Habitat Survey 6

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 Kilometers

Fig 6.07 Finn catchment habitat survey map 6 Page 51 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

7.0

LAND USE

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

Land Use in the Finn Catchment Urban Pastures

Complex Cultivation Patterns Agriculture/ Natural Vegetation Coniferous Forests

29%

34%

Natural Grassland 2%

Moors and Heathland Transitional Woodland Scrub Peatbogs

Fig 7.0 Finn catchment land use classification

Page 52 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

Legend 32 112 - discont. urban 142 - sport & leisure 211 - arable 231 - pastures 242 - complex cultiv. 243 - agric. & nat. veg. 312 - coniferous forest 313 - mixed forest 321 - natural grasslands 322 - moors and heath 324 - trans. wood. 333 - sparse veg. 412 - peatbogs 512 - water bodies

512

324 412 243 512

312

312 324 321

324 242 211

243 231

322

324 412

333

242 324

312

4 Kilometers

Finn Corine 2000 Landuse Survey

Fig 7.01 Finn catchment land use classification map

Page 53 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

8.0

WATER QUALITY

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

Fig 8.0 Loughs Agency chemical water quality testing in the laboratory

Page 54 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

The Loughs Agency also maintains a mobile pollution response unit containing aerating equipment and absorbent and non absorbent booms for oil and chemical spills. The unit can be rapidly deployed to the site of a pollution incident. Water Quality Parameters The following water quality parameters are monitored through the Loughs Agency monitoring programme and determined from water samples in the laboratory: •

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

•

Ammonia

•

Phosphorus

•

Suspended Solids

BOD Any organic matter discharged into a river provides an immediate source of food for bacteria. These bacteria will break down the organic matter eventually into simple compounds such as carbon dioxide and water. Biochemical Oxygen Demand or Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) is a chemical procedure for determining how fast biological organisms use up oxygen in a body of water. It is considered as an indication of the quality of a watercourse Ammonia (NH3) Ammonia is generally found in small amounts in rivers and streams. This is due to microbiological activity and the resultant reduction of compounds containing nitrogen. High levels of ammonia can occur as a result from sewage pollution and have detrimental impacts on fish species. Phosphorus (PO4) The over-loading of nutrients such as phosphorus in watercourses often leads to a process known as eutrophication. Eutrophication is a major environmental issue in Irish rivers and lakes. Sources of phosphorus include agricultural fertilizers and household detergents. Suspended Solids Particulate matter may be organic or inorganic in nature. Organic solids may consist of algal growths, indicative of eutrophic conditions. Inorganic solids generally are the result of discharge washings from sand and gravel extraction activities or quarries. Suspended solids can affect plant growth and fish habitats. The following parameters are also recorded at each sample station by means of an electronic measuring probe: Page 55 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

•

Temperature

•

Dissolved Oxygen

•

Conductivity

pH This is a measure of the hydrogen ion concentration of a solution and therefore an indication of whether a liquid is acid or alkaline. The pH scale ranges from 0 (very acid) to 14 (very alkaline), with results generally influenced by geological conditions. Fish can be susceptible to changes in pH. Low pH levels are generally found in catchments with high forestry operation impacts. Temperature The effect of changes in temperature on living organisms, such as fish, can be critical. Thermal discharges from urban and industrial sources can lead to temperature increases in watercourses and increased stress on aquatic habitats and associated species. Dissolved Oxygen Sufficient levels of oxygen saturation in fresh waters are generally an indication of good ecological status and ideal for fish life. The main point to remember about oxygen solubility is that it has an inverse relationship with temperature. This helps explain why DO levels are generally lowest during summer low flow conditions, increasing the risk of pollution from discharges at this time. Conductivity The conductivity or electrical conductivity of a watercourse is a measure of its ability to conduct an electric current. Electrical conductivity estimates the amount of total dissolved salts, or the total amount of dissolved ions in the water. Electrical Conductivity is controlled by geology and any variations may be sourced to increased ions from wastewater from sewage treatment plants or urban run-off from roads.

