THE LUGG AND ARROW FISHERIES ASSOCIATION

Transcription

1 THE LUGG AND ARROW FISHERIES ASSOCIATION Autumn 2014 Newsletter Number 19 1

2 CHAIRMAN S REPORT As yet another trout fishing season concludes we can look back and ask ourselves what influence, if any, has the Association, together with the Wye & Usk Foundation (WUF), had on the health of our rivers? The UK s salmon fisheries have had a very poor season almost everywhere. A friend of mine returned from his annual Scottish fortnight without even mounting a rod as the west coast rivers were so low. Fortunately he had taken his golf clubs! There are some of you (not many) who can remember the days of the annual Wye catch being in excess of 8,000 fish. Today just four figures is a miracle. That is the bad news. The good news is that catch returns and extensive electrofishing on our two rivers have shown an increase in salmon parr, which must mean that the baulks and fish passes are allowing more and more fish to access their traditional breeding grounds. More importantly to us, the trout numbers are also up from the previous count. An article on the EA electrofishing this summer follows and from its contents you will see that the heatlh of our two rivers can give some cause for satisfaction. There are still too many incidents of pollution but the WUF field teams are putting in sterling work with our fellow farmers to try and address the agricultural side. Gravel extraction, uncontrolled sewage and vehicle washings are some of the other areas we need to address and keep under observation. The fishing returns on WUF s website make interesting and sometimes amusing reading. Although most areas have shown abundant fly life, the fish caught have mostly obliged to sub-surface feeding with more on dry fly being taken towards the end of the season. A certain fishery was criticised (on a nil return) for being badly managed and the angler stated that he would never try it again. A fortnight later a fishing return on the same beat showed 19 brown trout and one parr caught and another 10 possibly missed. Ah well. Finally, way back in May, I had a very enjoyable morning with Roger Smith and Glyn Williams who introduced me to the art of fishing with the Tenkara rod. It adds another dimension to fly fishing for trout and no small degree of excitement. Another one to Google! David Forbes Chairman, LAFA WYE & USK A salmon attempting to ascend Dayhouse weir last winter FOUNDATION REPORT The Foundation s articles for the LAFA newsletter over the years have shown our concern in ensuring that there is fish access throughout the Lugg and Arrow catchment. Over time, easements, removals and passes have been completed from below Leominster and above Presteigne. However, until this year, one significant barrier had eluded removal or fish pass construction. This was Dayhouse weir at Kingsland, a tough one for all species of fish. To put some figures against the picture shown above, it rises by 2 metres, is 11 metres wide at the base and 15 at the crest. In typical flows, it is a formidable obstacle for most species of fish, even Salar the leaper. Part of the problem lies in the unique hydrology of the Lugg & Arrow. After a dry summer, salmon will be held back at the estuary and it may take several spates and some time for them to get to the weirs on the Lugg 2

3 (and Arrow). The nature of flows on the Lugg is that it also takes several spates to raise levels as its ground water sources need to recharge first. However, when these are recharged, the Lugg flows very strongly without too much variation. This is when Dayhouse weir is a problem for salmon. Trout can often get to the weir earlier in the year (as we found during construction) but salmon will be held back in higher flows. The original weir was bought for a nominal sum by the old Water Authority in the early 1970s and rebuilt along with others in the Lugg Flood Alleviation Scheme. This poisoned chalice was inherited by the Environment Agency when the water companies were privatised. If the provisions of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act had been followed it would have had a pass included with its reconstruction. The EA considered a number of solutions, including its removal, but to cut straight to the point, we recognised that there was a solution in adopting EA s new Low Cost Baffle (LCB) design and proceeded with their plan. Planning permission and flood risk consent were both sought and granted and construction started in October. Would the dry weather hold until we finished? True to form the Lugg failed to rise to any degree while the main Wye shot up over 4! The two walls, baffles and separate eel pass were completed in time for our Trustees meeting on 24th October and, we hope, the heavy waters of the autumn. During construction and to the surprise of the habitat teams, half a dozen trout started to ascend long before the final baffles were fitted, following the zigzag route in the structure. For the many fish that have been held back previously, the new pass now offers to their progeny a route to the huge spawning system of the middle and upper Lugg. It is as described: a low cost baffle system. Will we now see salmon above Presteigne once more? Only time and next year s electrofishing will tell. However, with the final link now in place on the Lugg, we can refocus on some of the other problems in the catchment. Dr Stephen Marsh-Smith OBE Executive Director, Wye & Usk Foundation The completed Dayhouse fish pass with eel pass above right. The photo below shows one of the trout that tried to ascend before the pass was finished. 3

