A FISHERIES MA AGEME T PLA FOR THE FORTH CATCHME T (June 2009)
Patrick Fothringham – Director Forth District Salmon Fishery Board & River Forth Fisheries Trust The Lagg Aberfeldy Perthshire PH15 2EE
Email: [email protected]
CO TE TS Page 1 I TRODUCTIO 4 1.1 Background 4 1.2 Context 5 2 AIMS and OBJECTIVES 6 2.1 Scope 6 2.2 Aims 6 2.3 Objectives 6 2.4 Duration 6 2.5 Expectations 7 3 CATCHME T DESCRIPTIO 8 3.1.1 The Forth Fisheries District 8 3.1.2 Fisheries Management Units Defined 8 3.1.3 Description of Fisheries Management Units 10 3.2 Geology 22 3.3 Topographical Summary 24 3.4 Land-Use 24 3.5 Climate and Hydrology 26 3.6 Water Quality 27 4 FISH POPULATIO S 28 4.1 Fish Species Present in the Forth Catchment 28 4.2 Stock Structure 43 4.3 Trends in Stock Abundance 43 4.4 Exploitation 45 4.5 Hatcheries and Stocking 45 5 FISHERIES, MA AGEME T, STRUCTURES 46 & RESOURCES 5.1.1 Forth District Salmon Fishery Board 46 5.1.2 The River Forth Fisheries Trust 46 5.1.3 Local Angling Associations & Proprietors 46 5.1.4 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) 47 5.1.5 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) 47 5.2 Human & Financial Resources 47 6 PRESE T MA AGEME T ACTIVITIES 48 6.1 Habitat Intervention 48 6.2 Predation Control 49
2
6.3 Exploitation Control 50 6.4 Easing of Barriers 50 6.5 Poaching Control 51 6.6 Hatchery & Stocking Activities 51 7 Limiting Factors & Management Action 52 7.1 Factors that limit Fish and Fisheries Production 52 7.2 Limiting Factors and Associated Actions 53 8 Potential Research Projects & Actions 66 8.1 Research Projects 67 8.2 Using the Law 68 8.3 Project Work 70 8.4 Education Projects 71 8.5 Prioritisation 71 A EX 1: Maps & Tables – Management Units 73 A EX 2: Factors Limiting Fisheries Production 109 3
1. I TRODUCTIO The River Forth Fisheries Trust gained charitable status in January 2009. This Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) is the starting point from which the Trust plans to proceed and is based on a collation of work previously undertaken by other organisations.
1.1 Background
Between 2005 and 2008, the Clyde River Foundation (CRF) worked in the Forth District to promote the sustainable management of all of the Forth’s aquatic resources and their associated habitats. It worked in partnerships with other organisations with complementary functions and also with those wishing to exploit the fisheries resource. Throughout its tenure it aimed to provide evidence-based catchment management and all-species fishery management. It was also responsible for maintaining the core monitoring program established by the former Forth Fisheries Foundation (FFF), while developing joint projects with angling clubs to improve local fisheries management. The CRF continues to work with schools from the Clackmannanshire, Falkirk and West Lothian areas in carrying out its “Fish go to School” projects, and continues to undertake contract work on behalf of the newly formed River Forth Fisheries Trust (RFFT).
The CRF produced most of the background work now contained in this plan, through the production of a two-phase report entitled “Towards a Fish and Fisheries Management Plan for the Forth District” (March 2007/ February 2008).1 The background work was undertaken as part of a contract commissioned by a government agency, “Fisheries Research Services” (FRS), in which fisheries trusts across Scotland were asked to complete similar reports. The objective was to bring together the information held by Trusts with a view to facilitating the production of an FMP for each of Scotland’s fisheries trust areas. The RFFT was formed in August 2008 and has put in an application for charitable status with the expectation that this will be granted imminently. The new Trust, in conjunction with the Forth District Salmon Fishery Board (FDSFB) has now produced this consultation draft: “A Fisheries Management Plan for the Forth Catchment” and hopes to work with partner organisations to research, protect and enhance the Forth’s fresh- water fisheries. It is hoped that this FMP demonstrates the RFFT’s perspective on the status of fish and fisheries in the District, while outlining the Board’s and Trust’s joint views on how they should be managed.
Responses and suggestions for amendments to this FMP are sought in order to produce a final version that can be bought into by a wide range of stake-holders and partner organisations.
