View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
IFM 45th Annual Conference Programme
Fisheries Management from Sea to Source
Maritime Museum, Liverpool. October 7th – 9th 2014
The conference is kindly supported by.
Tuesday October 7th 9.30 – 17.00 The opening session is kindly sponsored by Wiley
9.30. – 10.50 Opening Session
Session Chair: Keith Hendry, IFM North West Branch Chairman
09.30 Keith Hendry IFM NW Branch Chair Welcome
09.40 Ian Gregg, River Eden & District Fisheries Association
Conference Opening
10.00 Nigel Milner, Apem Ltd
Sir Hugh Fish Memorial Lecture Fisheries Science in the Ecosystem Age
10.30
Mark Porath, American Fisheries Society
Rehabilitation Challenges on the Great Plains
10.50 Coffee 11.20 – 12.50 Session 1. Management of Inshore Fisheries
Session Chair: Stephen Atkins. (CEO, North West IFCA)
11.20 Abigail Leadbeater North Western IFCA
Fisheries management challenges in the North West IFCA
11.40 Elizabeth Ross, Devon and Severn IFCA
Balancing Act - Can small-scale spatial management benefit the recreational sea angling sector?
12.00 Robert Clarke, Southern IFCA
IFCA’s and the revised approach to the delivery of fisheries management in European marine sites in England.
12.20 Soapbox.
The North West Cockle Fishery
12.30 Questions and discussion
12.50 Lunch 14.00 – 15.10 Session 2. Ecological significance and management of sea run and
transitional fish. Session Chair: Miran Aprahamian. Environment Agency
14.00 Keynote Karen Wilson, University of Southern Maine
Networking to move the science of diadromous fish restoration forward: DSRRN
17:15 – 17:45 IFM Annual General Meeting All IFM members are invited to attend. The agenda for the meeting will be available in advance on the IFM website and in hard copy at the conference. 19:00 Annual Dinner. Circo, Albert Docks
14.30 Steve Coates,
SLR Consulting Ltd
Transitional waters fish monitoring.
14.50
Andrew Moore, Cefas
The movement of smelt in the Norfolk Broads
15.10 Coffee
15.40 – 17.00 Session 3. Marine development and fisheries management
challenges Session Chair: Stephen Colclough. IFM
15.40 Kevin Linnane,
RPS Energy
Impacts of offshore wind farm construction on fish in the Bristol Channel: Lessons from the Atlantic Array offshore wind farm.
16.00 Marc Hubble,
Apem Ltd.
Waves, tides and fish – Ecological implications of wave and tidal stream power
16.20 Jay Willis,
Turnpenny Horsfield Associates
Individual Based Modelling predictions of impact to fish from the Swansea Tidal Lagoon Project
§16.40 Questions and discussion
17.00 Close
Wednesday October 8th 9.30 – 17.20
09.30 – 10.40 Session 4. Catchment management for fisheries
Session Chair: Alistair Maltby, The Rivers Trust
09.30
Peter Batey, Healthy Waterways Trust
The Mersey Basin from Sea to Source - the importance of fish in regeneration of an urban river.
09.50 Sebastian Bentley, JBA Consulting Irwell catchment restoration
10.10 Ian Gregg, River Eden & District Fisheries Association
River Eden Fishery Management Plan.
10.30 Questions and discussion
10.40 Coffee
11.10 – 13.00 Session 5. Catchment connectivity, fish passage and barrier removal
Session Chair: Brian Shields, Environment Agency
11.10
Martin Harmer, The Rivers Trust
The Defra River Improvement Fund Programme 2010 - 14
11.30 Alex Humphries, Atkins UK
Multi – criteria assessment of migratory barriers at a catchment scale for prioritised delivery of fish passage improvements.
11.50 Marie Taylor, Hull International Fisheries Institute
Observations of brown trout (Salmo trutta) activity downstream of reservoirs in Yorkshire, including during freshet releases.
12.10 David Fraser, Apem Ltd Cumulative effects of hydropower schemes on salmon.
12.30 Soapbox.
National Trout Stocking Policy. “Triploids not Diploids”
12.40
Questions and discussion
13.00
Lunch
14.00 – 15.40 Session 6. Trout from Sea to Source
Session Chair: David Fraser, Apem Ltd
14.00 Ken Whelan,
Atlantic Salmon Trust
Trout in strange places.
14.20 Jon Hateley,
Environment Agency
Quo Fata Ferunt: Tracking Sea Trout in tidal waters.
14.40
Bruce Stockley, Westcountry Rivers Trust
Genetic tools for managing trout beyond the catchment
15.00
Nigel Milner, Apem Ltd
Celtic Sea Trout Project
15.20 Barry Bendall,
The Rivers Trust Sea trout migration in the North Sea.
15.40 Coffee
16.10 – 17.20 Session 7. Improving Fish Passage
Session Chair: Paul Coulson, IFM
16.10 Ted Potter, Cefas
The Salmon Managers Webtool
16.30 Teresa Redding, Royal Haskoning DHV
Can Eels jump through hoops?
16.50 Jim Kerr, Southampton University
Efficiency of eel passes for upstream moving River lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) at an experimental Crump weir
17.10 Questions and summing up.
17.20 Conference Close
Thursday October 9th 9.30 – 14:30 Field Trip. Quarry Bank Mill. The field trip will be to the Quarry Bank Mill on the River Bollin. The Mill, which is owned by the National Trust, is the location for the Channel 4 programme ‘The Mill’ We will be looking at the work of the Trust and the Environment Agency to improve fish passage as well as the habitat improvement works carried out right along the river. There will be presentations as well as a guided walk along the river, delegates will also get an opportunity to explore the site on their own. Lunch and refreshments are provided.
List of Abstracts
Tuesday 7th October
Opening Session
Rehabilitation Challenges on the Great Plains
Mark Porath, President of the Fisheries Management Section, American Fisheries Society
E-mail address of the corresponding author: mark.porath@nebraska.gov
The Great Plains region of North America has been dramatically altered by agriculture and irrigation over the past two centuries. This “sea of grass” once supported prairies that protect fertile but fragile soils with a blanket of diverse plant communities. Tall grass, short grass and mixed prairie systems absorbed the precipitation from a seasonally variable climate, slowing run-off and creating vast underground stores of water. Riverine systems were adapted to handling a variable hydrology from seasonal snow melt, localized storm driven flooding, extended drought conditions and base flows from groundwater connections. These resilient riverine aquatic systems have been interrupted by impoundments and the protective grasslands removed from their watersheds. Extensive tillage has subsequently mobilized tons of sediment and nutrients into waterways and now present tremendous water quality challenges. Additionally, the harvesting of surface flows and mining of groundwater for irrigation has expanded the acreage under tillage and impacted water supplies and stream flows in some areas of the Great Plains. While impoundments have negatively impacted riverine aquatic habitats, the created lentic waters now support a broad-based recreational economy, providing between 70-90% of all public fishing and boating opportunities on the Great Plains. Competing purposes for a limited water supply is another major challenge for fisheries managers and aquatic habitat rehabilitation. Ironically, it is recreational angling that has been at the forefront in rehabilitating, restoring and preserving aquatic habitats across the Great Plains. State wildlife agencies have taken the lead in establishing programs to address these aquatic habitat challenges. While the funding and establishment of individual programs is vastly different, the approaches to addressing common habitat impairments are shared across the region. Aquatic habitat rehabilitation projects begin with an initial assessment of impairments and an individual prescription for implementation. Both impoundment and stream rehabilitation efforts begin by working cooperatively with private landowners in the watershed to install soil conservation measures prior to project initiation. A combination of rehabilitation techniques are used to produce a single successful project. The removal of sediment and nutrients, construction of retention structures and wetland retention cells, protection and stabilization of shorelines, fish renovations, nutrient sequestration, and aquatic vegetation enhancements are the most
common rehabilitation techniques used on the Great Plains. Installation of fish and angler friendly features compliment the rehabilitation efforts and garner continued support of recreational anglers. While significant strides have been made in developing effective techniques to address water quality and use competition challenges, significant additional funding is needed to keep pace with the rates of degradation. Little progress has been made in addressing water supply challenges, as conflicts between states prevent the collaborative process now seen in addressing other aquatic rehabilitation challenges. The future of our aquatic habitats will depend upon securing financial support and cooperation between recreational managers, governmental entities and the landscape ownership. Session 1. Management of Inshore Fisheries
Balancing Act -‐ Can small-‐scale spatial management benefit the recreational sea angling sector? Dr Libby Ross, Devon & Severn Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority, Old Foundry Court 60A Fore Street Brixham TQ5 8DZ E-mail address of the corresponding author: e.ross@devonandsevernifca.gov.uk Devon and Severn Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (Devon and Severn IFCA) has a clear obligation, set out in the Marine and Coastal Access Act (MaCAA 2009), to balance the needs of anyone exploiting marine fisheries resources within the district. Crucially, this includes both recreational and commercial fisheries interests. The results of the government’s nationwide study into the socio-economic importance of recreational sea angling (RSA), Sea Angling 2012, highlighted the wide-reaching benefits of a thriving recreational fishery to coastal economies and to people’s health and wellbeing. Devon and Severn IFCA have been working closely with the RSA sector to better understand how to incorporate the sectors interests into wider fisheries management within the district. Results of face-to-face interviews, conducted as part of the Sea Angling 2012, close working with angling representatives within Devon and Severn IFCA, attendance at a number of angling competitions and numerous meetings with clubs resulted in a draft Recreational Sea Angling Strategy which was approved by the Authority in June 2014. The strategy outlines Devon and Severn IFCA’s intentions to engage with the RSA sector, manage it appropriately and seek opportunities to develop it. As part of the development plan D&S IFCA sought pilot areas where spatial management via voluntary agreements could be implemented to assess whether they had the potential to offer long term benefits for the angling sector. Three sites were identified, two with relatively low levels of commercial fishing; the Emsstrom wreck off Torbay in South Devon and Burnham, Berrow and Brean beaches in Somerset. Following an initial consultation with local stakeholders these sites were approved by the Authority in June 2014 and were designated as no-netting and no-longlining areas. This was a landmark decision by Devon and Severn IFCA to manage directly for the recreational sector. A third site; the Skerries Bank proposed Angling Zone in South Devon has proved a great test-bed for the IFCAs remit to balance the different fishing sector’s needs. Initial semi-quantitative information on fishing effort suggested this area was of relatively low importance to the commercial netting sector but extremely important to