4 2014 Lugg & Arrow Electrofishing Results Simon Evans, WUF s Deputy Director, gives the results of the recent electrofishing surveys Photo: Laura Bullock T his summer s monitoring was a combined effort between Environment Agency (EA), WUF (funded by the WHIP2 project) and Natural Resources Wales (NRW). During the summer Laura Bullock of the EA was reporting their results in real time to members of LAFA and WUF. Below is an example of one such report from the Arrow at Hergest Mill: Staff fished 100m below a weir and caught a high number of brown trout. It is a stunning stretch of river with braided channels offering riffle/ run sections below the weir then classic riffle pool sections in the middle culminating in a slower, wider section at the downstream end. There is plenty of overhanging vegetation, tree roots and substrate to provide cover. The lone salmon is presumably due to all the barriers (weirs) downstream that used to limit their access. But where there is one salmon, more will hopefully follow. Hopefully Kington Anglers will be delighted with such a healthy fish population. Results: 85 brown trout (lengths: mm). 1 salmon, length: 174mm. 6 lamprey Multiple bullhead, minnow and stoneloach 4 Cheaton Stretford Wellington That is a considerable number of trout with a healthy range in size! Hergest Mill also the new upstream limit for salmon in the Arrow following almost a decade of fish pass

5 work. This builds on the picture that has been developing over the past few years of a transformation in the fish stocks in the Lugg and Arrow, with the main beneficiary of the work being the trout. Trout Last year we expressed concern at the drop off in trout numbers downstream of Hunton on the Arrow. However, it now seems that rather than being a specific problem in that area it was just the point that extra trout dropping out of the headwaters had reached in 2013 when monitoring took place. In 2014 the recovery in trout numbers was evident as far downstream as Pembridge. The headline of the survey was good adult trout numbers and in some unexpected places. The EA found 43 in one survey at Brockmanton on the Cheaton Brook. This is a stream that has recovered markedly in recent years, possibly as a result of a change in farming practices in its headwaters. WUF monitoring caught 19 adult trout in a short section of the Wellington Brook and 7 in the Stretford at Weobley both had none in When you look at the three maps on the previous page, you can see the sequential recovery of adult trout. Also, for the fisherman, it should be noted that 2014 saw fish in excess of 13 (320mm) being caught in almost every survey site. Salmon In 2014 the upstream limit of juvenile salmon moved another 3km up the Lugg from Rossers Bridge to Middlemoor (just below Presteigne) and by another 8km up the Arrow from Hunton to Hergest Mill. Salmon parr were found at every one Middlemoor Hergest Mill Humber Wellington A 1 1/2 lb trout caught by the electrofishing team from the Arrow near Pembridge. The encouraging news for Lugg and Arrow trout anglers is that in this year s surveys, plenty this size were caught! 5

6 of the 13 sites on the main stem of the Lugg between Middlemoor and Luggsmouth, but the distribution of salmon fry in the Upper Lugg and Arrow was concerning. On the Lugg above Leominster salmon fry were only found in the Hindwell, Lime brook and at 1 out of the 8 sites on the main stem of the Lugg upstream of Dayhouse weir. Last autumn it was depressing to watch the salmon repeatedly throw themselves at Dayhouse before being swept back (see p2). The survey indicates that a few did manage to get over the weir in 2013 and these were probably springers that arrived in the summer. The good news is that Dayhouse is no longer a problem for this year s salmon and trout with the multi-species fish pass completed in October. On the Arrow a similar situation appears to exist upstream of New Mills weir (2km above Pembridge). It is passable but not in a wide enough range of flows. Very large numbers of salmon fry have been found every year since 2011 at Pembridge but salmon fry were only found at 2 out of the 8 sites between Hergest and Newmills in 2014 and in low numbers at both sites. Probably the best news in the survey was the two salmon found in the Wellington Brook and the Humber, both of which were once too silty for them. We have worked with WUF staff surveying the Arrow near Kington and inset, two of the salmon parr they caught there. the farmers in both catchments to reduce soil loss. Salmon were found at both sites sampled in the Wellington, which for WUF was similar to the return of the prodigal son! LAFA would like to thank Laura Bullock of the EA for her prompt and detailed electrofishing reports. REDD COUNTING VOLUNTEERS! After several years of redd counting, LAFA are beginning to get some comprehensive figures for salmon spawning on the Arrow. We would like to continue and even expand this work to help monitor the effects of fish passes and improvements in water quality. We are keen to find more volunteers who would be prepared to monitor stretches for us. Redd counting usually involves a few hours walking beside the river during clear, low water in November and December and recording redds seen. We are happy to show new volunteers exactly what to look for. Please let Tony Norman know if you are interested: tony@theleen.co.uk 6