1So that the plan is not overly complex, including an excessive level of detail, an inventory has been produced of the state of fisheries-related knowledge of the Forth District. This provides detailed information from many available sources both on the state of fresh water fish stocks in the catchment and on the factors affecting them. That 300-page document is available in electronic form from the Trust’s office. The FMP is in essence a summary of much of the information contained therein.
4
1.2 Context
The Forth catchment crosses the boundaries of nine District Councils: Fife, Perth and Kinross, Clackmannanshire, Stirling, Falkirk, West Lothian, City of Edinburgh, Midlothian and East Lothian, and is home to 28% of Scotland’s human population (2005 figures). At 104km, the Forth is the seventh longest river in Scotland. The catchment has a surface area of 3600km2, and a total river length of 2880km, with ten major lochs, and numerous smaller waters and reservoirs.
The river and its tributaries are slowly recovering from centuries of detrimental human impact, the major legacies of which are pollution, obstructions, alterations to natural water flow and physical alterations to the river banks and beds. The Forth catchment is home to 28 species of freshwater fish and supports valuable fisheries for salmon, trout, grayling and coarse fish. A total of 10 non-native species are now known to be established in the District.
Historically, the salmon fishery was the most significant in terms of economics. It consisted of interceptory bag, fly, and T-net operations on the coast, an important net- and-coble fishery in the estuary, and productive rod-and-line angling upstream of tidal waters. The coastal netting stations have all now ceased operating, while the net-and- coble and the salmon angling fisheries operate today as they did in the past. However, the netting element is much reduced and is now a fraction of its former size. On the major rivers such as the Teith, angling for salmon is managed in the main by fishery proprietors themselves. In the smaller rivers, the fishing is more often managed by local angling clubs and associations.
In the past, the Forth catchment has been famous for its trout fishing; indeed, trout are still thought to be fished for in every principal river in the District. There are also small but productive pike fisheries on Loch Venachar, the Lake of Menteith, and on the River Forth itself. In recent years there has been a sizeable increase in the number of rainbow trout fisheries, and the area is also starting to see a marked increase in coarse fishing activities of various kinds.
There is a plethora of publications detailing the importance of freshwater fisheries to the Scottish economy but relatively few with any substantial detail on the economics of fishing the Forth’s rivers and lochs. The most recent and comprehensive review of the economic impact of angling in Scotland was carried out in 2004. It grouped the Forth catchment together with the Clyde, Fife and Ayrshire into a region described as “Central Scotland”. Central Scotland was noted to be one of the three most important regions for angler effort (the others being “Highlands” and “North-East”). A total of 473,233 angler-days were estimated annually for Central Scotland. In all, 48.9% of the total effort was expended on rainbow trout, 28.4% on brown trout, 13% on salmon and sea trout, and 9.6% on coarse fishing. It is reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of this effort was concentrated within the Forth catchment, signalling the importance of fish and fishery management issues to the region
5
2. AIMS & OBJECTIVES 2.1 Scope This FMP provides a framework for the conservation and enhancement of populations of all freshwater fish species found in the Forth catchment. Involvement and co- operation with riparian landowners in pursuit of the aims and objectives of this FMP is essential. Likewise, action plans must be capable of integration with local authority development plans, community partnerships and Local Biodiversity Action Plans.
2.2 Aims
In producing this FMP, the FDSFB and the RFFT are aiming:
i) To bring together a summary of the current state of fisheries-related knowledge of the District in a contained, readable and easily digestible form.
ii) To form an action plan for the conservation and restoration of fish stocks in the Forth catchment and to outline research, monitoring and educational objectives, in order to inform and underpin the activities of both the FDSFB and RFFT.
iii) To interlock the work of the FDSFB with that of the newly formed RFFT, through the production of this joint FMP, in order to deliver a cohesive and integrated approach to fisheries management in the District.
iv) To deliver a focal point for the co-ordination of all fish conservation or fisheries-related work in the District, through the production of a platform for consensus and “buy-in” by all partner organisations that have an interest in achieving relevant fish conservation or fisheries management objectives.
2.3 Objectives
The RFFT is committed to the preparation of a soundly researched and costed program of fisheries restoration and improvement objectives. Progressively, as it becomes more established and moves towards a sound financial base, the RFFT will review historical data concerning the catchment. This is in order to understand areas where additional research is required and where existing data needs to be refreshed. It is through this process that objectives and actions will be identified, prioritised and costed to form the ongoing action plan.