both local charter boats and private boat owners. However the initial consultation showed this data to be inaccurate and so a more in-depth investigation was carried out, involving detailed discussions with commercial fishermen, charter boat operators and local angling clubs who use the area. The resulting information was often conflicting with regards to the use and behaviour of the different sectors within the proposed zone. The study highlighted the lack of unbiased, high-resolution data on the spatial and temporal distribution of commercial and recreational fishing effort, the potential impacts of small-scale inshore netting activities and local socio-economic data for each sector which is needed to evidence management decisions which give priority to one sector over another. However the Skerries Banks proposed Angling Zone also highlighted the fact that in many cases there is great consensus between small boat inshore commercial fishermen and the RSA sector, in terms of potential risks from illegal trawling activity or increases in static gear effort from larger boats entering the fishery. Representatives from both commercial and recreational sectors felt that the IFCA had a role to play in communicating these commonalities in order to reduce conflict between different interests. A modified voluntary agreement for the Skerries Bank Angling Zone was agreed by Devon and Severn IFCA in September 2014. Rather than removing existing activity, it imposes measures that are designed to maintain a status-quo of commercial fishing effort in order to preserve the local importance of the area to RSA interests. Whilst the resulting Angling Zones have been met positively by some sections of the angling community who see them as an important first step in integrating RSA into fisheries management, others believe the measures do not go far enough to balance the needs of recreational interests in the district. In-depth monitoring of these pilot Angling Zones will therefore play a crucial role in determining whether small-scale spatial management can benefit the RSA sector, both at the proposed sites and as a management option which could be applied more widely in the Devon and Severn IFCA district. Revised approach to the Management of commercial fisheries in European Marine sites Robert Clark Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority. 64 Ashley Road, Parkstone, Poole. BH14 9BN E-mail address of the corresponding author: robert.clark@southern-ifca.gov.uk
Introduction This talk describes the revised approach to the management of commercial fisheries in European Marine Sites with particular focus on the process of assessing risk to the conservation objectives of these sites and the delivery of management by the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities in England. Marine Protected Areas and European Marine Sites. The term ‘European Marine Sites’ (EMS) collectively describes Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) that are covered by tidal waters and protect some of our most important marine and coastal habitats and species of European importance. SACs contain animals, plants and habitats that are considered rare, special or threatened within Europe while SPAs protect important bird species. These sites are designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives respectively and form part of the European-wide Natura 2000 network of
internationally important sites. EMS are an important component of the Marine Protected Area (MPA) network in the UK. Article 6 is one of the most important articles in the Habitats Directive as it defines how Natura 2000 sites are managed and protected Paragraphs 6(1) and 6(2) require that, within Natura 2000, Member States: take appropriate conservation measures to maintain and restore the habitats and species for which the site has been designated to a favourable conservation status; Avoid damaging activities that could significantly disturb these species or deteriorate the habitats of the protected species or habitat types. Furthermore, as a consequence of Paragraphs 6(3) a competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent, permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore marine site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and (b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site, must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives. Revised Approach In order to ensure that EMS receive the requisite level of protection, and ensure compliance with The EU Birds and Habitats Directives, Government has decided to revise the approach to the management of commercial fisheries affecting EMS. Building on existing management measures, this will ensure that all existing and potential commercial fishing activities are subject to an assessment of their impact on EMS Assessment of Risk to the EMS by fishing activity has been through a matrix type approach. This shows, at a generic level, the effect fishing gear types have on the conservation objectives for the relevant features for which EMS have been selected or designated. This generic matrix (“The Matrix”) provides regulators with an indicator as to whether:- a. the activity requires priority management measures to be introduced to protect that feature without further site level assessment on the impacts of that activity on that feature or; b. a further assessment may be necessary. Risk Classification Under The Matrix fishing activities will be classed as Red, Amber, Green or Blue according to the potential or actual impact of the gear type on the feature(s) for which a site has been designated. The outcomes of this classification and prioritisation exercise provides the information on which to base the management decisions for these sites and, where appropriate, introduce local management measures to prevent damage. Delivery Defra have established a project board, to oversee delivery, and an implementation group, to include representatives of key stakeholders in an advisory role. These groups have been set up to ensure that all parties have input in the implementation of the revised approach. Natural England is responsible for providing nature conservation advice to relevant authorities for EMS in English territorial waters. For EMS located between 0-6nm, the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority’s (IFCAs) are the lead regulatory authority. For sites between 6-12nm, the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) are the lead regulatory authority and measures will be and have been introduced on a non-discriminatory basis in accordance with the relevant Common Fishery Policy (CFP).
Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs). Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities were created in 2011, by virtue of the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009. IFCAs have a broad range of duties which are principally detailed in the 2009 Act and include the management of the exploitation of sea fisheries resources and in so doing they; (a) seek to ensure that the exploitation of sea fisheries resources is carried out in a sustainable way, (b) seek to balance the social and economic benefits of exploiting the sea fisheries resources of the district with the need to protect the marine environment from, or promote its recovery from, the effects of such exploitation, (c) take any other steps which in the authority's opinion are necessary or expedient for the purpose of making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development, and (d) seek to balance the different needs of persons engaged in the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the district. IFCA Committee members IFCA members are made up of representatives from the constituent local authorities (who provide funding for the IFCA) along with people from across the different sectors that use or are knowledgeable about the inshore marine area, such as commercial and recreational fishermen, environmental groups and marine researchers, who offer their time voluntarily. The Marine Management Organisation, Environment Agency and Natural England also each have a statutory seat on the IFCA. Through their local management and funding structures, IFCAs help put local authorities, local communities, local businesses and individual citizens in management roles, allowing them to play a bigger part in the protection and enhancement of their inshore marine environment. Red Risk byelaws As a consequence of the management of Red Risks in European marine Sites IFCAs have introduced byelaws which restrict damaging fishing activity from some 5680 km2 of the most important near shore areas; this represents some 627 gear/sub-feature interactions.
Fig. map of the areas in the Southern IFCA District where ‘bottom towed’ fishing activity is now restricted as an examples of management introduced as a consequence or management of ‘red risk’ activity and protects ‘reef and seagrass’ beds in EMS.
The Amber Process There is still a significant amount of work for IFCAs and their partners to deliver the Governments Commitments for lower risk activities and there is a need for detailed assessment on these sites. Defra expects such further measures to address ‘Amber Risks’ to be in place by 2016. Summary and comment The revised approach to the management of commercial fisheries in European Marine Sites has meant that in a short period of time IFCAs, working closely with their partners in DEFRA, Natural England and the Marine Management Organisation, have, within 18 months of the creation of IFCAs, transformed the management of fisheries in some of our most important marine areas. The fast pace of the change in approach has created challenges for the important inshore fisheries and identified, in some cases, gaps in the data on the location, extent, condition and impacts of certain fisheries activity. The local resolution and accountability of IFCAs however means that, in accordance with the principles of the localism agenda and the duties in the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) important improvements in the management of our near shore waters has been achieved in a short period of time. Looking to the future, as regards to EMS, IFCAs continue to work with local communities to deliver the objectives of the ‘Amber Risks’ and seek to deploy traditional (boat assets) and novel (inshore vessel monitoring systems) to achieve compliance with the regulations to protect these sites. Session 2. Ecological significance and management of sea run and transitional fish.
Transitional Waters Fish Monitoring. Steven Coates. SLR Consulting Limited. 4 Woodside Place, Charing Cross, Glasgow G3 7QF E-mail address of the corresponding author: scoates@slrconsulting.com Estuaries are distinct surface waters and are termed ‘transitional waters’ under Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament. This directive is commonly referred to as ‘Water Framework Directive’ or WFD and transitional waters are distinct surface water-bodies which have been characterised across Europe. The WFD requires that each EU Member State establish a biological monitoring programme within all surface water-bodies and fish communities are a key ‘biological quality element’ within the assessment of WFD status (Birk et al 2012). Within the UK the dynamic tidal nature of transitional waters has led to a suite of bespoke fish monitoring methods being developed (Elliott & Hemingway, 2002). This is in order to assess fish species composition & abundance, with particular importance being placed upon those fish species that are sensitive to anthropogenic stress e.g. shad, lamprey, salmon, smelt and sturgeon. In order to assess the diverse fish communities present throughout a transitional water (from freshwater tidal to sea) then a multiple method fish sampling programme was developed over a 5 year R&D Programme (2001 to 2006). This monitoring programme was not only developed to comply with the WFD ‘normative definitions’
but also assess transitional fish communities biannually during spring & autumn (Coates et al 2007). The evidence base behind this multiple method bi-annual fish monitoring programme is long established and has been developed from the Thames estuary fish sampling methodology which has been continuous since 1992 (Colclough et al 2002). By the year 2000 the EC Fair Programme ‘Commercial Fish and European Estuaries- Priorities for Management & Research’ had cited this pioneering work on the Thames estuary as ‘European Best Practice’. The movement of smelt in the Norfolk Broads
Andrew Moore.
