WESTCOUNTRY RIVERS TRUST · Draft For client comment Craig Renton Bruce Stockley Bruce Stockley 11/01/21 . Westcountry Rivers Trust Electrofishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2020

Westcountry Rivers Trust Electrofishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2020

0

WESTCOUNTRY RIVERS TRUST ELECTROFISHING SURVEY

REPORT - RIVER FOWEY, 2020

River Fowey


Report written by Craig Renton Mapping undertaken by Craig Renton

Checked by Bruce Stockley

Westcountry Rivers Trust Rain-Charm House

Kyl Cober Parc Stoke Climsland

Callington Cornwall PL17 8PH

Tel: +44 (0) 1579 372140 Email: [email protected] Web: www.wrt.org.uk

Version Details of Revision Prepared by Checked by Approved by Date of Issue Draft For client comment Craig Renton Bruce Stockley Bruce Stockley 11/01/21


Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Electrofishing Protocols ................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Life cycle and bottlenecks ............................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Catchment Based Fisheries Conservation Strategy (Defend/Repair/Attack) ............................... 4

2. Site selection ................................................................................................................................... 4

3. Field Sampling and data analysis methods ..................................................................................... 5

4. Results and Discussion .................................................................................................................... 7

5. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 19

6. Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 22

Table of figures Figure 1 Diagrams defining salmonid habitat bottlenecks (Summers et al, 1996) ................................. 4 Figure 2 2020 Fowey Salmon Length Frequency Distribution. ............................................................... 6 Figure 3 2020 Fowey Trout Length Frequency Distribution. .................................................................. 7 Figure 4 Total catch data for River Fowey, 2020 .................................................................................... 8 Figure 5 Salmon and trout classifications River Fowey, 2020 ................................................................. 9 Figure 6 Fowey trout fry classification stacks. ...................................................................................... 16 Figure 7 Fowey salmon fry classification stacks .................................................................................... 16 Figure 8 Multi-year average fry numbers for salmon, trout and combined salmonids. ...................... 17

Table 1 Semi-quantitative abundance categories for salmon fry (Crozier & Kennedy, 1994) ............... 6 Table 2 Fowey Salmon & Trout Fry Classifications 2020. ....................................................................... 7 Table 3 Multi-year salmon fry classifications (N.B hatched areas are Environment Agency surveys). 12 Table 4 Multi-year trout fry classification (N.B. hatched areas are Environment Agency surveys) ..... 13 Table 5 Recommended DRA actions for Fowey sub catchments ......................................................... 21


1

Executive Summary This is the ninth year in which Westcountry Rivers Trust (WRT) have carried out a catchment wide

electrofishing report on the River Fowey. The results of the 2020 survey have shown an improvement

on some of those from previous years and overall the catchment has performed well. The Water For

Growth project (W4G) continues work within the catchment for improvements to fish passage and

riparian and in-river habitat works. With the project entering its final year some of the information

from these surveys will be used to guide efforts and work within the catchment.

1. Introduction WRT has undertaken semi-quantitative fry index electrofishing surveys throughout the River Fowey

as part of its annual monitoring program. This was the fourth year of catchment wide monitoring by

WRT which commenced as part of the monitoring for the W4G but the tenth consecutive year where

previous surveys were enabled by donations from Fowey Rivers Association (FRA).

Due to the global pandemic that is affecting many organisations WRT have had to adapt to a modified,

operator safeguarding survey methodology which was incorporated into this year’s fry index surveys.

Surveys were undertaken between June and September 2020 and a total of seven sites were

electrofished by WRT on the Fowey. Surveys were identified to allow for catchment wide coverage

with monitoring based on sites historically fished by the Environment Agency with older data available

for comparison, those where W4G outputs required monitoring and locations requested from local

angling interests.

1.1 Electrofishing Protocols

Electrofishing uses a controlled electric current to induce fish to swim toward an anode and into a

hand net, and thereby be counted and assessed. When carried out correctly by experienced and

qualified surveyors it is not harmful to fish and the fish are released back to the same location they

were caught. In upland streams and shallower sections of rivers, an electrofishing backpack is used

and therefore this type of kit was used for all the Fowey surveys.