2.4 Duration This FMP will become active on the 1st July 2009 after having undergone a broad consultation process. It will have an initial lifespan of six years to coincide with the timetable for implementation of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) through the River Basin Management Plan. It is envisaged that the FMP is a living document in that it will be reviewed, amended and brought up to date after the first, third and fifth years or at other times as deemed appropriate. 6
2.5 Expectations
In producing their FMPs, many of Scotland’s fisheries trusts are now at the stage in their evolution where they are in a position to produce detailed programmes of fisheries restoration works with costings and time-tables attached. The RFFT is not yet in that position, given that it is Scotland’s newest, and in terms of resources, smallest trust. The Trust has only been in existence since August 2008 and is still awaiting the granting of charitable status by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR).
Though much of the ground work on which this plan is built has been carried out by the Clyde Foundation, it still presents a considerable challenge for such a new trust to assemble and collate the information required, in order to bring a plan of this kind together. In many cases that information does not yet exist. If action is to be based on sound scientific evidence then, on many issues, the new Trust is now entering the initial research phase of its work. On that basis, it is inevitable that this FMP needs to include much of the background information about the District in order to bring it all together into one place. Though the plan will of course make specific recommendations for the prioritisation of future projects, a fuller emphasis will be given to that section on the FMP’s first and subsequent review dates. Given the size of the District and the paucity of financial and human resources currently available, it is inevitable that much that is defined in this plan must remain aspirational until such time as adequate resources can be found.
7
3. CATCHME T DESCRIPTIO 3.1.1 The Forth Fisheries District
The catchment and sub-catchments that make up the Forth District cover an area of more than 3, 600km2. This Plan covers the entire catchment of the River Forth drainage basin and additionally, those sub-catchments that drain directly into the Firth of Forth.
3.1.2 Forth Fisheries Management Units Defined
The Forth District can be split into thirteen logical units for fisheries management purposes. The units are defined as set out in Table: 1 and Figure: 1 below. The table also shows the principle managers of fishings on each of the rivers.
It should also be noted that there are numerous other small streams in the District that discharge directly into the sea that are, as far as is known, of minimal fisheries significance and about which little fisheries-related information is available. These have not been covered specifically in this FMP. Table 1: Fisheries Management Units within the Forth District DISTRICT Catchment Sub Catchment Managers Management Units Forth Forth Individual Proprietors Teith Individual Proprietors Allan Allan Water Improvement Association Devon Devon AC Black Devon no angling club Leven no angling club Carron Larbert & Stenhousemuir AC Avon Linlithgow AC, Avon Bridge AC, Slamannan AC (Avon Fed.) Almond Cramond AC Water of Leith Edinburgh City Council Esks Musselburgh & District AC Tyne East Lothian AC Beil no angling club
8
Figure 1: FMP Sub catchment Management Units as originally defined by the former Forth Fisheries Foundation (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama Data with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
9
3.1.3. Description of Fisheries Management Units i) RIVER FORTH The River Forth, or that part known as the Old Forth, is about 38km long as the crow flies, but taking the crooks and bends into consideration flows for 72km before it meets the River Teith at Stirling to form the River Forth proper.
The Old Forth has two principal tributaries to the West of Aberfoyle; the Chon and the Duchray. The Water of Chon system has its source some 600m above sea level. It flows through Lochs Chon and Dhu, thence falling quickly to Loch Ard. The Avon Dhu (Black River) drains Loch Ard and meets the Duchray Water about 500m down- stream of the loch. Loch Chon is north of the Highland Boundary fault-line.
The Duchray Water is a substantial stream which rises some at 900m above sea level high on the slopes of Cruinn a' Bheinn to the North of Ben Lomond. It flows east for about 15km to meet the Avon Dhu. There is a significant waterfall of about 9m in height on the fault-line, about 4.5km upstream of the junction with the Avon Dhu. This obstruction bars the passage of migratory fish.
From Aberfoyle, the Old Forth flows in an easterly direction to Stirling falling just 24m over a 56km stretch. As the river falls to the Carse, it becomes very slow with wide meanders and is of somewhat limited use for fishing, although there are a few favoured spots where many fish are taken each year. About 3km downstream of Aberfoyle the Forth is joined by the River Kelty. This stream is the only other major tributary of the Old Forth and is of fine tumbling character; though it has a set of falls where it crosses the fault-line. From this point downstream most of the tributaries are small and flow out of the Fintry and Gargunnock Hills, to enter the Forth on the right bank. The one exception is the Goodie Water, which drains out of the Lake of Menteith and flows eastwards to meet the Forth just south of Coldoch on the left bank of the river. The river becomes slow and muddy as it meanders through Flanders Moss, Blairdrummond Moss and Drip Moss to meet the River Teith just west of Stirling.