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft Laboratory, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK.
E-mail address of the corresponding author: Andy.Moore@cefas.co.uk
A preliminary telemetry based study on the movement of smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) in the Norfolk Broads was undertaken during the spawning migration. Fish were tagged with miniature coded acoustic transmitters and their subsequent movements were monitored by acoustic receivers during their freshwater and estuarine migrations. The pattern of movement was complex and there was a diurnal component to the migration. Smelt survival after tagging was high as was tag retention. A number of tagged fish were detected moving out to sea in May.
Session 3. Marine development and fisheries management challenges
Impacts of offshore wind farm construction on fish in the Bristol Channel: Lessons from the Atlantic Array offshore wind farm.
Dr Kevin Linnane ACIEEM CMarSci MIMarEST RPS Energy 2420 The Quadrant, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4AQ. E-mail address of the corresponding author: kevin.linnane@rpsgroup.com Atlantic Array was a proposed Round 3 Offshore Wind Farm development in the outer Bristol Channel. The Development Consent Order application for this development was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in 2013 after an extensive consultation process and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), undertaken between 2010 and 2013. The application was withdrawn in December 2013. The Atlantic Array site was located in the outer Bristol Channel (see Figure 1), an area known for its importance to a range of fish species, with fish spawning and nursery habitats known to occur in the wider area. The area is also known as a migratory route for a number of diadromous fish species, many of which are listed as Annex II species for the Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) shown in Figure 1.
Site specific surveys (including those for fish and shellfish ecology) were undertaken within and around the development site in 2010 and 2011, and these were used to supplement information collected during a detailed desktop study of the fish and shellfish ecology of the outer Bristol Channel. This was used to characterise the baseline environment for the purposes of informing the impact assessment.
Figure 1: Atlantic Array site location
This presentation will discuss the approach to Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) with respect to fish and shellfish species, with two case studies presented: sandeel and shad. The EcIA methodology used was based on guidelines produced by the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). This method involves:
• Identification of impacts (during scoping); • Characterisation of baseline conditions (through surveys and desktop study); • Identification of receptors and determine importance; • Determination of magnitude of impact and sensitivity of receptor; and • Statement of significance of the effect.
In order to ensure some flexibility in the project design during the consenting process, the ‘Rochdale Envelope’ approach was taken, whereby the worst case scenario is determined with respect to certain parameters (e.g. number and size of wind turbine foundations) when assessing the magnitude of the impact. Case Study 1: Sandeel Sandeel are important prey species within the Bristol Channel, with marine mammal and bird species relying on these. They are listed as Nationally Important Marine Features and have spawning and nursery grounds within the Bristol Channel. Site specific surveys identified the presence of sandeel larvae in the survey area, supporting the assumption of spawning habitats in the area. Trawl and grab sampling identified areas of particular sandeel importance along the northern boundary of Atlantic Array and to the north of it, within the NOBel Sands sand wave field.
One of the key impacts relating to offshore wind farm construction and operation on sandeel was habitat loss, both during construction and, in the longer term, operation. The impact assessment therefore quantified habitat loss as a proportion of preferred sandeel habitat affected (i.e. sandy sediments) to ensure an ecologically relevant quantification. This species has good recovery potential, with evidence presented from both the offshore wind farm industry and analogous industries and activities. Due to the small proportion of habitat affected relative to the wide availability of suitable habitat and the good recovery potential of this species, no significant effects were predicted on this species as a result of habitat loss. During the consultation process, the boundary was revised (for a number of consenting and engineering reasons), with the reduction in the proposed development area to the north in 2012. Site specific surveys showed the area along the northern boundary of Atlantic Array as being important for marine mammal and bird species, which coincided with the high sandeel abundances discussed above. This boundary revision therefore benefitted sandeel, and the species preying upon them, by avoiding the area of highest sandeel abundances. Case Study 2: Allis and twaite shad As detailed above, the outer Bristol Channel is known to be a migratory route for a number of diadromous fish species, many of which are listed as Annex II species of SACs in the region. A desktop study was used to inform the baseline characterisation, including information on peak migration periods of the relevant species. However, due to the offshore location of Atlantic Array, there are limited records of these species in the vicinity of the offshore wind farm. Because of the uncertainties associated with the at-sea distribution and behaviour and offshore migratory routes of these species, there are significant challenges associated with undertaking the impact assessment. The impact assessment therefore focussed primarily on the potential for barrier effects to occur during key migration periods (i.e. when they are migrating to/from spawning grounds). This presentation focusses primarily on underwater noise impacts, as noise generated during piling operations to install wind turbine foundations had the greatest potential to create barriers to fish migration. In order to account for the uncertainties associated with effects on these species, precaution was built into the assessment, which included:
• Undertaking the assessment based on the greatest hammer energy to be used (as this generates the greatest amount of noise);
• Underwater noise modelling was undertaken assuming that piling would be undertaken at locations closest to the north Devon coast (i.e. greatest potential for barrier effects);
• The assessment was undertaken assuming that fish migrated in the middle of the water column, where sound pressure levels are highest, as opposed to close to the surface or the seabed, where noise levels are lower; and
• The assessment did not account for acclimatisation to underwater noise, which has been shown in behavioural studies on fish species.
For most migratory fish species, noise levels were not high enough to cause a barrier to migration between Atlantic Array and the north Devon or south Wales coastlines. The exception to this was allis and twaite shad. These species are likely to be more sensitive to noise than many of the other species and, being pelagic species, are likely to be exposed to the highest noise levels in the middle of the water column. Underwater noise modelling suggested that a potential barrier effect could occur
during migration and therefore mitigation was proposed which ensured that hammer energies were reduced during their spawning migration period. A further boundary revision during the consultation process resulted in the distance between Atlantic Array and the north Devon coast being increased, removing the potential for barrier effects as a result of piling related noise. As a result of this boundary amendment and consequent reduction in the magnitude of the impact, the mitigation initially proposed was not considered necessary. Conclusion The two case studies show the differing challenges relating to EcIA. In the case of the assessment of habitat loss impacts on sandeel, a very detailed assessment was possible due to considerable the baseline information available, including site specific data, and a good understanding of the impacts as well as the habitat requirements, sensitivity and recovery potential of this species. This ensured that the assessment conclusion could be made with a low level of uncertainty. By contrast, the impact assessment relating the effects of underwater noise on migratory fish species (particularly allis and twaite shad) was supported by limited baseline information and considerable uncertainties associated with the potential for barrier effects during migration. In order to address these uncertainties, a precautionary approach was taken with regard to a number of assumptions made within the assessment. For species where there was less uncertainty (e.g. more robust baseline data and/or peer reviewed studies on species sensitivity to underwater noise), it was possible to reduce the level of precaution in the impact assessment. This approach ensured that uncertainty was adequately accounted for, whilst also ensuring the impact assessment considered a realistic worst case scenario. This presentation also shows how effects on fish species can be mitigated though management of construction activities spatially and temporally and discusses other mitigation measures which can be used to reduce effects on fish species. Waves, tides and fish – Ecological implications of wave and tidal stream power
Marc Hubble.
APEM Ltd; Riverview, A17 Embankment Business Park, Heaton Mersey Stockport, SK4 3GN
E-mail address of the corresponding author: M.Hubble@apemltd.co.uk
The UK is committed to achieving a target of 15% of its energy demand from renewable power sources by 2020 as part of the EU’s overall target. Wave and tidal stream power is an emerging and dynamic sector of the marine renewable energy industry promising a relatively consistent and predictable source of energy. With some of the best wave and tidal resources in the world, the UK is particularly well positioned to take advantage of this developing sector which is set to form an important part of the UK’s energy mix.
Over the past few years considerable strides have been taken towards identifying the best ways to generate energy from wave and tidal stream resources. An extremely wide range of approaches, designs and devices have been developed and the UK is at the forefront of testing with a large-scale offshore test site at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC), Orkney Islands, the Wave Hub in Cornwall and other sites
planned for the future. To date, the majority of testing and our understanding of potential ecological impacts has been based on single prototype devices operating on a small scale. We have now reached the point where commercially viable large-scales arrays such as MeyGen in the Pentland Firth have been consented and will be constructed in the near future. Due to the large number of unknowns in terms of potential impacts of such large-scale developments on fish/shellfish and other marine receptors a phased ‘Deploy and Monitor’ approach will be taken to broaden our understanding of potential issues encountered.
With large scale arrays on the horizon it is increasingly important to understand more fully the potential impacts of wave and tidal stream developments on finfish and shellfish. Challenges are presented, however, as very different broad technologies are being investigated using different mechanisms/concepts to exploit the wave/tidal stream resource resulting in different types of Tidal and Wave Energy Converters. In addition, for each type of device there is considerable variation in the design of individual devices and how they are deployed in the water column. Other considerations, such as the environmental characteristics of the location of deployment including depth of the water column, substrate, current speed and the fish assemblages potentially present will greatly influence project-specific assessments.
Clarifying the key potential impacts of such devices on fish and shellfish species with focus on those of conservation/commercial importance, has received extensive research effort and deliberation over recent years. In general, potential impacts of construction are consistent with those expected for many type of coastal/marine developments including generation of underwater noise and vibration, loss/disturbance of benthic habitat, increase in turbidity, smothering of benthic habitats, release of contaminated sediments and introduction of non-native species. Potential impacts during the operational phase, however, have received greater industry-specific consideration and those considered of key importance include:
• Generation of underwater noise and vibration • Risk of collision (with turbines and device structures) • Electromagnetic fields • Entanglement in mooring lines • Displacement • Changes to physical environment (removal of energy from water column) • Potential barriers to migration • Habitat creation
This presentation provides further detail for each of the potential impacts for the construction, operation and decommissioning phases and the groups of fish/shellfish species to which they apply, and indicates appropriate mitigation measures to reduce/minimise the impacts.