There are several approaches to electrofishing assessments in rivers; quantitative, area semi-

quantitative and time semi-quantitative methodologies. All three methods have their advantages and

disadvantages.

Quantitative electrofishing is a thorough methodology that has the highest degree of accuracy of all

the methods. The main disadvantages of this approach are it is less mobile than backpack equipment


2

and it takes longer to undertake surveys. It Is therefore more costly than other approaches. With this

method, an area of river is netted off and the fish are removed from this defined stretch in multiple

passes until sufficient fish are removed to form a very accurate assessment of species and numbers.

It is not required to remove all the fish from the area but rather ensure a consistent fishing method

that gives a linear decrease in the number of fish caught per pass. The overall catch decline gives an

accurate estimate of the total number of fish in the location. This is known as the ‘depletion’

methodology.

An area-based semi-quantitative electrofishing methodology follows the same process as

quantitative electrofishing but only a single pass is carried out. A lack of multiple passes renders the

method only semi quantitative and therefore less accurate, but it has the advantage of being much

quicker than the depletion method, and it is suitable for use on all waterbody types. It is able to detect

multiple species and is reasonably accurate but is less time efficient and therefore costlier than a time-

based methodology (described below).

A time-based, semi-quantitative electrofishing methodology differs from both the approaches

described above. Instead of limiting the area fished (by use of nets) it limits the amount of time used

to fish to assess fish numbers. As no nets are deployed, fish in deeper sections of large rivers can

frequently avoid capture using this method. It is therefore only suitable to assess salmonid fry, who

are restricted to a shallower section of upland streams and rivers. This method is extremely rapid and

therefore cost-effective, allowing for deployment across whole river catchments although its major

drawback is its lower accuracy than netted approaches.

In weighing up the pros and cons of the various approaches it is worth considering what would be

required for a truly reliable method. In scientific publications it is usually considered that if an

approach is accurate 95% of the time then this is an acceptable standard. Such an approach would be

said to have sufficient statistical power to answer the question asked, for example, ‘has this habitat

improvement resulted in more fish in the area studied?’. For an electrofishing methodology to have

sufficient statistical power it requires a large number of sites to be fished in a fully-quantitative

depletion methodology over a number of years. As such an effort is rarely practicable and will cost

more than the habitat improvements it attempts to measure, this approach is rarely applied in the UK.

River managers in the UK have limited budgets and therefore it is the case that an electrofishing

programme of insufficient statistical power to achieve 95% confidence is usually accepted as a

compromise between accuracy and cost.

Bearing in mind the limits of statistical power that these approaches usually have (as practically

applied), it is important to consider the aim of a given electrofishing programme. In the case of WRT’s


3

catchment scale electrofishing programme, the aim is to build up historical data on each catchment

to provide information as to how to best take action to improve the fish stocks for salmon and trout.

To achieve this, the largest number of sites possible for maximum catchment coverage must be fished

over several consecutive years to i) guide current/future conservation strategies and ii) identify

whether or not the actions taken on the catchment have had a positive effect on fish numbers. Most

importantly the electrofishing programme is specified to be carried out at a catchment scale where

salmon and trout spawning areas occur. As most rivers have many tributaries or main stems of

considerable length, a relatively large number of sites are required for full coverage. This typically

equates to between 20 to 100 sites on rivers in southwest England, depending on the river catchment

geography. All things considered; a timed semi-quantitative approach was considered most

appropriate for the WRT electrofishing programme. This method will indicate the main issues and

areas that need addressing on a river catchment including:

• Upstream barriers to fish-passage

• Degraded habitat quality

• The upper limit of salmon spawning

• Successfully/Unsuccessfully enhanced habitat

• Catchment-scale fry migration due to river levels

• Point source and diffuse pollution

1.2 Life cycle and bottlenecks

The aim of the semi-quantitative electrofishing program is to identify issues that prevent salmonids

from effectively completing their life-cycle, and then proposing solutions that are proportionate to

the issue at hand. It is useful to adopt certain conceptual frameworks to each of these aims, and in

this report, we will use two of these frameworks; the ‘habitat bottlenecks’ that describe the causes

of issues in salmonid ecology (figure 1), and the ‘Defend/Repair/Restore’ conservation strategy

framework which describes the appropriate habitat action depending on the ecological situation

found at the site.