10
ii) TEITH/ LE Y/ VE ACHAR SYSTEM The River Laraig is the source of the Leny system and flows in an easterly direction for about 4km to be joined by the Laraig Burn at Inverlochlaraig before flowing through Loch Doine and on into Loch Voil. There are a number of burns flowing into the loch from the north shore. The River Balvaig drains Loch Voil and the Calair Burn enters the Balvaig on the right bank just below Balquhidder. Surveys indicate that the falls about 400m upstream are only passable to migratory fish under ideal conditions. The Balvaig itself is generally fairly sluggish and prone to flooding. It enters Loch Lubnaig at Strathyre. The Ardchullary Burn is the only significant stream to enter Loch Lubnaig but it was barred to fish migration by a concrete retaining wall when the road was upgraded.
The Leny drains Loch Lubnaig and is, in the main, a very rough stream falling over bedrock. Apart from the short length just downstream of the loch, it is not thought to be good juvenile salmonid habitat until it reaches the floodplain at Callander, where gravels are once again evident.
The headwaters of the Venachar system rise in Glengyle at the head of Loch Katrine, which is dammed to supply water to Glasgow. Downstream of the dam the River Achray appears to have reasonable habitat but has few trout or salmon before draining into Loch Achray. The Blackwater runs out of the loch. It is joined at Brig o’ Turk by the Finglas Water. A landslide into Loch Finglas in 2003 resulted in severe siltation in the river from which it has not yet recovered. The Blackwater drains into Loch Vennachar which is dammed. Below the Venachar Dam the Eas Gobhainn is a rough tumbling stream for the most part with good gravels and juvenile habitat in the lower reaches. There is a fish farm here where water is abstracted.
The River Teith is formed by the joining of the River Leny with the Eas Gobhainn at Callander and flows in a generally south-easterly direction until it meets the Forth at Stirling. A number of major tributaries enter from the left bank. The most productive 11 are the Keltie Water and the Ardoch Burn. There is a power-generating plant at Deanston where the bulk of the water flow is abstracted over a 1km length.
iii) RIVER ALLA The River Allan has always had the potential to be a salmon and sea trout river of some note. It has however suffered greatly at the hands of man over the last 120 years and at one time had 12 mill dams on the main river between Kinbuck and Bridge of Allan to feed the textile and paper mills, with numerous others on the smaller tributaries such as the Millstane, Burnside, and Keir Burns for local meal mills.
The Allan flows in a generally south easterly direction with its headwaters above Blackford. Much of the substrate, particularly in the feeder burns such as the Danny, Buttergask, and Ogilvy Burns, is alluvial gravel and as such is ideal habitat for salmonids. Unfortunately, the A9 between Blackford and Greenloaning was upgraded and almost every burn on the left bank of the Allan has been culverted. Access to prime spawning and nursery areas, particularly for sea trout, have thus been lost and much of the benefit of opening up Braco Falls has thus been negated. Between Blackford and Greenloaning the substrate continues to be alluvial in nature, although gravel is less obvious as the river nears Greenloaning.
Downstream of Greenloaning the river has been engineered by successive works carried out under the 1941 Land Drainage Act. These have severely degraded the habitat between Greenloaning and Ashfield as engineers sought to straighten the river channel to improve run-off; erosion is significant in this section. The four main streams which enter the river in this section are all significant contributors of juvenile salmon. In 2005 an electricity generating turbine was installed at Ashfield the effects of which have not yet been quantified. Downstream of Ashfield River assumes a completely different character as it flows over a sandstone bedrock shelf down as far as Bridge of Allan. There are only two streams which enter this section both on the left bank. The first, the Scouring Burn, is barred approximately 300 m upstream from its confluence
12 with the main river. The second, the Wharry Burn, which is a very valuable spawning burn is barred by a natural waterfall about 1 km upstream. As an aside, it is also in the headwaters of this stream at Waltersmuir Reservoir that there is a smolt facility which produces approximately 250,000 smolts per annum.