7 CORMORANT & GOOSANDER UPDATE By Richard Bamforth, Fisheries Management Advisor of the Angling Trust As many of you will be aware the Fish-Eating Birds Review, commissioned by Defra, last year published its recommendations on reducing the impact of predation by fisheating birds in England. The new measures endorsed by the then Defra Minister (Richard Benyon); included the introduction of three Fisheries Management Advisors (FMAs) and a new area licence to allow greater flexibility by encouraging and allowing fisheries to work together for greater effect. Whilst the main focus of the review was on cormorant predation, three pilot areas are now being trialled for goosanders. The FMAs are employed by the Angling Trust and are funded from rod licence fees, for a trial period of one year. Having completed a period of training we are currently raising awareness by giving presentations at regional forums, fishery associations and consultative meetings. Over the next few months we will be visiting fisheries throughout England assisting those that wish to take advantage of the new system with the planning, application and co-ordination required for the area licences. We will also be able to advise fisheries on how to reduce the impact of fish eating birds. Our responsibilities are to act as the lead in building relationships with anglers, key stakeholders and regulatory organisations (particularly Natural England and the Environment Agency) to help reduce the impacts of predation by fish-eating birds at a local / regional level. We aim to bring fishery managers together within our defined areas and coordinate predation management measures, developing the new Area Management Plans. We will work closely with fishery managers to trial innovative and alternative non-lethal deterrent measures. We aim to encourage and share best practice in fishery management throughout the areas. We shall monitor the progress in the delivery and smooth running of the management plans and can assist in providing advice and support where necessary. We can assist fishery managers with funding applications to incorporate preventative measures and, where necessary, licence applications, and work with them to coordinate actions taken under the licences. In addition, we will be helping to collate evidence on the impacts of predation by fisheating birds on fish stocks and fishery businesses. Where possible, we will help in corroborating counts of bird numbers in particular areas to assist in licensing decisions. We will be providing rapid support to fisheries Photo: Adam Fisher that experience sudden problems of predation by fish-eating birds. In short our responsibilities are to visit numerous areas of the country suffering from the effects of predation from fish-eating birds and help the fishery managers develop a strategic area management plan incorporating both lethal and innovative non-lethal measures. Our work relies heavily on information and intelligence which is gained at a local level from the fisheries managers and anglers from within the individual areas. The union and coordination of the area managers is vital to the success of the management plans so it is our job to ensure this runs smoothly. LAFA have been working with the Angling Trust (and Richard Bamforth)- Our 2 licences already apply to the whole of the Lugg below Presteigne and most of the Arrow below Kington (where the problems are greatest). We are keen to work with anyone with stillwaters in the area so that control can be coordinated. Please let Tony Norman know of any Cormorants or Gooseanders causing problems anywhere in our area: tony@theleen.co.uk 7