In addition, over recent years primary knowledge gaps have been identified and the need for a joined-up industry-wide approach to filling these gaps has been clarified. The main research priorities will be discussed with the aim to improve the knowledge base available to inform EIA/HRA and thereby provide greater confidence in assessments, which will be essential for the wave and tidal stream industry going forward.
Individual Based Modelling predictions of impact to fish from the Swansea Tidal Lagoon Project
Jay Willis.
Turnpenny Horsfield Associates, Ashurst Lodge, Ashurst, Southampton, UK, SO40 7AA E-mail address of the corresponding author: jay.willis@thaaquatic.com Tags capture the movements of individual fish. People however are interested in populations of fish. It must be possible to move on from ‘what this fish did’ to ‘what fish do’ by using the tracks of tagged animals. Individual based models (IBMs) capture the behaviour of individual animals and so are uniquely useful for interpreting tag data in this way. By using fast computers and simple rules for each animal derived from tracking studies, individual based models can be run for many individuals and lead to predictions about populations. This presentation summarises the process of calibration of individual based models of fish that have been used to predict the likelihood of encounter with structures that have yet to be built such as the Thames Tideway Tunnel, the Tidal Lagoon in Swansea Bay and the Strategic Assessment of Severn Tidal Power options.
Acknowledgements:
The following people and organisations have been most generous in assistance with the models discussed in this presentation, but they are not responsible for the content and no endorsement or support for the methods or results is implied.
Adam Fulford, ABPMer. - http://www.abpmer.co.uk/ Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay - http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com/
References
Davidsen, J. G., Rikardsen, A. H., Thorstad, E. B., Halttunen, E., Mitamura, H., Præbel, K., Skarðhamar, J., et al. (2013). Homing behaviour of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar ) during final phase of marine migration and river entry. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 70(5), 794-802. NRC Research Press.
Moore, A. (1997). The Movements of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and sea trout (Salmo trutta L.) smolts in the impounded estuary of the R.Tawe, South Wales. Environment Agency. R & D Technical Report W81.
Moore A., Ives S., Mead T.A., Talks L. (1998) The migratory behaviour of wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) smolts in the River Test and Southampton Water, southern England. Hydrobiologia 371/372: 295–304.
Willis, J. 2012 Modelling swimming aquatic animals in hydrodynamic models. Ecological Modelling 222 3869- 3887 doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.10.004
Willis, J. & Teague, N.N., 2014. Modelling fish in hydrodynamic models: an example using the Severn Barrage SEA. In A. W. H. Turnpenny & A. Horsfield, eds. International Fish Screening Techniques. Southampton: WIT Press, pp. 179–190. Available at: http://library.witpress.com/pages/PaperInfo.asp?PaperID=25634 [Accessed April 8, 2014].
Wednesday 8th October
Session 4. Catchment management for fisheries
Irwell catchment restoration: River restoration to improve fish passage
Sebastian Bentley1, Oliver Southgate2, Matthew Schofield3, George Heritage4
1JBA Consulting, The Library, St. Philip’s Courtyard, Church Hill, Coleshill, Warwickshire, B46 3AD
2Environment Agency, UK
3Irwell Rivers Trust, UK
4AECOM, UK
E-mail address of the corresponding author: Sebastian.Bentley@jbaconsulting.com
The free passage of fish is a key requirement of the Water Framework Directive with fish passage forming a key measure in assessing whether water bodies are meeting Good Ecological Potential or Status. Many water bodies, including those in the catchment of the River Irwell are at risk of failing to achieve WFD objectives as a result of fish barriers. This issue is being addressed in the Irwell Catchment through a prioritised programme of initiatives delivered in partnership to mitigate the fish passage issue. This paper presents a critical assessment of progress so far, reviewing WFD gains against restoration effort and appraising the WFD appraisal process in England and Wales that defines success and failure. Key examples are reviewed briefly below to illustrate the range of initiatives occurring throughout the catchment.
River Irwell at Bury and Bolton – the River Irwell was once one of the most industrialised watercourses in Europe and a significant legacy of this is the presence of many weir structures within the channel and its tributaries. The Environment Agency have used the Irwell Catchment as, initially, a pilot project for delivering WFD improvements and a large focus of this has initially been on weir removal. To date, 17 weirs have been removed over the past 5 years. Preliminary optioneering has been carried out through initial fluvial audit work, modelling and design to determine likely river response to weir removal, with some proving to be more sensitive than others. In some instances, full removal was not possible and therefore partial removal has been adopted. In all cases so far the watercourse has been considered as able to safely adjust it’s morphology in response to the weir removal/modification and this has seen the development of riffle and rapid areas upstream of former structures, local bank instability as evidenced by localised rotational failure and subsequent stabilisation and an overall increase in energetic hydraulic habitats. Downstream release of sediment saw local accumulations of sand as bars and veneers across the coarser bed, however, has been very quickly assimilated into the overall transport regime resulting in negligible medium and long term impact.
Kirklees Brook, Bury – Options for improving fish passage and hydromorphological condition were assessed using fluvial audit on a set of historic weirs on the Kirklees Brook in Bury. These were part of a print works which also had a number of constructed ponds linked to the industrial process. The weir structures amounted to around 3m of head along the watercourse and were located on a strongly inset bedrock influenced reach making acess difficult. Removal and weir lowering were
the preferred options but historic and heritage value associated to the weir in question and fears of a large sediment release from behind the structures prevented this. Therefore, the option developed involved infilling downstream of the weir to the crest level using boulders and infilling with gravel to prevent the water level dropping below the boulder. This created a step – pool section of watercourse that provided passage to fish upstream. A large flow event caused initial settling of the boulders and gravel immediately after installation, the boulders rearranged into an effective functional morphological state with a stable interlocked series of steps with pooled flow behind as anticipated. The use of small boulders close to the old weir has, however, led to minor exposure of the previously buried weir and a step now exists which will again make the reach difficult to pass for fish. This highlights the risk of retaining fixed structures whilst creating an essentially mobile bed downstream. Again this illustrates the impact of constraints on geomorphological design and demonstrates the potential negative impacts that can occur to nullify the initial gains from a fisheries perspective.
River Medlock, Manchester – otherwise known as the ‘Red River’ the brick-lined channel of the River Medlock through Clayton Vale and Philips Park provided an obstacle to fish passage as a result of high velocity flows through the channel. Trout sat at the bottom end of the ‘flume’ with no potential for movement upstream under low or high flows due to the steep gradient and efficient conveyance of the brick lined channel. Restoration work focused on removal of this brick lined channel to widen the channel and introduce morphological features that aligned with natural processes to reduce the steep gradient along the reach. A Fluvial Audit and detailed feature scale modelling was undertaken to test various restoration options that allowed fish passage to upstream reaches (alongside weir removal) and improved the hydromorphological condition of the channel, allowing gravel to return to the reach and continue to supply the system downstream. The study is being implemented in several phases, stage 1 at Clayton Vale has been completed. Initial bed removal revealed river gravels below as anticipated and the river widening saw a significant reduction in flow energy through the reach allowing embryonic riffles to form. However, a number of engineering constraints saw significant compromise as regards morphological reinstatement with hard banks being retained to ensure stability of contaminated ‘valley’ slope material and the construction of fewer larger units not completely aligned with river planform. Sediment sizing comprises a bimodal distribution with boulders and coarse gravels dominating the bed mix. This has created two long pooled reaches split by a boulder rapid with similar constructed rapid features at the entrance and exit to the reach. The upstream rapid replaced a large weir structure facilitating free fish passage but water elevations have been raised upstream drowning riffle/rapids upstream for 100m or so. To date the scheme has not been subject to high flows. It is hoped that coarse sediment delivered from upstream will increased sediment variety in the reach and help stabilise the rapid zones. Monitoring is occurring to record river response.
The weir removal/modification strategy adopted on the Irwell catchment has provided significant fish passage improvements along the River Irwell as well as reintroducing natural processes and improving the hydromorphological condition of the channel. More ambitions reach based channel restoration is also proving successful at opening up disconnected river reaches. In all cases, however, engineering and societal constraints have forced compromise on the initial geomorphologically based restoration plans. The impact that these changes will have on system dynamics and long term sustainability remain to be seen but could be significant suggesting that opening up watercourses for fish passage alone may not ultimately be sufficient to achieve EU WFD directives.