Downstream of Bridge of Allan the substrate is gravel and this forms ideal juvenile salmonid habitat right down to the point where the tidal section of the river is reached.
iv) RIVER DEVO
The river Devon, rises high up on the north eastern slopes of Blairdenon Hill, and curls round the highest of the Ochil Hills to the north of Alloa. Almost all of the water in the Devon comes from these hills which form a dissected plateau about 600m above sea level. This upland area of rough grazing contains five reservoirs used for drinking water for Fife and compensation water for the Devon. The upper half of the river is contained within the hills and it flows in an easterly direction at first before turning south, then west at Crook of Devon. A little way downstream is Rumbling Bridge, and below that the Cauldron Linn, which bars fish migration. The river is soon joined by the Gairney Burn and it then flows along the fault line of the Ochil escarpment past Vicar's Bridge towards Dollar where there is a dam. Modifications were carried out here in 1999 and it is believed that salmon can now negotiate this weir over a wide range of water conditions. The river then continues west passing through pasture land towards the estuary, by-passing Tillicoultry, Alva and Menstrie on the way. There are substantial areas of good gravels from Alva upstream with long glides and deep pools. There are also a number of fair sized burns running from the Ochils into the Devon along this section. There is a blockage to fish migration on the Alva Burn at the primary school. There are no burns of any consequence from the south side of the river.
As the river passes Alva weed growth becomes more apparent and this is perhaps typical of a slow flowing river that passes through a fertile agricultural area. In the main the weeds are spiked water milfoil, pondweed, and duckweed and these
13 probably die back to some degree during winter. Numbers of good sized trout can usually be seen rising in this weedy section.
At Cambus, just at the head of the tidal reach, there is another dam which posed a problem for migrating fish in the past but the provision of a new fish pass in 1997 now allows access in all water conditions.
v) RIVER LEVE
The Leven Catchment is the largest in Fife with 292km of classified water courses, a large proportion of which are upstream of the various lochs on the system and are not accessible to migratory fish. The flow of the River Leven is controlled by the sluices at Loch Leven and for the first 5km downstream of the loch the river is canalised. Migratory fish cannot at present reach this part of the system due to a number of obstructions between Markinch and Leslie. There are two main tributaries which drain the north side of the catchment, the Lothrie Burn which enters at Glenrothes, and the Kennoway Burn with its tributary the Back Burn which enter at Windygates, 3km from the sea. These burns drain a mixture of farmland and surveys carried out by Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory staff in 1990 indicated that these are important spawning burns for salmon and sea trout. Access for migratory fish is barred to the Lothrie Burn.
The River Ore drains a large catchment to the south and west of the River Leven and rises in Blairadam Forest at a height of some 300 m. It flows down into Loch Ore which is of good quality and now hosts an important and well-used recreational facility. Downstream of Loch Ore the river is joined by the Lochfitty Burn which drains a substantial area of farm land and is reported to be of good quality. Downstream of this point the river receives a number of ferruginous discharges which reduce the water quality. Locally these discharges can have quite a severe effect on invertebrate fauna and fish populations are low. The other main tributaries of the Ore are the Lochgelly Burn and the Lochty Burn. The Lochty Burn has historically been of very poor quality but has improved slightly over the
14 years and in 1987 sticklebacks were found after an absence of more than 20 years. The River Ore joins the Leven just upstream of Cameron Bridge Distillery and the water quality of the main river is somewhat reduced from that point downstream.
Improvements have now been made to various obstructions at Markinch and Balgonie where fish passes have been installed. However, the power station at Balgonie takes a high proportion of the available water except at very high river levels.
vi) RIVER CARRO The headwaters of the Carron are effectively compensation waters from a series of reservoirs which have been built on the system to harness water for the population of much of the eastern central belt of Scotland. The largest of these is Carron Valley Reservoir. In its upper reaches the Carron is an attractive moorland stream with good gravels and fairly stable banks. From the point where the Earl's Burn joins the Carron much of the riverbank has been fenced off, preventing animals grazing right down to the water's edge, and this has contributed to the stable nature of this section of the river. About 4km downstream from the dam there is a serious obstacle to migrating fish in the form of Auchinlillylinn Spout.
From this point for a distance of about 3.5km, the river flows through the precipitous and heavily wooded gorge of the Carron Glen. This is a very attractive part of the river as it tumbles quickly downstream. The whole section is made up of waterfalls, boulder-strewn rapids, and deep pools.
As the river tumbles out of the glen there is another major obstruction just above the mill at Fankerton known as the Lady's Loup. This is in the form of a steep
15 cascade with a 6m high dam built at the top making it totally impassable.