8 SMALL STREAMS ARE BEAUTIFUL In an article first published earlier this year in the Wild Trout Trust s magazine, Salmo Trutta, Guy Mawle considers the importance of tiny tributaries to our river trout fisheries. Photo: Matt Dunkinson My local river, the Usk, is famous for its wild brownies. In the middle and lower reaches, half the trout that I ve caught over the last seven years have been over 31cm (12 inches) with only 1 in 20 measuring 23cm (9 inches) or less. So where are the little ones? They re in the tributaries, and the small streams that feed the tributaries. In the 1990s, Dave Bembo looked at the life cycle of Usk brown trout for his doctoral research 1. Four tributaries and their feeder streams were electrofished, as well as the main river Usk adjacent to each tributary. The tributaries, rarely more than 10 metres wide, were dominated numerically by trout less than two years old. Trout in the main river were mostly older than this, as reflected in my catches. Dave operated a trap on one tributary, recording a major migration to the main river in April and May by trout mostly in their third year (2+). So, as in many if not most rain-fed rivers, the tributaries are used as nursery areas while most adult fish spend the fishing season in the main river before migrating back upstream to spawn in the autumn. Even within the tributaries, the age and size of the trout reflected stream size. Feeder streams less than 2.75m wide held trout mostly in their first year (0+) and some in their second (1+). In contrast, 0+ densities were much lower in main stems of the tributaries where fish in their second year (1+) were relatively more abundant. To assess the importance of feeder streams for trout production, Dave followed the example of Nigel Milner when working on the Conway. He calculated the total number of 0+ and 1+ trout in the small feeder streams from the fish densities he found in his survey and the area of accessible feeder streams in each tributary system. As on the Conway and elsewhere, the feeder 8

9 streams provided a fifth or more of the wetted area of the tributary systems. What s more, because of higher densities, Dave reckoned that the small feeder streams produced the majority of 0+ trout as well as a significant proportion of the 1+ trout in the Usk tributary systems. So the trout populations of the Usk, and probably your river if it s not a chalkstream, depend on conditions not only in the main river but its tributaries and their small feeder streams, as well as, in the words of the Water Framework Directive, the connectivity between them. To protect and improve your stock of wild trout, you may need to look beyond your fishery. To quote the King James (well almost): Lift up thine eyes to the streams, whence cometh thy trout. CHANGING CLIMATE Small streams can be marginal habitats, susceptible to drying out in periods of dry weather or becoming too warm. The chances of them doing so are probably increasing. Elliott and Elliott 2 make this clear in their paper looking at the temperature requirements of Salmo trutta and the likely consequences of climate change. Young trout prefer a temperature of about 9 or 10 C and start to die when the water temperature exceeds 22 C for a sustained period. They don t survive long at all if it exceeds 26 C. Sections of some streams already exceed these temperatures in hot summers. Not surprisingly, more trout in streams die during droughts and those that survive don t grow so well. So there may be consequences for the stocks downstream a few years later. By that time, many of us have forgotten all about the drought and may be wondering why our trout fishing isn t so good. For example, how much did the hot, dry summers in 2002 and 2003 contribute to the crash in anglers sea trout catches across England and Wales in 2006? According to the Met Office website, the highest temperature ever recorded in England or Wales was in The Catchment Research Group at Cardiff University 3 looked at historical survey data for juvenile salmonids in tributaries of the Wye, the Usk s neighbour. They found a strong link between hot, dry summers and the reduced abundance of juvenile trout. Of course, trout stocks do bounce back from droughts but it s more difficult if hotter and drier summers become more frequent. And that s what the UKCP09 climate projections suggest. Even by the next decade, it is likely that summer maximum temperatures in most parts of the UK will have increased by, on average, more than a degree and average summer rainfall will have fallen by up to 20 per cent. Note that word average ; the extremes will be worse. There is much uncertainty about these projections, and the average summer climate could be worse or better for trout though it does seem that extreme conditions will become more common. For more detail, have a look at uk/climate-guide It may not be just the temperature in summer that we need to worry about as climate changes. And it is changing. Trout eggs are more sensitive than fry or parr to higher temperatures, with 13 o C being critical. Elliott and Elliott comment: If winter stream temperatures in Southern Britain and Ireland continue to increase at their present rate, then they will soon exceed the lethal temperature for egg development in Salmo trutta. BANKSIDE VEGETATION Defra has been promoting adaptation to climate change. One initiative relevant to trout is Keeping Rivers Cool by the Environment Agency and partners. This guidance, written by Rachel Lenane 4, highlights the importance for trout of protecting small streams. Vegetation on the bank helps to moderate extremes of temperature creating a more stable environment. Shading streams can reduce both the mean and maximum temperature in summer by 2 to 3 degrees on average. The Agency suggests that there is a balance to be struck between the benefits of shading to regulate temperature and allowing light through for primary production in the stream. It currently recommends that about half the stream should be in dappled shade, though on chalkstreams only about 30 per cent should be shaded, to benefit in-channel weed growth. The Agency suggests that small headwater streams, less than 5 metres wide, benefit most from shading and recommends that these be fenced on both banks to keep stock out. While the subsequent natural regeneration of vegetation may be sufficient in some places, the Agency also recommends planting belts of trees between 2 5m wide in suitable positions along the bank. Of course, there are wider benefits from riparian vegetation including: Slowing floods Control of erosion from stream 9