Figure 8.0. Flattened mayfly nymph, high scoring macro invertebrate indicative of good water quality

Page 56 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

Fig 8.01 Finn catchment average suspended solids results 2010. Values are in mg/l

Page 57 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Fig 8.02 Finn catchment Ammonia results 2010. Values are in mg/l

Page 58 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Fig 8.03 Finn catchment phosphorous results 2010. Values are in mg/l

Page 59 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Fig 8.04 Finn catchment Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) results 2010. Values are in mg/l

Page 60 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Fig 8.05 Finn catchment Biological Monitoring Working Party results 2010

Page 61 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

The EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) establishes a framework for the protection, improvement and management of surface and ground waters. The overall aim for surface waters, which include rivers, lakes, transitional (estuaries and lagoons) and coastal waters, is to achieve at least ‘good ecological status’ and ‘good chemical status’, by 2015, as well as preventing deterioration in those waters that have been classified as ‘high’ or ‘good’. These environmental objectives and the measures required to achieve them are identified and presented in individual River Basin Management Plans. An essential step in this process is the classification of the status of rivers which assists in identifying the objectives that are set in the individual RBMPs. The classification is based on information and biological quality element data collected by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). From 2010 Loughs Agency fish monitoring will be incorporated into overall surface water classification. In addition supporting physicochemical information supplied by a large number of local authority laboratories and EPA laboratories is used. Special surveys of hydromorphological condition were also undertaken by the NSSHARE project. Priority action substance monitoring data for surveillance monitoring sites was also used in the determination of Chemical’ Status. Water status is defined by the lower of chemical status and ecological status – these are defined as follows. Chemical Status is a pass/fail assignment. Ecological status is defined by biological quality elements and supporting physico-chemical quality elements. Hydromorphology is also taken into account for rivers that appear to be of high status based on the biological and supporting physico-chemical quality elements. A large number of provisionally high status sites were surveyed from a hydromorphological point of view and if the hydromorphological status of a site was less than high status the site was downgraded to good status. The following biological quality elements are monitored and used for classification purposes. • • • • •

Macroinvertebrates Aquatic Plants Diatoms Fish Conservation status is also to taken into account in protected areas such as proposed SACs and SPAs.

In each case status is assigned to High, Good, Moderate, Poor or Bad status depending on the available information. Page 62 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

One-Out-All-Out Status Classification The lowest status defined by individual quality elements available is used to define the status for a water body. Not all quality elements permit a full five-category status definition from High to Bad but all available information is used at the best available resolution. Thus a site that only has supporting physico-chemical data can only be assigned a status value of one of high, good or moderate. If a river water body has more than one monitoring site within it the site with the lowest status is used to define the status of the water body as a whole. Where the monitoring point represents an insignificant proportion of the length of the river channel (less than 100m), however, it can be ignored but in general all monitoring points are assessed and the lowest status is the one that defines the overall status for the RWB. Not all river water bodies are included in the monitoring programme due to logistics and other considerations. Thus, it is necessary to extrapolate status to those water bodies that are not monitored. Consideration of the habitats Directive The Habitat’s Directive (92/43/EEC) indicates that the water quality in these protected areas should achieve targets that are necessary for the designated species. The favourable conditions specific for salmonid rivers have been based on publications from Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers, the European Life Series, Ecology Series; No 7 Ecology of the Atlantic Salmon, Salmo Salar L (Table 9.11). Parameter

Level

Percentile

BOD (mg/l)

2.5

High Status

Ammonia (mg/l) Dissolved Oxygen % Saturation

0.25 80

90 10

High Status High Status

Unionised Ammonia (mg/l)

0.025

Favourable Conditions Habitat Forming

Suspended Solids (mg/l) Nursery Grounds Migratory Passage Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (mg/l)

Reason

Specific for Atlantic Salmon 10 25

Background

Specific for Atlantic Salmon

Table 8.0. Favourable condition targets for Atlantic salmon

Page 63 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

Figure 8.06. Overall WFD surface water status for the Finn catchment 2009. No updates available for 2010 at time of writing

Page 64 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

8.1

WFD Fish Classifications 2010

The Loughs Agency is monitoring freshwater fish within the Foyle and Carlingford areas for reporting under the Water Framework Directive. WFD fish monitoring results from surveillance sites have been reported to Inland Fisheries Ireland from 2010 and will be surveyed once during each WFD reporting cycle. Eight Water Framework Directive fish surveillance monitoring stations were surveyed within the Loughs Agency jurisdiction in 2010, Five in NI and three in ROI. 100% were classified as good status in NI. Sites surveyed in ROI have not yet been assigned a 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 in NI. These have then been incorporated into ecological status classifications and final surface water classifications in NI only. The final tool will be run for all ROI data collected by the Loughs Agency by IFI. Data collection was conducted in the field during the summer of 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.

