Godfrey Williams. Environment & Fisheries Manager The Environment Agency

Transcription

1 Godfrey Williams Environment & Fisheries Manager The Environment Agency

2 Changes Monitoring & assessment of coarse fish and fisheries Godfrey Williams Environment & Business Manager, Fisheries

3 What follows: Coarse fisheries monitoring What we do The framework The scale How we assess fisheries Water Framework Directive An example Other forms of monitoring Angler catches Other means and methods of monitoring Not just fish What is it telling us

4 Fisheries Monitoring We have a statutory duty to maintain, improve and develop fisheries. We aim to do this in a way that maximises the social, recreational and economic benefits arising from the sustainable exploitation of the fish stocks that underpin fisheries.

5 What we do Wide range of monitoring principally driven by fisheries needs Monitoring undertaken by local (fisheries and environmental monitoring) teams

6 Fisheries Programmes Driver Water Framework Directive (WFD) Programme Once in every 6 year River Basin District planning cycle. EC regulation for the recovery of the stock of European eel Annual and biennial surveys yellow eel, silver eel and elver Core fisheries monitoring to identify trends, deficiencies & inform management action Coarse fish, wild brown trout, sea trout, and salmon. Cycles at every one, two, three and six years Annual assessment of salmon stocks and fisheries in England and Wales Index river programme -Dee, Tamar, Lune and Tyne. Additional monitoring with counters and traps for adult salmon and sea trout plus angler and net catches Investigations WFD, local drivers Investigations as required to inform WFD and local information needs. Varying spatial scale, frequency and methods.

7 Scale of programme and resources Budget 3.5 million per annum 6300 sites in the programme (ef & netting) 2500 surveys per annum Hydroacoustics 57 stretches Angler catch 295 venues on 33 rivers Juvenile seine netting 20 annual sites Silver eel and glass eel/elver

8 Coarse fish programme Temporal and spatial monitoring of principal and general coarse fisheries Reference principal coarse fisheries monitoring annually Other principal coarse fisheries monitoring 3 yearly General coarse fisheries monitored 6 yearly Electric fishing on smaller rivers, seine netting, hydroacoustics and angler catch on larger rivers

9 Coarse fish monitoring Over 2500 coarse fish sites in the core programme Over 900 surveys per annum 490 electric fishing surveys 58 seine netting surveys 112 eel specific surveys Hydroacoustics 78 stretches Angler catch 196 venues Silver eel and elver trapping/counting

10 Eel programme 22 index rivers 10 yellow eel sites per river monitored biennially Silver eel migration at 5 sites Elvers at 3 sites Local monitoring

11 Water Framework Directive High Phytoplankton Diatoms Macrophytes Invertebrates Fish ph balance Nutrients Oxygen Man-made chemicals Metals Good Mod Poor Bad Hydrology Morphology

12 Frequency Classifying fish for the WFD Using probability to compare observed results with that expected of an undisturbed environment Observed Catch = 4 Apply results for all fish at each site Number of fish Assesses status across 23 fish species Build together site results to classify water bodies

13 Fish classification Low tolerance Salmon (Salmo salar) Brown and sea trout (Salmo trutta) Grayling (Thymallus thymallus) Lamprey (Lampetra planeri, Lampetra fluviatilis, Petromyzon marinus) Bullhead (Cottus gobio) Medium tolerance Stone loach (Barbatula barbatula) Barbel (Barbus barbus) Spined loach (Cobitis taenia) Pike (Esox lucius) Gudgeon (Gobio gobio) Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) Chub (Leuciscus cephalus) Dace (Leuciscus leuciscus) Minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus) Rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus) High tolerance Bream (Abramis brama) Bleak (Alburnus alburnus) Eel (Anguilla anguilla) Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) 3-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) Perch (Perca fluviatilis) Roach (Rutilus rutilus) Tench (Tinca tinca)

14 Fisheries assessments example catchment

15 Essex Stour fisheries classification Middle Stour 2009 Fish Status Site Name Event Date WFD Description Anchor Bridge 23/07/2009 High Bakers Mill A 03/08/2009 High Boxted Mill 06/07/2009 High Brundon (River Stour Middle) 10/08/2009 Good Bures Bridge A 29/07/2009 Good Bures Mill 21/07/2009 Poor Garnons Farm 16/07/2009 Poor Higham Hall 10/07/2009 Poor Lamarsh FGS A 12/08/2009 High Langham Intake 02/07/2009 Bad Mill Meadow 31/07/2009 Good Pitmire A 11/08/2009 High Priory Meadow 04/08/2009 Moderate Shalford Meadow 05/08/2009 Moderate Shalford Weir 30/07/2009 High Tendring Hall 07/07/2009 Moderate Wick Farm 03/07/2009 High Wissington 28/07/2009 High Wiston Mill 13/07/2009 Moderate Wormingford Mill 15/07/2009 Moderate