4

Figure 1 Diagrams defining salmonid habitat bottlenecks (Summers et al, 1996)

1.3 Catchment Based Fisheries Conservation Strategy (Defend/Repair/Attack)

In using the fry index classification, catchment population abundance monitoring and determining the

river reach density classification, a series of priority areas can be outlined, and management

recommendations made tailored to the particular species. Recommendation actions broadly follow

the Defend/Repair/Attack concept, developed by Ronald Campbell of the Tweed Foundation. For

every river reach that is classified, a management action can be loosely determined.

Whilst this provides a useful structuring framework, the reality of given situations can bring many

complexities and lies on a continuum between these extremes. The goal is to move the river reaches

of the Fowey up from the unstable point (i.e. poor fish stocks and habitat) to the broad top of a

healthy, natural riverine ecosystem. Where the populations are in a very poor state, radical actions

may be required to see a change. Conversely, where the stocks are already good, habitat re-

engineering and stocking operations would be inappropriate. Actions to achieve these improvements

can be divided between ‘fish stock actions’ such as fish translocations or bag limits for anglers and

‘fish habitat actions’ such as removing barriers to migration or coppicing. In many situations, both

types of action will be required. This concept helps divide catchment scale management for fisheries

into priorities and therefore can help to maximise multiple benefits through targeted work.

2. Site selection Sites were selected based on previous surveys to maintain monitoring consistency throughout the

catchment with a few additions incorporated to aid with the monitoring of works carried out under

W4G. The W4G project was a three-year programme which was extended by one year, and then given


5

another two-year extension. The project aims to improve fish passage within the Camel and Fowey

catchments and improve the ecological diversity within the catchment utilising riparian habitat

management. This project has now been extended by a further two years. By managing the

light/shade regime on the river water temperature can be kept cool while letting light into riffle

reaches which can help instigate primary production and benefit juvenile salmonids. These works can

also create habitat and refuge for salmonids increasing survival rates within their first year of life. W4G

is now entering its final year before the commencement of the two year extension, the previous survey

data has helped guide our management options within the catchment but has also aided us in

highlighting issues and concerns within individual sub catchments.

3. Field Sampling and data analysis methods Permissions for all sites were established before electrofishing surveys took place. Each site was

electro fished by a two or three-person team. The voltage of the unit was set at each site depending

on the water conductivity. The operatives fished continuously for a standard five minutes over suitable

fry habitat without the use of stop nets. The fishing area was variable, and the length of fishing time

was fixed. Fish were collected in a net and placed into a holding bucket before processing.

All salmonids were identified to species and fork length was measured and recorded. Numbers or

density estimates were recorded for all other species captured. Habitat features such as land use,

substrate type and shading were recorded at each site. Any fry that were missed or escaped during

electrofishing were assigned to either trout or salmon groups depending on the relative percentage

of each species already recorded at the site.

The results of the electrofishing survey are classified according to the methodology of Crozier and

Kennedy (1994), displayed in Table 1, with each site being given an equivalent density classification

compared to quantitative monitoring. This semi-quantitative methodology was designed by Crozier

and Kennedy for both salmon and trout. However, the results for trout need adjustments to consider

the difference in the regression line for trout and salmon as described by Crozier and Kennedy. This

issue is planned to be investigated during the 2019 survey season utilising results of multiple, fully

quantitative surveys on the Tamar Catchment undertaken by WRT. The data will be analysed and

adopted for trout results going forward once it has undergone robust scientific scrutiny.


6

Table 1 Semi-quantitative abundance categories for salmon fry (Crozier & Kennedy, 1994)

Based on the lengths of fish captured during the survey fry were considered to be any individual that

measured up to 85mm for salmon and 95mm for trout. In the catchment there was a clear difference

between 0+ and 1+ age group and so an upper limit cut off point was determined from a length

frequency distribution shown in Figures 2 & 3 below.

Figure 2 2020 Fowey Salmon Length Frequency Distribution.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Freq

uenc

y

Size (mm)

Atlantic Salmon Length Distribution 2020

Density Classification Semi-quantitative Quantitative (n/5min fishing) (n 100m∙2)

A (excellent) >23 >114.7 B (good) 11-23 69.1-114.6 C (fair) 5-10 41.1-69.0 D (poor) 1-4 0.1-41.0 E (absent) 0 0


7

Figure 3 2020 Fowey Trout Length Frequency Distribution.