Page 65 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

Figure 8.12. WFD fish surveillance monitoring stations in the Foyle system Page 66 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

Figure 8.13. WFD fish classifications in the Foyle system. Note classifications are based on professional judgement. All data needs to be run through final fish tool model Page 67 of 78

STATUS REPORT 2010

In addition to directed WFD fish surveillance monitoring the Loughs Agency has collated other suitable fishery data collected from 2005-2010 and derived WFD fish classifications from this. An example of data collected for WFD classification is outlined below. Fishing 1st 2nd 3rd Total

Salmon 0+ 18 8 6 32

Salmon 1+ 7 5 4 16

Trout 0+ 0 1 1 2

Trout 1+ 2 0 0 2

Eel 2 0 0 2

Total 29 14 11 54

Table 9.14 Depletion sampling results from quantitative electrofishing survey on the Stranagoppoge, tributary of the River Finn, 2010

No. of Fish

Number of Fish Caught, Stranagoppoge 2010 32

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Salmon 0+

Salmon 1+

Trout 0+

Trout 1+

Eel

Species

Table 9.15 Species and numbers caught

Numbers of Fish/100m²

Density Estimate of Fish Species, Stranagoppoge 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

62 38 28

2 Eel

2 Salmon 0+ Salmon 1+

Total Salmon

Trout 0+

Trout 1+ Total Trout

Total Salmonids

Fish Species

Table 9.16 Density of species by age class per 100m2 Page 68 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Length Frequency of Salmon 0+ & 1+, Stranagoppoge (N=48) 10 9 8

Frequency

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 Length (mm)

Figure 9.17 Length frequency distribution of juvenile salmon

Length Weight Relationship of Trout 0+ and 1+, Stranagoppoge (N=4) 25

y = 2E‐05x2.9455 R² = 0.9985

Weight (g)

0 0

100

120

140

Length (mm)

Figure 9.18 Length weight relationship of juvenile trout Page 69 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

9.0

CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION

The Loughs Agency continues to carry out an active fishery protection role throughout the catchments of the Foyle and Carlingford areas including the sea area, River Foyle and on all tributaries. Tables 9.0, 9.01 and 9.02 outline the number of patrols and some duties carried out by the Loughs Agency staff in the Finn catchment and seizures for the Foyle area. A team of Fishery Officers are responsible for the Finn catchment dividing their time between the Deele catchment, Culdaff catchment and the standing waters within the Loughs Agency western zone. This is in addition to regular fishery protection patrols on the River Foyle. Year

Patrol Hours

No of Licence Checks

Joint Patrols

On-site Inspections

2006

2457

395

2007

164 (Patrols)

463 (W. Zone)

2008

249 (Patrols)

714 (W. Zone)

2009

206 (Patrols)

449

2010

214 (Patrols)

209

Table 9.0 Breakdown of conservation and protection duties, Finn catchment 2006-2010.

Year

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

Nets

136

128

109

100

114

181

198

Salmon

104

118

130

155

Rod & Reel Vehicles

136

Table 10.1 Seized nets, salmon, rod/reels and vehicles in the Foyle system 2002-2010