16 Essex Stour species recorded Species captured 10-spined stickleback 3-spined stickleback Barbel Bleak Brown trout Bullhead Chub Common bream Dace European eel Golden pike Gudgeon Brook lamprey Minnow Perch Pike Roach Roach x chub hybrid Roach x common bream hybrid Roach x rudd hybrid Rudd Ruffe Spined loach Stone loach Tench Zander

17 Chub Dace Eel Perch Pike Roach Tench Standing Crop (g 100m -2 ) Mean standing crop of different fish species (>99mm) in the Stour Low er Middle Upper

18 Standing Crop log+1 (g 100m 2 ) Number of fish Middle Stour example roach data - length frequency & standing crop over time Fish Length (mm) Standing crop (log+1) of roach (>99mm) in the Middle Stour (n=20) Survey year

19 Catchment reports Essex Stour 2009 Perch stocks are recovering throughout the catchment; Numbers of dace are in long-term decline throughout the Stour; Eel numbers are in long-term decline in the upper and middle Stour; Chub populations in the upper Stour are increasing; Populations of roach in the middle Stour are improving; There is a continued overall decline in the status of the lower Stour fishery.

20 Essex Stour identified needs Maintenance and improvement of habitat quality and diversity for fish; Management of flow changes caused by flow augmentation and abstraction to enhance fish habitat availability, migration patterns and water quality; Implementation of schemes to reduce barriers to fish movement; Continued investigations into the causes, occurrence and impacts of algal toxin events in the lower Stour.

21 Angler catches a valuable source R. Topcliffe Yorks. Derwent at Barmby R. Chapel Haddlesey R. Sprotborough Yorks. Beningbrough

22 % Success Rate Angler data in use the Yorkshire Ouse - angling success 1971 to 2010 Ave. weight/angler/hour (oz)

23 Percentage Rating Angler data confirming trends 50 The Decline of Eel in Angler Catches on the Tidal River Wharfe Match Fishery Year

24 Number of Anglers per Match Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) Number of Matches % of Anglers Weighing In 1400 Number of Matches per Year in YORKSHIRE Region 85 Percentage of Anglers Weighing In by Year in YORKSHIRE Region Year Year Summary of Number of Anglers per Match by Year in YORKSHIRE Region Maximum Mean Minimum Summary of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) by Year in YORKSHIRE Region Upper Quartile Median Lower Quartile Year Year Angler data Yorkshire rivers

25 Innovation new tools Hydro-acoustics

26 Away Towards Fish movements in and out of pump station Jan 2011

27 Acoustic Case Study: A Recovering River and Canal

28 Density (fish / 1000m 3 ) Recovering River - Mersey above Woolston Weir 70 Poor WQ Mersey WQ improves Canal WQ improves Not Surveyed Year Few fish Fish move in from R. Bollin Shoals move between Mersey & Canal Acoustics

29 Disease Monitoring

30 Genetic studies - roach There are genetic differences Severn, Kent & Sussex stocks most distinct 3 main groups Thames & South, Severn, the rest Has stocking really contributed to these fisheries?

31 Data about anglers West Midlands 2005 From Economic Evaluation of Inland Fisheries published 2009

32 Data about anglers West Midlands 2005 Second only to the South East for the number of resident, licensed anglers (c. 132,000) and to the East Midlands for the level of angling activity. 4.8 million days fished on inland waters in the region, most (95 per cent) spent coarse fishing on rivers, still waters and canals. Anglers annual spend on fishing in the West Midlands 190 million = approximately 4,200 jobs and 100 million of household income. Most angling by residents but nearly half a million days fished by visiting anglers - more than visited Wales. Visiting anglers came from most other parts of England and Wales, except North East and London. Although the region is dominated by coarse fishing, game fishing on rivers was proportionately more important for trips by West Midlands residents to other regions.

33 The view in 2004 Our nations fisheries concluded: Coarse fish numbers increasing in many rivers Fish found in 97% of coarse fish sites surveyed 50% of sites held at least 8 species Angler catch rates improved over previous 20 years in many lowland rivers

34 Upper Trent tributaries status in 2011 Overall ecological status for WFD We are here

35 Water management issues upper Trent tribs.

36 Coarse fish classification - for illustration only Now based on 12 coarse fish species Low tolerance None Medium tolerance Barbel (Barbus barbus) Pike (Esox lucius) Gudgeon (Gobio gobio) Chub (Leuciscus cephalus) Dace (Leuciscus leuciscus) Rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus) High tolerance Bream (Abramis brama) Bleak (Alburnus alburnus) Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) Perch (Perca fluviatilis) Roach (Rutilus rutilus) Tench (Tinca tinca)

37 The view now Many rivers support good and improving coarse fisheries Just over 50% of river water bodies assessed are at less than good status for fish Trends in angler catch rates variable but continuing to improve in some areas, e.g. Yorkshire Coarse angling is important in many regions, making valuable economic and social contributions New methods offer potential to tell us more: About larger river fisheries About behaviour & makeup of stocks About anglers

38 We want to use the information we all generate to guide further improvement for river coarse fisheries working together Thank-you