Session 5. Catchment connectivity, fish passage and barrier removal
The Defra River Improvement Fun
Martin Harmer. The Rivers Trust, Rain Charm House, Kyl Cober Parc, Stoke Climsland, Cornwall, PL17 8PH E-mail address of the corresponding author: martin@theriverstrust.org The River Improvement Fund Programme, in partnership with Defra (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) and in collaboration with the Environment Agency, has been delivered in 3 phases over the past four years, wholly managed by The Rivers Trust and actioned and delivered by individual rivers trusts throughout the country. The aim of this strategic national initiative was to raise ecological status of identified water bodies to satisfy the requirements of The Water Framework Directive, to maintain and improve Special Areas of Conservation and to satisfy and complement requirements of Salmon Action Plans and Eel Management Plans by: • Multi species fish migration barrier removal • Multi species fish migration easements • Multi species fish migration passes • Eel migration passes • Riparian environmental improvements • Riparian habitat works in Special Areas of Conservation • Research to identify & facilitate feasibility of the work above • Monitoring of works & improvements It delivered the largest ever river improvement programme by a non-governmental organisation in England. More than 200 river improvement projects have been completed by 28 rivers trusts, tackling long term fisheries and environmental problems and focusing on barriers to fish migration. There are many historic structures remaining from the industrial revolution and before where watercourses were modified to provide water for industry. These barriers frequently prevent fish and aquatic animals from moving up and down stream. This can be very detrimental to migratory species such as salmon and sea trout that need to spawn in the clean gravels found in the upper reaches. Eels also need access to freshwater systems to mature before returning to sea to breed. Even coarse fish that spend all their lives in the river need to be able to move around the system to access different feeding and breeding areas and to colonise. Individual rivers trusts used their unique local catchment knowledge, community contacts, professional and volunteer base and social capital, attracting co-finance and in-kind contribution valued over £2.3m complementing a £6m grant from Defra to deliver the programme of work. This has achieved: 146 Multi fish species barriers eased, passed or removed 87 Eel barriers eased, passed or tidal valves installed 88 Complementary riparian habitat improvements 44 Feasibility studies for further improvement work This resulted in 130 + waterbodies and 2800+ kms of river with improved ecological potential. The Rivers Trust has managed project progress and financial information from rivers trust partners, together with providing administration, audit, financial guidance,
technical support and liaison at national level with the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Wildlife Trusts. These works have made a major contribution to delivering Eel Management Plans, Salmon Action Plans and meeting commitments under the Water Framework Directive and North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) Multi-criteria Assessment of Migratory Barriers at a Catchment Scale for Prioritised Delivery of Fish Passage Improvements Alex Humphreys1 and Peter Gough2 1Atkins UK. West Glamorgan House, 12 Orchard Street, Swansea, SA1 5AD 2Natural Resources Wales. Rivers House, St Mellons Business Park, St Mellons, Cardiff, CF3 0EY E-mail address of the corresponding author: Alexander.Humphreys@atkinsglobal.com No two sites are the same. Whilst there is truth in this old adage, it is an inconvenient one and a frequent frustration for the river restoration community. Given that each site generally presents its own unique profile of risk and opportunity, the question is how do we appraise this at a barrier resolution, and then make appropriate recommendations at a catchment level to ensure that capital investment returns the best possible reduction in fragmentation? This presentation details the multi-criteria assessment technique that Atkins has created and developed over several years for the rapid assessment of barriers at a catchment scale. The technique has been successfully applied at a wide range of locations across the UK. Amongst the many examples of practical experience presented, we include a case study site which has progressed through the entire process, from options appraisal to the removal of a major barrier from a prime migratory river route. As part of its evolution we have developed a risk scoring matrix and held workshops with key stakeholders as we explore new and effective ways to deliver a robust and auditable decision process. It is important to have a decision process that can be standardised and repeatable to ensure that there is consistency and coordination amongst efforts to restore unobstructed fish passage in the UK. To this end, decision matrices and criteria weighting are useful tools. However, these tools should sit alongside, and not replace, local knowledge and a close relationship with anglers and river users when it comes to site prioritisation. The prioritisation process starts with the establishment of a list of barrier sites where some action is needed. The list is based on a thorough understanding of the catchments. There is a wealth of knowledge amongst angling groups, river trusts and other river user groups. These organisations observe the river all year round, and the information that they can provide in terms of “where the fish are” is invaluable. Catchment officers working for the regulatory body responsible for the rivers and watercourses can supplement this information, but the effective co-ordination of information from various sources across a catchment is equally important.
With the sites identified, the next step is to identify the most appropriate course of action. This must be a balance between the action that will yield meaningful benefit at a site level, with absorbing excessive resource that may limit wider benefits across the catchment as a whole. Therefore it is important to understand, not only what the option may be (e.g. a technical pass, partial barrier removal etc), but exactly what will be needed to deliver that option. We have championed an assessment process that utilises a multi-disciplinary team on site visits. The “core team” typically includes a fisheries specialist (which are often the client organisation’s own technical specialists), a civil engineer specialising in river works, a geomorphologist and an ecologist. This team would undertake clustered site visits, taking in up to four sites a day, to assess the barrier and viable solutions. One of the major benefits of this exercise is having the all the expertise on site to discuss options and their respective opportunities and risks. The early centralised discussion at each site ensures a common understanding of the options and objectives from the outset of the study, and leads to efficiency in reporting comprehensive and coordinated findings. In addition to the “core” criteria, there are other important considerations, but ones that may not be “headline” issues at every site. For example, the consideration of heritage issues is critical at many weir structures. Depending on the stage at which a particular issue is identified, additional specialist input can be coordinated to take place with the initial site visits, or a subsequent inspection can follow if necessary. Often it is preferable to choose the latter option, as a heritage assessment (for instance), is often better undertaken with an understanding of what the proposed works might entail, and how that might affect the existing structure. The main output from the high-level options appraisal process are site-specific recommendations that clearly communicate the next packages of work that are necessary to manage or reduce the risks of progressing with each viable option. Again, the multi-disciplinary team is of great benefit here. The reports advise on the feasibility of construction works, covering issues such as access to the site, establishing a safe working area in the river and minimising environmental impacts. Ecologists advise on the scope of ay ecological surveys that would be needed in advance of the works – not only at the barrier site but along any potential works access routes. Geomorphology input is crucial in the context of a full or partial barrier removal option, but is also important in terms of wider WFD benefits, and whether a particular option will realise the broadest range of potential benefits available at a site. The overall aim of the assessment is to provide the organisation that is seeking to reduce barrier pressures in its catchment with the information needed to make strategic decisions that will enable the optimal allocation of resources. Such decisions must be based on the benefits that a particular solution may yield for the site, but also the complexity of delivering that solution and ensuring that a single site does not absorb the resource that is available for a catchment.
Observations of brown trout (Salmo trutta) activity downstream of reservoirs in Yorkshire, including during freshet releases.
Marie J. Taylor1, Jonathan P. Harvey1, Ian G. Cowx1, Mark Tinsdeall2, Joanne L. Baxter2, Ben Aston3 and Jonathan D. Bolland1 1 Hull International Fisheries Institute, University of Hull, UK. 2 Yorkshire Water, UK 3 ARUP, UK E-mail address of the corresponding author: M.Taylor@2006.hull.ac.uk Natural flow variability is an important factor in river ecosystem functioning and maintaining biological diversity. Changes to the natural flow regime can therefore alter ecological functioning and biological diversity in aquatic ecosystems. Thus, managing anthropogenic processes that have altered natural flow regimes in rivers and streams is essential for balancing human and wildlife needs for water; this becomes increasingly important when factoring in the uncertainties of climate change. Reservoirs are water bodies constructed or modified for a variety of human purposes including; flood control, industrial and public supply, hydropower and irrigation for agriculture. The hydrological regime downstream of these structures is generally modified thus mitigation actions may be required to alleviate the impact(s) of reservoir operations, including minimmum compensation flow releases, seasonally variable compensation flow releases and freshet/spate releases as proposed in the UKTAG (REF). The aim of this study was to examine the influence of reservoir freshet releases (gradual peak and decline of flow throughout an 8-h period) on brown trout movements downstream of two reservoirs in West Yorkshire. Three reaches of river were studied during the first year of study; one reach downstream of a control reservoir with no freshet releases (Section 1), another downstream of a freshet reservoir (Section 2) and a third downstream of the confluence of sections 1 and 2 (Section 3). A total of 45 brown trout (15 brown trout at each study section) were captured using electric fishing and radio transmitters were surgically implanted into the body cavity. Radio tagged brown trout were located on a daily basis for 40 days (6 October - 16 November 2012) and every 30 minutes during freshet releases and a control day (no freshet release). Radio tracked adult brown trout occupied small home ranges, with occasional extended (>100m) movements. The freshet releases did not result in long distance spawning movements, although fish were more active during the freshet release than on a control day, but the distance moved was not significantly different. The study design was extended both spatially and temporally during the second year of study and both reservoirs released freshets (on different days). Specifically, two additional sections of river were studied downstream of the three sections studied during the first year, with the most downstream batch approximately 1.5 km downstream of the confluence; thus increasing the likelihood of studying fish performing extended movements. Freshets were also released from both reservoirs in October, November and December, to explore whether timing of the release is the key component governing fish movement during releases. A total of 50 trout were radio tagged (10 brown trout at each study section) and daily tracking was performed for five days after release and three days prior to and after a freshet release. Hourly tracking was performed during freshet releases and on a control day (no freshet release), and weekly tracking was performed at all other times. The total distance moved by tagged brown trout during freshet releases was only significantly different at Section 2, with less movement in November than in October and December. The
total distance moved by tagged brown trout during freshet releases was significantly further than on control days at sections one and two, but these movements were fine scale exploratory movements or to seek refuge from high flows, rather than extended migratory movements. The difference in freshet release magnitude between the two reservoirs did not significantly influence the total distance moved by tagged brown trout during freshet releases. It is hypothesised that because the spate releases currently lasted only a few hours they did not provide tagged fish with much opportunity to move a reasonable distance. The study is ongoing and future plans include extending the duration of each freshet release over two days to allow more of an opportunity for the brown trout to move. An additional control site in an unregulated reach of river will also be studied, together with comprehensive habitat mapping that will be compared with fish habitat use. Water quality will also be continuously monitored, to identify any changes in water quality during the releases.
Session 6. Trout from Sea to Source
Trout in strange places.
Ken Whelan.