Year

Nets

Salmon/Trout Rod/Reel

Vehicles

Boats

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

5/3

Table 9.02 Seizures in the Finn catchment 2006-2010

Page 70 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

10.1

Habitat Improvement Works

In addition to the traditional protection duties carried out by the Loughs Agency staff conservation and improvement of habitat has been increasing over recent years. Over time man has imposed significant changes on the natural courses of many rivers and flood plains. The driving forces behind these changes have included amongst others; arterial drainage schemes to provide more suitable land for agricultural purposes, urban sprawl, infrastructure expansion (roads etc.), flood defences, water abstraction and hydro power generation. All have had a significant impact on the natural meanderings and discharges of rivers and tributaries resulting in faster runoff of floodwaters ultimately leading to a change in the morphology and flow regime of rivers and resultant impacts on fisheries. While all these processes have had some impact within the Foyle system, it is considered to be a relatively natural system with natural river structure present in the catchments headwaters. In areas that have been altered methods for reinstating lost habitat are investigated and where appropriate action taken. In 2010 a number of in-channel and riparian habitat improvement projects were conducted including gravel cleaning at a number of sites and bank protection, fencing and tree planting. All schemes were designed to improve the freshwater survival of native fish species at a time when the River Finn is failing to achieve management targets for Atlantic salmon.

10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Some environmental issues affecting water quality have already been outlined previously. The following list presents some of the main habitat pressures to salmonids within the Foyle system: • •

•

Agricultural activities – enrichment from natural and artificial fertilisers often make their way into watercourses, enhancing problems with eutrophication. Forestry activities – planting and felling operations can lead to increased loading of suspended solids in watercourses. Established forestry as a major upland land use has been attributed to increased acidification. Barriers to migration – a range of natural and anthropogenic features on rivers can lead to barriers for migrating salmonids and other fish species. These can include weirs and hydro-electric schemes. Gravel removal – gravel is extremely important for the creation of redds for spawning fish. Removal of gravel from the river bed in sensitive areas can destroy potential spawning and nursery habitat. Page 71 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

•

Quarrying activities – the extraction of aggregates such as rock, sand and gravel has the potential to cause increased levels of suspended solids in nearby watercourses. Sufficient mitigation measures should be in place at such sites to trap increased sediment loads entering rivers and streams. Abstraction – water abstraction from watercourses for a range of uses is increasing throughout the Foyle and Carlingford catchments. Unless appropriately assessed and licensed, these activities have the potential to reduce residual flow levels and alter the ecological status of our rivers. This is even more concerning in the light of climate change. Peat harvesting – Peat harvesting still occurs in small upland pockets throughout the Foyle system. It has the potential to increase sediment loading in receiving waters. Sewage treatment – sewage and waste water treatment works are under considerable pressure with the increase in urban development in our towns and villages. Several inadequate systems throughout the Foyle system continue to pollute rivers. Hydropower – small-scale hydropower schemes are beginning to appear on rivers throughout the Foyle and Carlingford catchments. Baseline fishery data must be provided to allow for sufficient assessment of any proposed scheme, unless located above an impassable fish barrier. Urban development – the expansion of large-scale housing developments and the associated pressures on waste water and sewage treatment works are a potential source of water pollution in the event of overflows. Drainage and canalisation – these have direct impacts on the quality of available fishery habitat within the catchments. Canalisation in particular can lead to the removal of important spawning, nursery or holding areas of rivers. Industrial discharges – larger urban areas with industrial discharges have the potential to cause pollution through toxic discharges and can alter the temperature of the watercourse. Septic tanks – a proliferation of single dwellings and their septic tanks is an ongoing area of concern. Initial research from parts of the Foyle system indicate that this is major contributor to decreased water quality and local increases in suspended solids.

11.0 DESIGNATED AREAS The European Commission Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC) requires that all member states designate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) in order to protect threatened habitats and species. The European Commission Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive 79/409/EEC) also requires the designation of Special Protected Areas (SPA’s). Together the designated SAC’s and Page 72 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

SPA’s create the NATURA 2000 network of protected sites. A number of rivers have been designated as SAC’s both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland including the River Finn. The River Finn SAC includes almost the entire freshwater element of the Finn and its tributaries, the Corlacky, the Reelan sub-catchment, the Sruhamboy, Elatagh, Cummirk and Glashagh, and also includes Lough Finn. The River Finn has been selected as an SAC for its active blanket bog, lowland oligotrophic lakes (low level of nutrients), wet heath and transition mires all habitats listed in Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive. The site has also been selected for its populations of Atlantic salmon and Otter both species listed in Annex II of the same directive. Oligotrophic lakes within the Finn catchment include Lough Finn at the rivers headwaters. “Lough Finn holds a population of Arctic Charr (Salvelinus alpinus). This fish is a relative of salmon and trout and represents an arctic-alpine element in the Irish fauna. In Ireland this fish occurs only in a few cold, stoney, oligotrophic lakes. It is listed in The Irish Red Data Book as threatened in Ireland. The Charr in Lough Finn are unusual in that they are dwarfed. Dwarfed Charr only occur in one other Lough in Ireland, Lough Coornasahom, Co. Kerry and they are therefore of national importance. Charr are very sensitive to water quality and therefore changes in the catchment such as afforestation should be avoided to maintain this population.” National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS)