4. Results and Discussion This survey year had a reduced number of survey sites due to COVID-19 and therefore we should be cautious in drawing conclusions from these results. Next year we will survey a normal number of sites; however, the results from 2020 surveyed sites are discussed below. Weather and other general survey conditions were relatively consistent during the 2020 survey season on the Fowey catchment with most surveys being completed on dry days. Similar to 2019 the river levels during the survey season in 2020 were quite low, with water temperature being around 18° on some watercourses. Therefore, care was taken by the survey team to ensure minimal stress to fish during survey operations, and surveying ceased if water temperatures were too high or fish health was considered to be at risk, in line with Environment Agency guidance.

Table 2 Fowey Salmon & Trout Fry Classifications 2020.

Site name Tributary 2020 Salmon Class 2020 Trout Class Milltown Cardinham Absent - 0 Good - 13 US Glynn Cardinham Poor - 3 Good - 19

Lampen Lane St Neot Absent - 0 Excellent - 25 Kitesnest Woods St Neot Poor - 1 Good - 14 Trengoffe Wood Warleggan Excellent - 67 Good - 15 Lewarne LDAC Fowey Poor - 2 Good - 13

Golitha Draynes Fowey Poor - 2 Poor - 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Freq

uenc

y

Size (mm)

Brown trout length distribution 2020


8

Figure 4 Total catch data for River Fowey, 2020


9

Figure 5 Salmon and trout classifications River Fowey, 2020


10

Salmon classification River Site 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020 Fowey Leskernick Hill E E E E E E E E Fowey Blackhill Down E E E E E E Fowey Dozmary Downs E E C D C E Fowey Harrowbridge Hill C E D E E D C E B Fowey Westerlake Farm D D D C D D D Fowey u/s North Netherton Bridge B D D C B C D D B Fowey Golitha Draynes B C C B D C B D B D

Fowey The Nether C C D C D D C C B Fowey Ashford Bridge C A D C D C E D Fowey Doublebois Bridge B A D B D B B A C Fowey D/S Bodithial Bridge B D C B B D E B E Fowey Lewarne LDAC New Site D C D

Fowey Rivermead B B C D B A C Fowey U/S Newbridge B D B C C C C Fowey Glynn U/S Parkway D C D D C C B Fowey Respryn Bridge B A D B C C Fowey Below WTW C B B D E E E Fowey Restormel Farm B B B D D C E D D

Fowey Trib. Lower Langdon E Fowey Trib. Bulland Downs E C E D E E Fowey Trib. Bodithial Stream E E E E E E E E Fowey Trib. Clinnick Viaduct E E E E E E E E Fowey Trib. Cabilla Wood D D D E D D E D E Fowey Trib. Drift Lane E E E E E E E Fowey Trib. Golden Lake E E E E E E E E


11

Trenant Stream Whitebarrow Downs E Trenant Stream Wortha E E E E E Trenant Stream Lower Trenant D D E D E E E Trenant Stream Carpuan New for 2019 E

St. Neot East Colliford E E E E E D A St. Neot Trewindle E E E E E E E E E St. Neot u/s St. Neot B B E E E E E St. Neot Lampen Lane E A E

St. Neot Carnglaze Caverns E D E E E E E E D St. Neot Kitesnest Woods D C C E D D D A D

Warleggan River Temple New Bridge E E E E E E E E Warleggan River Glynn Valley Works D Warleggan River u/s Cabilla Tor C D Warleggan River Carne Wood B C C C D E Warleggan River Crabbshill Wood C B C C D B C E C Warleggan River Trengoffe Wood C C B A

Warleggan River Holtroad Downs (between weirs) D D D D E B Warleggan River Whiterail Bridge New for 2019 E Warleggan Trib. Castle Dewey E E E E E E E Warleggan Trib. Barleysplat Wood C C E E E

Cardinham Water Millpool E E E E E E E E Cardinham Water Cardinham D E C E E E E Cardinham Water Milltown E B E E

Cardinham Water Trib. Millpark D E D E E E E E Cardinham Water Trib. Deviock Wood C B C E E E E E

Cardinham Water Callywith Wood Ford C B C E D E Cardinham Water Fletchersbridge A B B B A E B D


12

Cardinham Water U/S Glynn C A D D E B D D

Lerryn Collon Barton New for 2019 E

Table 3 Multi-year salmon fry classifications (N.B hatched areas are Environment Agency surveys).