Atlantic Salmon Trust, c/o 23 Cowper Downs, Cowper Road, Dublin 6, Ireland E-mail address of the corresponding author: ken.whelan@hotmail.com Some 30,000 years ago the global climate cooled as incoming solar radiation declined and the polar ice cap and the North American and European ice sheets expanded to a size that had not been experienced in the previous 400,000 years. The climate shifted decisively into prolonged cold and every species of plant and animal faced an increasingly hopeless struggle to survive. In many areas the exposed surface of the earth was gradually covered in an ice sheet and there was no soil or running water. By 22,000 years ago, around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum, the islands of Britain and Ireland were completely covered by ice and all animal and plant life was lost. Around 14,000 years ago the climate turned far milder, allowing the first re-colonisation of the land and freshwater, and by 7,000 years this colonisation was complete. Around 12,000 to 10,000 years ago migratory trout invaded freshwater and established the populations of migratory and resident trout we see today. Brown trout are one of the most invasive and adaptable species on earth. Over the past two hundred years the species has spread or been spread by man, throughout Europe, Australasia, Africa, North and South America and more recently Antarctica and the south Indian Ocean. This talk will trace the rapid spread of trout across massive mountain ranges and continental divides and into some of the most unlikely corners of the globe and ask: can this chameleon-like ability to change and adapt be traced back to our populations of ancestral, ice age, trout?
Genetic tools for managing trout beyond the catchment
Bruce Stockley1, R. Andrew King2 and Jamie R. Stevens2 1Westcountry Rivers Trust; Rain Charm House, Kyl Cober Parc, Stoke Climsland, Cornwall, PL17 8PH 2Biosciences, University of Exeter E-mail address of the corresponding author: bruce@wrt.org.uk As part of the AARC project, trout have been targeted as a species of interest. Trout display an incredible range of life-history strategies that involve movement in the freshwater, estuarine and marine environments. Fisheries managers have historically gathered data to manage trout populations by sampling fish in the freshwater environment, and additionally counting fish in their adult migratory phase as they move up rivers to spawn. Unlike salmon, certain members of a trout population remain resident in freshwater, and others migrate downstream to feed in estuarine and coastal waters. These sea trout are active predators and members of a complex marine ecosystem, where they are commonly caught in marine nets. The growth of inshore monofilament gill netting over recent decades has seen their catch increase significantly. Though because it is generally illegal to make such catches in the UK, few are declared in this country. Until now, trout caught in trawls carried out for the purposes of marine spatial planning investigations could not be linked to the catchment from which they were spawned, as it was impossible to identify which population they belonged to. Now the AARC project has developed a database that enables marine and estuarine-caught sea trout to be identified back to their river of origin using a DNA sample obtainable from a scale sample or mouth swab. This means that managers are able to assess the impact of marine development and exploitation in relation to a specific freshwater stock. This will allow for the avoidance of mixed stock exploitation of sea trout, and inform marine spatial planning so as to avoid impacts on trout stocks that are especially vulnerable. By coordinating with other Interreg funded projects such as the Celtic Sea Trout Project and Living North Sea Project, together we have been able to provide coverage over England, Wales, and much of Scotland
Celtic Sea Trout Project Nigel Milner. APEM Limited, C/O School of Biological Sciences, Bangor University, Brambell Building, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd Wales, UK LL57 2UW E-mail address of the corresponding author: N.Milner@apemltd.co.uk The CSTP was an Interreg IVA funded project, running from 2009 to 2013, to improve the management and long term future of sea trout in the Celtic seas by providing scientific information and advice, to enhance awareness and to create a network of people working in the long term to secure the future of sea trout. The influence of climate change was an underlying Interreg theme. The project was delivered through the Ireland-‐Wales Cross-‐Border partnership through a multi-‐partner collaboration across universities, Government laboratories, agencies, fishery boards and involving hundreds of anglers in the river sampling part of the programme. A primary scientific aim was to discover more about sea trout marine life; where they go, how stocks might be mixed and how their ecology and life histories vary around the Irish Sea. The work was split into seven tasks: (1) management and dissemination, (2) review of fisheries, (3) Sampling, (4) microchemistry, (5) genetics, (6) Freshwater production and (7) Ecology, life histories, modelling for management. This talk outlines the key results, focussing on the marine phase. Genetics was used to establish a genetic baseline of sea trout in 99 rivers by sampling juvenile trout in nursery streams. Sea trout sampled in different parts of the Irish Sea could then be genetically profiled and assigned back to their region/river of origin. By this means it was possible to get a picture of from where fish caught at the sea originated and where they would therefore, probably, have returned to spawn. There are many caveats and sources of uncertainty, but in essence nine principal regional groups were found and differences were seen in the areas that these groups occupied during their sea feeding phase, and in the degrees of dispersal (some over the full Irish Sea) and exchange between them. The micro-‐chemistry data (based on the chemical composition of scales which take on the fingerprint of the environment that fish live in) broadly supported this spatial structuring. Rod catch data were used as indices of long term stock fluctuations. Recognising the caveats with catch data it was apparent that, while there was river-‐specific variation, sea trout abundance was partly synchronous within geographical regions. At broader Irish Sea scale there was still synchronous variation accounting for up to 35% of between region variance. This pointed to some common factor/s acting on catches (=stocks) and or fishing effectiveness. Between-‐river variations in catches were huge, as is well known. Clearly, river size and associated fishing effort are dominant factors controlling catch; but there are other influential environmental factors. For example, models using catch per effort as the dependent variable showed that rivers with low alkalinity with higher cover of forest and less intensive land use types tended to be better sea trout rivers
Life histories, growth and stock structure were studied through historical and contemporary scale reading programmes. Much effort went into developing scale reading and a best practice manual. It still proved hard to get consistent scale reading across the participating teams, given the wide variety of prevalent life histories seen in the area, but adequate data came from around 20 rivers. A number of improvements in methods were developed. Nevertheless, patterns were evident from these data and from surveys in the late 1990s. Faster marine growth and higher survival (and more multiple spawners) was characteristic of rivers draining the eastern seaboard (Wales, NW England, Galloway and Isle of Man) compared with the western coast, which on average were dominated by finnock. The Currane in southwest Ireland, was a notable exception, with a high proportion of long-‐lived adult sea trout. The influence of sea water temperature was comparatively strong on the east coast, where latitudinal variation was evident, but less so on the west. This life history variation appeared to be consistent with the stock exchange information from genetics and microchemistry, and with results of hydrodynamic modelling (by Cefas) with showed that on average there was tendency for post-‐smolt sea trout from south-‐east Irish rivers to wander more extensively and northward than those on the more structured coasts of Wales and England. This reflects the broad patterns of residual currents in the Irish Sea and would predict their growth to be less associated with their local marine habitat. The overall impression is of a complex mosaic of marine dispersal, probably reflecting the contrasting hydrography and feeding conditions experienced by fish leaving their natal rivers. Sandeels and sprat were by far the dominant prey items, with a much smaller proportion of other fish species and crustaceans. There was some evidence of diet variation between different regions of the Irish Sea. However, the important question about how prey abundance itself varies over time cannot be answered because there is limited monitoring of sandeel, sprat or other prey species in the Irish Sea; this is clearly an aspect to be looked into. An unexpected result was the high degree to which sea trout continue to feed and grow during winter months at sea. Long term sea temperature change is evident in the Irish Sea, as have been shifts in marine trophic ecology. However attempts to relate these changes to life history variation had so far been unsuccessful. The results are discussed briefly in terms of life history theory by which brown trout anadromy is a tactic to maximise average lifetime fitness through increasing growth and fertility offered by sea feeding. The implications for conservation, through for example, vulnerability to mixed stock exploitation, the portfolio effect, the bio-‐indicator role of trout and considering the total variety of drainages, large and small, around the Irish Sea, are outlined. Much remains to be done, but the CSTP has produced new information, a permanent data archive, a scale collection and other samples that will be available for future studies. Its primary purpose of improving understanding of sea trout stocks in order to support better management was achieved. Many questions remain, new ones have emerged and recommendations for future work have been made, to be tackled as resources become available.
Session 7. Improving Fish Passage
Can Eels jump through hoops?
Peter Brunner or Theresa Redding Royal HaskoningDHV, Stratus House, Emperor Way, Exeter, EX1 3QS, UK E-mail address of the corresponding author: peter.brunner@rhdhv.com and theresa.redding@rhdhv.com Fish in exploited rivers face a continuing risk of entrainment through various schemes and processes. Species which spend part of their lives in both the freshwater and marine environment may face even greater risks. Water based schemes are typically developed for renewables, agricultural irrigation, water pumping/ transfer; and in the cooling of fuel-fired power stations. One of the species worst affected by such schemes is the European eel (Anguilla anguilla). Once widely distributed throughout European estuarine and inland waters, the European eel has experienced a 90% continent-wide decline in recruitment since the 1980`s. European eel are subject to specific legislation (The EC Eel Regulation (1100/2007)) which affords them protection from anthropogenic activities, such as pumping of water which requires the Environment Agency to provide solutions at structures, such as pumping stations, to prevent fish/eel entrainment. Eels also face the effects of anthropogenic activities on their migratory path through the marine environment. Marine Infrastructure projects such as offshore wind farms have the potential to affect the migratory patterns of eels in a variety of ways but how much evidence is available to determine the magnitude of the effect? This paper presents recent case studies of innovative solutions recommended to assist the passage of European eel through complex structures acting as physical barriers within the river systems of the UK in particular pumping stations and tidal outfalls. In addition, the paper considers the evidence available on the influence that marine activities may have on the behaviour of the European eel. The cost benefits of implementing eel passage solutions are also presented.