12.0 GENETIC STUDY A baseline genetic survey was carried out in the Foyle system in 2003 and a resurvey conducted between 2006 and 2008 to analyse the populations of Atlantic salmon present within the Foyle catchment. Results confirmed the existence of genetically distinct populations between and within the rivers and tributaries of the Foyle area. An understanding of these genetically differentiated populations is required to facilitate appropriate management of conservation measures and the commercial/recreational fisheries. The report concluded that genetic diversity is high between and within the various salmon populations present in the Foyle system. Each population has evolved over time creating distinct populations (with some gene flow from straying fish) that are best suited to the conditions present in a particular river or tributary. The non-uniform nature of the populations adds to the diversity of life history strategies exercised by Foyle salmon. Distinct differences such as run-timing and age at smolting can act as natures insurance policy to any catastrophic events which would threaten a homogenous population.

Page 73 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

The report stated that the current genetic structure and diversity of Foyle salmon is representative of what might be regarded as the native structure of wild salmon populations. The maintenance of genetic diversity is a core requirement for the longterm sustainability of wild populations, preserving the biodiversity of the wild salmonids of the Foyle system is therefore a primary objective of the Loughs Agency.

13.0 POLLUTION MONITORING The Loughs Agency has a statutory obligation to monitor the pollution of watercourses. In conjunction with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency all reported pollution incidents are investigated.

14.0 OTHER SURVEYS In 2010 baseline surveys were conducted for the European smelt within the Foyle Area with a population of spawning smelt recorded. Baseline surveys of Lamprey species were also conducted within the Finn catchment. Further details and brief reports on both surveys can be found under the publications section of the Loughs Agency website at www.loughs-agency.org

During the course of these surveys heavy fowling of the waterways with domestic waste was observed. Any community or other organisation with a desire to assist Page 74 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

with river clean ups are asked to contact the Loughs Agency to discuss the potential for developing a co-ordinated approach to this.

15.0 FISHERY OFFICERS FINN AREA REPORT 2010 In 2010 Fishery Officers continued to work within the Finn catchment. 15.1

Fishery Officers Report

2010 saw the introduction of catch and release on the Rivers Finn and Reelan. A large number of anglers expressed their displeasure that the new legislation was introduced mid season after they had paid for permits on the River Finn. Two anglers were cautioned with a view to prosecution for breaching the new regulation by catching and retaining fish while angling on the lower Finn. New projects in 2010 included the loosening of gravel on spawning beds at six sites, three on the Reelin and three on the Finn. This appears to have been successful but redd counting was difficult in 2010/11due to the freezing temperatures and snow. Protection continued in 2010 with angler license checks and anti poaching patrols including shore and boat patrols. A good number of nets and other illegal equipment were seized and a number of persons were apprehended and cautioned with a view to prosecution. A number of pollution incidents were detected and samples were taken and again a number of prosecutions are pending.

16.0 ACTIONS FOR 2011 In order to fully utilise the extensive data resources collected and held by the Loughs Agency on the fish populations and habitats of the Finn catchment it is necessary to focus attention on specific management objectives. The Loughs Agency has stated in its corporate plan 2011-2013 that it will conserve, protect, manage and improve the fisheries of the Foyle and Carlingford areas. By way of fulfilling these objectives a targeted series of actions utilising data collected over recent years will be implemented. Fishery owners and angling associations will continue to be consulted regarding any proposed works and stakeholder input sought. 16.1