13

Trout classification River Site 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020 Fowey Leskernick Hill C B D A B C B B Fowey Blackhill Down B C C B C D Fowey Dozmary Downs A B C B B B Fowey Harrowbridge Hill C B D C B B C B B Fowey Westerlake Farm C C E D C B D Fowey u/s North Netherton Bridge C D E E D C C D C Fowey u/s North Netherton Weir C D E C D Fowey Golitha Draynes C D D E C C D D B D Fowey The Nether C D E D E B C D C Fowey Ashford Bridge C D E D C D C C Fowey Doublebois Bridge D D D E C D E E D Fowey D/S Bodithial Bridge E D E D B A B B D Fowey Lewarne LDAC New Site C D B Fowey Rivermead D E D B B D D Fowey U/S Newbridge D D D D B C B Fowey Glynn U/S Parkway D E D C C B E Fowey Respryn Bridge E D C C D C Fowey Below WTW D E E D E D D Fowey Restormel Farm D D E C C C D C D

Fowey Trib. Lower Langdon C Fowey Trib. Bulland Downs B D B B B A Fowey Trib. Bodithial Stream A B B A A A A C Fowey Trib. Clinnick Viaduct B B A A A A A B Fowey Trib. Cabilla Wood A B C D B B B B B Fowey Trib. Drift Lane B B A B B A B


14

Fowey Trib. Golden Lake B B A B A A B A Trenant Stream Whitebarrow Downs C Trenant Stream Wortha C C B B A Trenant Stream Lower Trenant C C C C B C D Trenant Stream Carpuan New for 2019 A

St. Neot East Colliford E E E E C C St. Neot East Colliford E St. Neot Trewindle D D E C C D D C B St. Neot u/s St. Neot D D B B B A C St. Neot Lampen Lane B C A St. Neot Carnglaze Caverns C D B C B B C A B St. Neot Kitesnest Woods C E B C B C B C B

Warleggan River Temple New Bridge A B B A B A A A Warleggan River Glynn Valley Works B Warleggan River u/s Cabilla Tor B B Warleggan River Carne Wood B D C B D D Warleggan River Crabbshill Wood D C D D C C B B B Warleggan River Trengoffe Wood B A B B Warleggan River Holtroad Downs (between weirs) C D D C C B Warleggan River Whiterail Bridge New for 2019 A Warleggan Trib. Castle Dewey C D B B B B A Warleggan Trib. Barleysplat Wood B C A B A

Cardinham Water Millpool A A A B B D B A Cardinham Water Cardinham B B C C B A A Cardinham Water Milltown B A A B

Cardinham Water Trib. Millpark B C A B A A A A Cardinham Water Trib. Deviock Wood A B A A A B A B

Cardinham Water Callywith Wood Ford D C C C D D Cardinham Water Fletchersbridge D D C C B B C B


15

Cardinham Water Fletchersbridge C Cardinham Water U/S Glynn D B B C C C C B

Lerryn Collon Barton New for 2019 D

Table 4 Multi-year trout fry classification (N.B. hatched areas are Environment Agency surveys)


16

Figure 6 Fowey trout fry classification stacks.

Figure 7 Fowey salmon fry classification stacks

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fowey Trout Fry Classification Stacks

Absent Poor Fair Good Excellent

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fowey Salmon Fry Classification Stacks

Absent Poor Fair Good Excellent


17

Figure 8 Multi-year average fry numbers for salmon, trout and combined salmonids.

In 2020, the River Fowey salmonid survey assessed seven sites and showed similar numbers in

salmonid population to those of 2019, with some sites showing slightly increased fish densities and

some slightly decreased fish densities. Given the reduction in sample size, densities look similar but a

drop in resolution of the data has been caused by a smaller sample size. This does generate an idea of

how this year has performed but does not enable a good understanding of how the rest of the

catchment is performing due to only six survey sites being surveyed this year. Golitha Draynes and

Lewarne decreased in density with both sites scoring a poor for salmon fry.