Efficiency of eel passes for upstream moving River lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) at an experimental Crump weir
Jim Kerr.
International Centre for Ecohydraulics Research, Faculty of Engineering and the
Environment, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
E-mail address of the corresponding author: j.r.kerr@soton.ac.uk
Recently new ‘anguilliform’ passes, using substrates originally designed for migratory eels, have been developed to reduce habitat fragmentation at low head gauging structures. The efficiencies of these passes are untested despite widespread installation. We assessed the ability of adult River lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) to pass upstream over an experimental Crump weir installed in a large open-channelled flume with (treatment) and without (control) bristle passes or eel tiles under two different hydraulic regimes. Lamprey were highly motivated to explore their surroundings and move upstream during the trials and passage efficiency of the control weir when flooded was 100%. When the head difference was increased to 230mm (i.e. velocity and turbulence were high, 2.43 ms-1 and 0.66 ms-1, respectively) passage efficiency was 0% despite multiple attempts (up to 50 attempts per trail). Under these conditions the addition of bristle passes, vertically oriented ell tiles, and horizontally oriented el tiles increased passage efficiency to 35.7%, 20.0%, 22.2%, respectively. Generally, lamprey struggled to make progress through the bristles passes and individuals were left with striated marks along the length of their body. In addition, issues with the alignment and length that the eel tiles extended over the weir were observed. The application of these pass designs for anguilliform species is discussed.
Posters
Atlantic herring Clupea harengus spawning and its implications to seabed users
Matthew Davison.
Fugro EMU (UK)
E-mail address of the corresponding author: matthew.davison@fugroemu.com
Atlantic herring Clupea harengus gather at traditional spawning grounds over large shoals and banks to spawn. Unusually for a marine species the Atlantic herring are demersal spawners that deposit eggs on specific substrates that consist of coarse gravel, sand, maerl and shell, in areas of a low fine sediments and well oxygenated waters (Ellis et al., 2012). These spawning habitats lead to direct anthropogenic interaction from offshore industries such as marine aggregate extraction, oil and gas, dredge and benthic fisheries and offshore renewables. To mitigate the potential impact to Atlantic herring it is necessary to engage in regulation. This poster aims to identify the various levels of mitigation associated with these industries and discuss its relevance with regard to its desired outcome.
The grouper fishery: trends and actual management.
Clara Obregón Lafuente,
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh
E-mail address of the corresponding author: co97@hw.ac.uk
The grouper fishery is a multi-specific fishery which targets mostly red grouper but includes several associated species as part of the total catches. The red grouper is one of the main commercial species of the Yucatán península, in Mexico. Four important fisheries are being exploited nowadays: spiny lobster (P.argus), octopus (O.maya and O.vulgaris), sea cucumber (I.badionotus) and red grouper (E. morio). The red grouper harvest has been historically the most important fishery in Yucatán until now. Currently, three fleets are exploiting this resource, two Mexican fleets (artisanal and industrial fleets) and one Cuban. Several management strategies have been implemented to control fishing effort, however, the red grouper fishery is now classified as overexploited.
This study investigated the trend of the catches in several ports of the Yucatán península for the last 10 years to confirm the status of the fishery particularly in Yucatán. Furthermore, interviews with fishers were held to report the working conditions of the fishers, fishing methods and fishing gears used and the present situation of the fishery. No indicator of recovery from the red grouper fishery was found. The grouper landings show a decreasing trend since the late 1990s. This trend indicates that the management applied to this specific fishery is not being effective. A small number of management strategies, a lack of necessary information for good management of the fishery and a weak control of the application of each regulation are probably the cause
of the continuous decrease of the grouper catches for both Cuban and Mexican fleets. Based on the above, several proposals are being stated in this study to improve the management of the fishery and facilitate the recuperation of the red grouper population and its associated species."
Efficiency of vertically oriented bristle passes for upstream moving European eel (Anguilla anguilla) at an experimental Crump weir.
Authors: Jim Kerr+A, Paul KempA and Peri KarageorgopoulosB.
+: Presenting author.
A: International Centre for Ecohydraulics Research, University of Southampton, UK.
B: Senior Technical Specialist (Fisheries), Environment Agency, South East, UK.
E-mail address of the corresponding author: j.r.kerr@soton.ac.uk
Globally, several species of diadromous anguilliform fish, such as the European eel (Anguilla anguilla), have experienced substantial population declines, often due to impeded migration between essential habitats. This poster presents the findings of a study undertaken to assess the ability of European yellow eel (322-660mm TL) to pass upstream over an experimental Crump weir installed in a large open-channel flume with (treatment) and without (control) side-mounted vertically oriented bristle passes under three different hydraulic regimes. Passage and delay were quantified and compared between hydraulic regime and treatment. When head difference was at its greatest (230mm) (HV regime) and velocity was high (max: 2.43 m s-1) the upstream passage of large eel was severally hindered (passage success: 17.2%), and for the eel that did pass, delay was long. The addition of bristle passes, under these conditions, increased passage success to 76.5% and reduced delay. As such, the addition of bristle passes considerably improved the passage of European eel when hydraulic conditions restricted movement. The performance of bristle passes should be validated through robust field studies.
‘Efficiency of “Eel Tiles” for upstream migrating glass eel (Anguilla
anguilla) ascending an experimental Crump weir.’
Authors: Andy VowlesA, Andy DonB, Peri KarageorgopoulosC, and Paul
KempA.
A: International Centre for Ecohydraulics Research, University of Southampton, UK.
B: Technical Specialist, National Fisheries Services, Environment Agency, UK.
C: Senior Technical Specialist (Fisheries), Environment Agency, South East, UK.
E-mail address of the corresponding author: j.r.kerr@soton.ac.uk
River infrastructure (e.g. weirs) can prevent, limit or delay the upstream migration of critically endangered European eels (Anguilla anguilla). Robust quantification of the efficiency of fish passes specifically designed to facilitate upstream eel passage is limited. This study demonstrated that juvenile (glass) eels utilised a specific passage substrate (eel tiles) to circumvent a model Crump weir under an experimental setting. Upstream passage efficiency was 0 and 67% for the unmodified (control) and modified (with studded eel tiles on the downstream face; treatment) setup, respectively, and greater for a small (59%) compared to large (41%) stud configuration. Eels were active and motivated to ascend the weir during both control and treatment setups. Eels were edge oriented under both setups, and ascended the weir through the tiles during single burst swimming events. Eel tiles may provide a cost effective solution for mitigating impacts of anthropogenic barriers to juvenile eel migration. Further research is required to determine passage efficiencies under higher flows, for a greater size range of eel, and for other migratory anguilliform fish (e.g. lamprey, Lampetra spp. and Petromyzon marinus). The performance of eel tiles should be validated through robust field studies.
Silver Service: A Standard Protocol for Eel Health Examinations N. C. Lewin1, A. J. Reading1, F. A. Hockley2, J. Cable2, J. T. Turnbull3, G. D. Davies1, S. W. Feist4, D. Evans5, C. Belpaire6, A. M. Walker7, K. Way4, P. S. Kemp8, M. W. Aprahamian9, O. L. M. Haenen10, D. Hoole11, S. Dufour12, P. Hickley13 and C. F. Williams1. 1Environment Agency, National Fisheries Service, Brampton, PE28 4NE, UK 2School of Biosciences, University of Cardiff, Cardiff, CF10 3TL, UK 3 Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK 4 Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Weymouth
laboratory, Weymouth, Dorset, DT4 8UB, UK 5 Fisheries & Aquatic Ecosystems Branch, Agriculture Food and Environmental
Science Division, Agri-Food & Biosciences Institute, Newforge Lane, Belfast, BT9
5PX, UK 6 Research for Nature and Forest, Duboislaan 14, 1560 Groenendaal-Hoeilaart,
Belgium 7 Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Lowestoft
Laboratory, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK 8 International Centre for Ecohydraulic Research, School of Civil Engineering and the
Environment, Highfield, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK 9 Environment Agency, Richard Fairclough House, Knutsford Road, Warrington,
WA4 1HT, UK 10 Central Veterinary Institute of Wageningen UR, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad,
The Netherlands 11 Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK 12 National Museum of Natural History, 7 rue Cuvier, CP 32, 75231 Paris, Cedex 05,
France 13 Fisheries Consultant, 3 The Green, Freethorpe, Norfolk, NR13 3NY E-mail address of the corresponding author: neil.lewin@environment-agency.gov.uk Abstract There has been a significant decline in recruitment of European eel, Anguilla anguilla, with average levels now at less than 5% of those in the 1970s. Compared with other factors on eel conservation, such as exploitation and habitat loss, eel health has received little attention, despite growing awareness of its potential role in both the decline of the stock and its recovery. There is limited knowledge on the distribution, abundance and impact of contaminants and pathogens within eel populations and further understanding of eel health interactions inevitably requires sacrificial sampling. This should be a last resort due to the perilous status of eels but where sacrifice is made it is essential to maximise the retrieval of data from every eel examined. A comprehensive fish health protocol has been developed to assist
practitioners with the collection, examination, handling, storage, utilisation and archiving of eel tissues. Initial guidance is given to eel anatomy, protocol planning, eel handling and euthanasia. The main framework for dissection is structured around four primary themes; Morphometrics, Physiology and Ecology; Parasites and Diseases, Contaminants and Non-destructive Sampling. For each, detailed approaches combined with annotated images are provided to support consistent tissue handling and data collection. Opportunities for establishing a national eel tissue archive are discussed. This approach will help better co-ordinate available resources and enhance collaborative research opportunities, in turn progressing our understanding of eel health and spawner quality. This will underpin existing initiatives, such as the European Eel Quality Database (EEQD) and ensure the integration of eel health in the future management and conservation of eels. Parasites and pathologies of the European Eel Anguilla anguilla. Reading, A.J., Cable, J., Evans, D., Hockley, F., Nolan, E.T., Feist, S.W. & Williams, C.F. Amy Reading, Environment Agency, Bromholme Lane, Brampton, U.K., PE28 4NE Tel: +44(0)1480 483802 E-mail address of the corresponding author: amy.reading@environment–agency.gov.uk The European eel, Anguilla anguilla, hosts a diverse range of parasites throughout its geographical range. It is increasingly recognised that some parasites can adversely affect the fitness, survival and reproductive capacity of eels. Much attention has been given to the swim bladder nematode Anguillicoloides crassus, but relatively little is known about the impact, distribution and importance of other infections in the wild. There has also been limited study on parasites in early life stages of eels. The results of parasitological examinations and health investigations in wild UK eels, conducted between 2008 and 2013, are presented. Descriptions of gross and histopathological changes associated with the parasites Anguillicoloides crassus, Pseudodactylogyrus spp., Pomphorynchus laevis, Acanthocephalus anguillae, Daniconema anguillae, Myxidium giardi, Myxobolus portucalensis, Ergasilus gibbus, and Dermocystidium anguillae are described and evaluated. Additional attention is given to disease outbreaks caused by the bacterial pathogens Aeromonas hydrophila, Vibrio anguillarum and the virus Herpesvirus anguillae. The importance of these infections is discussed in relation to the health of individual eels and the wider management of this threatened species.