Foyle and Carlingford Areas Ongoing Actions for 2011

Good water quality is essential for the conservation of productive aquatic ecosystems. Fish populations rely on unpolluted water for survival and feeding. The Page 75 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Loughs Agency is committed to ensuring deleterious matter does not enter any watercourse. Routine monitoring is conducted throughout the Foyle and Carlingford areas. Proactive pollution visits and water quality monitoring will continue in 2011. Water quantity is becoming an increasingly important issue from a fisheries management perspective with continuing demand from a variety of sources including industry, hydro power generation and abstraction for meeting the ever growing needs of industry and the wider population. The Loughs Agency are aware of the conflicting needs of aquatic environments and water resource users and comment on development issues which may have an impact on the important aquatic resources of the Foyle and Carlingford areas with reference to national and international obligations. In-channel and riparian habitat improvement projects provide an important mechanism by which to improve and protect valuable fishery resources. Over recent years the Loughs Agency has developed a number of projects designed to improve the survival and production of robust populations of juvenile salmonid and other native fish species. These programmes will continue where funding is available, The Loughs Agency also encourages local stakeholder groups to source appropriate funding to develop collaborative habitat improvement projects. The Loughs Agency can provide advice and recommendations for in-channel and riparian improvements and are eager to facilitate the development of such programmes. Work is continuing to assess and record all Barriers to Migration within the catchments of the Foyle and Carlingford areas and these will be incorporated into the Loughs Agency Geographical Information System (GIS). Where finances are available the removal of artificial barriers will be investigated. Predation by cormorants and seals of economically important fish species continues to be a contentious issue. The Loughs Agency will continue to promote the development of a management strategy incorporating economic, social and environmental factors. The Loughs Agency will continue to monitor the salmon and inland fishery resources of the Foyle and Carlingford areas, utilising best practice methods including fish counters, juvenile population surveys and catch returns. The importance of the Atlantic salmon resource has been further highlighted by recent genetic studies which have identified the presence of genetically distinct populations of salmon between and within main river catchments. This information will be utilised when developing habitat improvement programmes to ensure the presence of a diverse resource capable of withstanding change. Invasive species in both aquatic and riparian habitats have become an important issue in fisheries management and in wider environmental management. Invasive species have the potential to significantly alter ecosystems and their function. The

Page 76 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

Loughs Agency is contributing towards the development and implementation of invasive species codes of practice. 16.2

Finn Catchment Potential Habitat Improvement Schemes for 2011

During 2010 Fishery Officers have identified several new sites on the Finn and Reelin for habitat improvement projects to be carried out in 2011. These include bank protection work on the lower Reelin, tree cutting on the Cummirk and again a number of spawning beds which have become compacted require gravel loosening.

16.3

Finn Catchment Specific Actions for 2011

•

Conduct annual fish population surveys and spawning surveys

•

Conduct ongoing water quality monitoring and investigate areas highlighted as being of concern

•

Develop potential habitat improvement projects including riparian buffer zone creation, fencing, native species planting and in-channel habitat improvements including spawning bed and nursery habitat improvement

•

Monitor forestry operations adjacent to watercourses or areas likely to impact on watercourses

•

Ensure all fish passes, dams and mill races meet required standards

•

Work with Donegal County Council litter warden to investigate all illegally dumped materials

•

Continue with gravel removal prevention and education campaign

•

Utilise in-situ water quality monitoring equipment installed below the confluence of the Reelin and Finn.

•

Continue to work in partnership with Donegal County Council in monitoring Waste Water Treatment Works which are causing problems within the catchment.

•

Continue to monitor sheep dipping sites.

•

Continue to enforce the compulsory catch and release regulations.

Page 77 of 78

RIVER FINN AND TRIBUTARIES CATCHMENT STATUS REPORT 2010

•

Develop a sea trout monitoring programme utilising the trapping facilities at Killygordon.

•

Develop a co-ordinated in-channel and riparian habitat improvement plan designed to rebuild fish stocks within the Finn catchment

•

Investigate bank erosion on the Cummirk and Elatagh tributaries

•

Continue to monitor and sample all waterbodies within the catchment for deleterious matter.

•

Continue to monitor other species of conservation importance within the Finn catchment including European smelt and Lamprey.

Page 78 of 78