Trout fry followed the same trend as trout in that the resolution of data has been reduced due to the

small sample size. In comparison, trout had increased at one site and decreased at another. Lewarne

scored good and was its highest scoring year for trout since surveys started at this site. Golitha Draynes

scored good for trout in 2019 but decreased to a poor in 2020 and although this is a decrease, historical

data suggests that this site usually performs between poor and fair.

Salmon classifications at Lampen Lane and Kitesnest Woods on the St Neot scored absent and poor

respectively and although both sites scored an excellent last year this year’s classifications follow the

same trend as previous years. It has been noted that last years sharp spike in salmon density was

highly likely caused by local stocking Lampen Lane scored an excellent for trout which is its highest

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020Salmon 6 4 6 2 3 3 6 7 11Trout 8 7 10 14 12 13 18 17 15Combined 15 11 16 16 16 16 23 24 26

0

5

10

15

20

25

30Fr

eque

ncy

Fowey salmon, trout & combined salmonid fry average numbers per site surveyed.

Salmon Trout Combined


18

classification since surveying started at this site and Kitesnest Woods scored good which has improved

from last year’s fair classification.

Salmon classifications at Milltown and U/S Glynn on the Cardinham scored absent and poor

respectively which is the same classification it received in last years surveys and in previous years. U/S

Glynn has historically varied in salmon densities throughout eight years of surveying, in which time, it

has received absent, poor, fair, good and excellent classifications which have made it difficult to

observe any trends in the data. Additionally, the reduction in number of sample sites had made it

difficult to determine if this is a real effect, or if it is the result of fish moving in the sub-catchment,

away from the sites sampled. Such fish movements can be caused by changes in water levels and

other ecological variablles. Both sites scored good for trout which was a slight decrease for Milltown

which scored excellent last year but was an increase for U/S Glynn which has scored fair for the last

four years of surveying.

Trengoffe Wood was the only site that was surveyed on the Warleggan in 2020. This was the first year

this site has scored an excellent classification for salmon which consisted of 67 salmon fry, which is

almost three times the excellent threshold. More so, this is the first time a survey site has scored an

excellent classification for salmon on the Warleggan since WRT Fowey surveying records started in

2010. It also scored a good for trout which is consistent with historical data. The steady increase in

salmon densities could potentially be attributed to the ongoing habitat improvement works carried

out by WRT through the W4G project. 2021 electrofishing results will help determine if this is the

case.

The Fowey tributaries remain very important and high-quality habitats for supporting large numbers

of juvenile salmon and trout, although with slight reductions in overall quantities of fish recorded in

2020. The line graph (figure 8) was constructed using the average numbers of salmon, trout and

combined salmonids caught between 2011-2020. Since ten years of monitoring and data has been

collected some trends can now be observed. The graph is starting to show an overall upward trend

for average numbers of salmon, trout and combined salmonids. However, 2020 should be viewed with

some caution due to the low number of sies surveyed that year.

WRT will aim to continue its various habitat and other improvement works throughout the Fowey

catchment in the future, and endeavour to continue working with the local angling groups and other


19

interested stakeholders to maintain, manage and improve both the aquatic and terrestrial habitats

within the Fowey catchment.

5. Recommendations Although the EF surveys are undertaken for recruitment of salmon and trout, they have slightly

different habitat preferences and one species will often dominate where the other has limited or no

presence. Therefore, management strategies need to be considered for each species, hence a

conservation strategy for both salmon and trout.

The strategy for restoration and conservation of sites suggested here broadly follows the “Defend,

Repair, Attack” (DRA) concept developed by Ronald Campbell of the Tweed foundation, and has, in

the past, been applied locally in the Exe catchment by the River Exe and Tributaries Association

project. The fry productivity of the rivers is assessed by a combination of historic semi-quantitative

electrofishing results, along with EA netted electrofishing sites added to this report at a later date.

These results are then applied in context of existing plans (e.g. Salmon Action Plan, habitat walkover

surveys and genetic data) to produce assessments and recommendations for each sub-catchment of

the river. These sub-catchments are classified according to three levels: Defend, Repair, and Attack.