10 banks Shelter for trout from predators Food for fish and for invertebrates from leaf litter OTHER PROBLEMS Of course, extremes of climate and lack of riparian vegetation are not the only issues that can damage small streams as nursery areas for trout. Many are obstructed by weirs and culverts when pipes, roads or forestry tracks are put over them. Excessive sediment from poor land management, including farming and forestry, can block up gravels. Organic pollution from farms can effectively wipe them out as has happened at least twice on the stream I live next to. The list goes on but I fear I may be teaching grandmothers how to suck eggs. The Water Framework Directive is a major driver for Government to fund work on our rivers. Many do not have the required good ecological status because of depleted fish stocks, including trout. Of course, we may not be concerned about compliance with European legislation per se but we do want good stocks of wild trout. The same lesson applies: look after all the habitats needed by our non-migratory trout, including the small streams and keep the routes between them open. References 1 Bembo, D. (1992). The brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) of the River Usk system. Ph.D thesis. University of Wales College of Cardiff. 191pp 2 Elliott, J.M. and Elliott, J.A (2010). Temperature requirements of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, brown trout Salmo trutta and Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus: predicting the effects of climate change. J.Fish Biol. 77, Clews, E., Durance, I., Vaughan, I.P. and Ormerod, S. J. (2010). Juvenile salmonid populations in a temperate river system track synoptic trends in climate. Global Change Biology (2010), Volume 16, Issue 12, pages Lenane, R. (2012). Keeping Rivers Cool. Getting ready for climate change by creating riparian shade. Environment Agency, Bristol. 41pp. LAFA would like to thank the Wild Trout Trust and Guy Mawle for allowing us to reproduce this article. For more information on the Trust, please visit: A 2lb+ wild brown trout from the middle reaches of the Usk 10

11 THE LUGG AND ARROW FISHERIES ASSOCIATION (LAFA) Dedicated to the improvement and maintenance of the environment and habitat of the fisheries of the Lugg and Arrow catchment The Lugg and Arrow Fisheries Association (LAFA) was formed in 2003 to take all possible action to restore the former excellence of these rivers following years of declining fish stocks and other aquatic life. It is a broad-based organisation made up of riparian owners, anglers and anyone else with an interest in the two rivers. Since 2005, LAFA have been working with The Wye and Usk Foundation (WUF) to benefit from their considerable financial expertise and practical experience in river and habitat improvement works. So far LAFA has raised over 38,000 towards the cost of this work, helping to provide the essential seed money used by WUF to draw down the extra funding needed to build large-scale restoration projects. We hope that all riparian owners, fishermen and other interested parties will join the LAFA to help continue raising money and take concerted action to improve matters. Not only will you benefit from the improvements, but there will be benefits for local communities too. POLLUTION ALERT!! In October a pollution of the Back Brook upstream of Kington was reported to Natural Resources Wales (NRW) by several members of the public, including some from LAFA. A fine, white sediment was washing into the Back Brook which flows into the Arrow just downstream of Kington. NRW visited the site and are carrying out investigations. The incident illustrates the importance of reporting such incidents to NRW (or Environment Agency if in England) as quickly and in as many numbers as possible. It can sometimes be frustrating dealing with emergency lines but it is essential if further pollutions are to be prevented. NRW/EA Emergency Line: Please also report to WUF on APPLICATION FOR LAFA MEMBERSHIP To join us in restoring the Lugg & Arrow, please complete this form and return it to the Membership Secretary: Rod Symondson, The Hotchpotch, Husseys Lane, Kington, Herefordshire, HR5 3FF rodsymondson@gmail.com Name:... Address:... Telephone: New members are invited to make either an annual standing order subscription of not less than 10 and/or a larger, one off donation towards the cost of the restoration works. Please make your payment via the enclosed Wye and Usk Foundation Gift Aid Form, or via the JustGiving website, which will enable the tax to be reclaimed on your payment. All of the money paid via the WUF Gift Aid Form or JustGiving will still be used exclusively for LAFA-approved projects. 11

12 12 The Rivers Lugg & Arrow