IFM Annual Conference 2014 Delegate List
First Name Surname Organisation Email
Giles Alcock Natural England Giles.alcock@naturalengland.gov.uk
Miran Aprahamian Environment Agency miran.aprahamian@environment-‐agency.gov.uk
Magnus Thor Asgeirsson Vaki Riverwatcher. Magnus@vaki.is Stephen Atkins North West IFCA s.atkins@nw-‐ifca.gov.uk
Stephen Axford IFM steveaxford@madasafish.com Peter Batey Healthy Waterways Trust pwjbatey@liv.ac.uk
Liz Baldwin Environment Agency liz.baldwin1@environment-‐agency.gov.uk
Nigel Balmforth Wiley nbalmforth@wiley.com
Barry Bendall The Rivers Trust barry@theriverstrust.org Sebastain Bentley JBA Consulting Sebastian.Bentley@jbaconsulting.com
Paul Carter Environment Agency paul.carter@environment-‐agency.gov.uk Sarah Chare Environment Agency sarah.chare@environment-‐agency.gov.uk
Daniel Clarke Certificate Student Award Winner dansterclarke@yahoo.co.uk
Steve Coates SLR Consulting scoates@slrconsulting.com Stephen Colclough SC2/IFM srcifm@gmail.com
Seamus Connor DCAL Northern Ireland seamus.connor@dcalni.gov.uk
Paul Cornor Healthy Waterways Trust
Paul Coulson Institute of Fisheries Management paul.coulson@ifm.org.uk
Charles Crundwell Environment Agency charles.crundwell@environment-‐agency.gov.uk
Eamon Cusack Institute of Fisheries Management chairman@ifm.org.uk
Matthew Davidson Fugro EMU Ltd matthew.davison@fugroemu.com
Ian Dolben Environment Agency ian.dolben@environment-‐agency.gov.uk Andy Don Environment Agency andy.don@environment-‐agency.gov.uk Jack Egerton Bangor University jackegerton@yahoo.co.uk Greg Forde Inland Fisheries Ireland Greg.Forde@fisheriesireland.ie John Foster Environment Agency john.foster@environment-‐agency.gov.uk David Fraser Apem Ltd d.fraser@apemltd.co.uk
Karen Galtress
Department Environment Food and Agriculture Isle of Man Karen.Galtress@gov.im
John Gregory Institute of Fisheries Management
John.gregory@ifm.org.uk
Ian Gregg The Rivers Trust ian@ullswater.org Ashley Halls Aquae Sulis (Research) Ltd ashleyhalls@btconnect.com Martin Harmer The Rivers Trust martin@theriverstrust.org Phillip Haslam Eastern IFCA philiphaslam@eastern-‐ifca.gcsx.gov.uk Jon Hateley Environment Agency jon.hateley@environment-‐agency.gov.uk Keith Hendry Apem Ltd k.hendry@apemltd.co.uk Nigel Hewlett Environment Agency nigel.hewlett@environment-‐agency.gov.uk
James Heywood Fish Guidance Systems J.Heywood@fish-‐guide.com
Phil Hickley phil.hickley@gmail.com
Marc Hubble Apem Ltd M.Hubble@apemltd.co.uk Alexander Humphreys Atkins Global Ltd alexander.humphreys@atkinsglobal.com Sarah Hussey Thompson Ecology sarah.hussey@unicomarine.com Paul Johnson Paul Johnson Associates pauljohnson@btinternet.com Jim Kerr Southampton University j.r.kerr@soton.ac.uk Joe Kitanosono Environment Agency j.kitanosono@me.com Dickon Knight E-‐Fish dickon@e-‐fish.co.uk Abigail Leadbetter North West IFCA A.Leadbeater@nw-‐ifca.gov.uk Shaun Leonard Wild Trout Trust director@wildtrout.org
Katy Lewis Environment Agency katy.lewis@environment-‐agency.gov.uk Neil Lewin Environment Agency neil.lewin@environment-‐agency.gov.uk Kat Liney Cascade Consulting kat.liney@cascadeconsulting.co.uk
Kevin Linnane RPS Group kevin.linnane@rpsgroup.com Ivor Llewelyn Atlantic Salmon Trust ivor@linkwell.org.uk
Vanessa Lloyd valloyd@hotmail.com Peter Lynch DCAL Northern Ireland peter.lynch@dcalni.gov.uk Jim Lyons Environment Agency jim.lyons@environment-‐agency.gov.uk Susan Mackirdy Tyne Rivers Trust s.mackirdy@tyneriverstrust.org Louise MacCallum Langstone Harbour Board environment@langstoneharbour.org.uk
Alistair Maltby The Rivers Trust alistair@theriverstrust.org
Katrina Marshall Natural Resources Wales katrina.marshall@cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk
François Martignac ASCONIT / INRA francois.martignac@asconit.com Nigel Milner Apem Ltd N.Milner@apemltd.co.uk David Mitchell Angling Trust david.mitchell@anglingtrust.net Richard Morgan Natural England richard.morgan@naturalengland.org.uk Carl Nicholls Canal and Rivers Trust carl.nicholls@canalrivertrust.org.uk Martin Nieuwenhuyzen Aquatic Control Engineering martin@aquaticcontrol.co.uk
Art Niven Loughs Agency art.niven@loughs-‐agency.org
Richard Noble Hull International Fisheries Institute R.A.Noble@hull.ac.uk
Marc Owen Defra marc.owen@defra.gsi.gov.uk Jon Payne Environment Agency jon.payne@environment-‐agency.gov.uk Mark Porath American Fisheries Society mark.porath@nebraska.gov Ted Potter Cefas ted.potter@cefas.co.uk Chris Povey Environment Agency chris.povey@environment-‐agency.gov.uk David Powell Environment Agency davidj.powell@environment-‐agency.gov.uk Emma Rance Dorset Wildlife Trust erance@dorsetwildlifetrust.org.uk Mike Ashwin REDFA oneeoffdesignandbuild@hotmail.com
Caroline Riley Healthy Waterways Trust caroline.riley@healthywaterwaystrust.org.uk
Dafydd Roberts Aquatic Control Engineering dafydd@aquaticcontrol.co.uk Libby Ross Devon and Severn IFCA e.ross@devonandsevernifca.gov.uk
Mark Rudd Environment Agency darren.bedworth@environment-‐agency.gov.uk
Iain Russon Apem Ltd i.russon@apemltd.co.uk John Semeraz jtsemeraz@gmail.com
Brian Shields Environment Agency brian.shields@environment-‐agency.gov.uk
Peter Spillett Institute of Fisheries Management peterspillett@tiscali.co.uk
Martin Stemp RS Aqua m.stemp@rsaqua.co.uk Bruce Stockley Westcountry Rivers Trust bruce@wrt.org.uk Elizabeth Taeed cbec eco-‐engineering UK e.taeed@cbecoeng.co.uk
Lawrence Talks Environment Agency lawrence.talks@environment-‐agency.gov.uk
Ida Tavener Environment Agency ida.tavner@cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk
Marie Taylor Hull International Fisheries Institute M.Taylor@2006.hull.ac.uk
Stephen Thompson Eastern IFCA stephenthompson@eastern-‐ifca.gcsx.gov.uk
Matthew Thomas Welsh Government ThomasM17@wales.gsi.gov.uk Pete Turner Environment Agency pete.turner@environment-‐agency.gov.uk
Emma Washburn Environment Agency emma.washburn@environment-‐agency.gov.uk
Andy Welberry Defra andy.welberry@defra.gsi.gov.uk Ian Wellby Blue Roof Ltd ian@blueroof.co.uk Karen Wilson University of Southern Maine kwilson@usm.maine.edu
Ashley Wilson MRAG Ltd ashleyrowanwilson@gmail.com
Jay Willis Turnpenny Horsfield Associates jay.willis@thaaquatic.com
Theo Wilson University of Southern Maine
Godfrey Williams Environment Agency godfrey.williams@environment-‐agency.gov.uk
Adrian Williams Apem Ltd a.williams@apemltd.co.uk
Ian Winfield Centre for Ecology & Hydrology ijw@ceh.ac.uk
Recommended