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