Despite the DRA strategy being a useful tool to identify and prioritise works in catchments, the

requirements of waterbodies can rarely be quite so clear cut. The coloured arrow in table 5 represents

the continuum of the three strategies and the goal for each waterbody; to move all the Avon sites

from their current position to somewhere in the Defend category, or to ensure they remain in this

status if fish stocks are already good.

To begin to restore and/or maintain fry habitat in the Fowey catchment, WRT recommend the following works:

Fencing: Riparian zones identified as receiving significant livestock access, with apparent habitat degradation, should be fenced to limit trampling and bank side poaching. Precautions should be taken to ensure livestock can access drinking water supply. Effective buffer strips dependant on site characteristics is advised.

Coppicing: Targeted selective coppicing of woodland and abandoned riparian coppice adjacent to juvenile habitat riffles should be undertaken. This will increase primary productivity and food source for juvenile fish. Shade should be maintained on deeper pools and runs for water temperature and adult fish habitat cover.

Gravel Cleaning: Key areas of high spawning potential have been identified, however high sediment loads impact viability and survival. Whilst continued efforts are underway to influence policy and land management practices, selective gravel cleaning should be carried out to ensure available spawning habitat for the coming season.


20

Erosion Control: Fencing and effective marginal habitat management will reduce erosion. However, where specific areas of high pressure and vulnerability are identified, erosion protection measures such as woody debris installation, environmentally sensitive revetments, and strategic tree planting would be advantageous.

Fish Passage Assessment: Assessment of potential fish migration barriers using the Coarse Resolution Rapid Assessment technique developed by the Scottish and Northern Irish Forum For Environmental Research (SNIFFER). A standardised survey technique to assess porosity of in-channel structures.

Farm Advice: A key management strategy for the protection and enhancement of riverine systems. Approaching and working with local agricultural businesses to offer guidance on best environmental practice, and the use of grants for application of the recommended actions outlined.

In-Channel Habitat Restoration: Installation and construction of habitat enhancing features, including woody debris introduction, flow manipulation with groins and kickers, bank reprofiling for marginal zonation, strategic tree planting, gravel introduction and riffle creation, and historic channel restoration. Advanced management usually applied post success of other recommended actions.

Walkover Surveys: Recording of habitat availability relating to ontogenetic stages of fish, including observed local land use and factors negatively impacting habitat quality. Often the starting point for work in an area, this is an important component of catchment management. Walkovers essentially build large scale understanding of a catchment and allow forging of relationships with local land owners.

Interpretation: Sensitive spawning sites can be exposed to disturbance at key times of year. Interpretation can be used to inform of salmonid presence and advise on in river site avoidance.

Increase monitoring effort: some sites are very difficult to access and therefore are not surveyed. By increasing survey effort, more information on whole catchment performance can be achieved and allow for increase appropriate action. Increased surveys could include red counts, invertebrate monitoring e.g. Riverfly and citizen science programmes that are run by WRT.


21

Table 5 Recommended DRA actions for Fowey sub catchments

Sub catchment

Action

Fencing Coppicing Gravel Cleaning Gravel

augmentation Erosion Control

Fish Passage

Assessment

Farm Advice

In-channel Habitat

Restoration

Walkover Surveys Interpretation

Increase Monitoring

Effort Cardinham Water Colliford Lake

Fowey (Upper)

Fowey (Warleggan to St Neot)

Lerryn River Lower River Fowey St Neot River Warleggan River


22

6. Acknowledgments

Thanks to all landowners who gave us permission to undertake surveys on the River Fowey catchment during the hard times of the recent pandemic. We would also like to thank the FRA, and the Environment Agency.

Executive Summary1. Introduction1.1 Electrofishing Protocols1.2 Life cycle and bottlenecks1.3 Catchment Based Fisheries Conservation Strategy (Defend/Repair/Attack)

2. Site selection3. Field Sampling and data analysis methods4. Results and Discussion5. Recommendations6. Acknowledgments

Documents

WESTCOUNTRY RIVERS TRUST · Draft For client comment Craig Renton Bruce Stockley Bruce Stockley 11/01/21 . Westcountry Rivers Trust Electrofishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2020