Below this point the river becomes more placid with riffles and pools taking the place of the tumbling rapids in the glen above. As the river flows out into the flood plain, gravels replace the boulders. At Denny the river is joined by the Castlerankine Burn and the Anchor Burn, both of which have obstacles. The riverbanks are well wooded mainly with willows. About 3km below Denny the Carron receives the Bonny Water and the water quality deteriorates significantly. On some occasions the water is a cloudy grey colour with a distinct smell. A short way above the viaduct is a waterfall which may be an obstacle to upward migrating fish except during high water conditions. As the river continues east gravels are still evident but these are hard packed and distinctly covered with iron ochre. A little way below the old Carron Iron Works the tidal water is reached. vii) RIVER AVO The River Avon rises south east of Cumbernauld and flows in a generally north-easterly direction to the Forth Estuary at Kinneil. It drains a relatively well populated catchment with an area of about 200km2. There are 12 municipal sewage treatment works serving a population of around 50,000 people. From a fisheries perspective the river can be considered in three parts: The main river above Westfield; the Logie catchment which enters at Westfield; and the river below Westfield.
The River Avon above Westfield is generally in fairly good condition but all the tributaries in this upper section have at some period in history been seriously affected by coal mining operations. Although many of these have long since ceased operation there are still problems from time to time. This upper section of the river is generally slow and sluggish and in parts very weedy until a little way downstream of Slamannan. Much of the area between Slamannan and Avonbridge was subject to
16 large-scale dredging and realignment works in the late 1970s which caused severe problems with siltation, but the river now seems to have recovered. The river changes character near Balmitchell and becomes much more open and broken with outcrops of bedrock apparent between Avonbridge and Westfield.
The Logie Water and its tributaries, the Couston Water and Barbauchlaw Burn, demonstrate the consequences of having to deal with the combined effluents from the towns of Bathgate, Armadale, and Blackridge. This is unfortunate because it is these burns which have the substrate and habitat most suited to salmonid fish. The gravels are now compacted and polluted and of little use. The upper reaches of the Barbauchlaw Burn appear to be in a better condition with some viable gravels still present. The Couston Water is in poor condition, bearing the effluent from Bathgate sewage treatment works. Historical water quality data does suggests that there is some improvement but in low flows problems will always arise. Just above Westfield Paper Mill, which discharges its treated effluent into the Logie Water, there is a weir which fish are unable to negotiate and where water is abstracted for use within the mill. Discharges, including pentachlorophenol, from Westfield Mill have in the past been blamed for the total demise of salmonids and the virtual elimination of coarse fish below Westfield. Following the elimination of use of this chemical in around 1988 and other more recent improvements at Westfield Mill, the River Avon has shown a marked improvement from that point down stream.
After the Avon receives the Logie Water the gradient increases until it falls through a steep-sided gorge with a series of falls and pools at Wallace's Cave near Muiravonside House. When it reaches its confluence with the Manuel Burn the gradient eases as the flood plain widens at Linlithgow. At Birkhill below Linlithgow the river enters another short gorge before it reaches the tidal flats at Grangemouth and into the estuary at Kinneil.
viii) RIVER ALMO D
The River Almond rises among the moors of the Cant Hills at an altitude of 275m approximately 5km south-west of Harthill in Lanarkshire. It flows in a north-easterly direction and reaches the
17
Forth estuary at Cramond where it discharges on to the intertidal Drum Sands. From its source to its estuary is a distance of approximately 50km draining a catchment of 175km2.
The upper reaches of the river flow through mainly unimproved acid grasslands and heathers. It then drops into the middle reaches where land-use is a mixture of arable rotation, and as it finally drops down onto the valley floor, agriculture is mainly arable.
Water quality has been adversely affected over the years by effluent from the sewage treatment works at Whitburn, Blackburn, Seafield, Mid Calder, and Newbridge. The various discharges from the now defunct coalmines, including Polkemmit, also have a depressive effect on water quality. The Muirieston and Linhouse Waters, which enter the river at mid Calder, appear to have the best water quality on the river and it has been suggested that it is in these streams that the Almond’s salmon predominantly spawn.
There are many obstructions on the river which in terms of migratory fish appear to be the predominant limiting factor. From Kirkton Campus at Livingston to the weir at Cramond there are eight obstacles, some of which are very severe.
ix) WATER OF LEITH
The Water of Leith is formed by several burns of Midcalder parish that rise among the Pentlands at altitudes of 420 to 470m above sea-level. Thence it winds 38km north-east, through or along the borders of Midcalder, Kirknewton, Currie, Colinton, St Cuthbert's, and North and South Leith. Eventually, it falls into the Firth of Forth between the heads of the E and W piers of Leith harbour. Its chief tributary is Bavelaw Burn, flowing into it at Balerno; and its other tributaries are small but
18 numerous, mostly from the Pentlands. Its volume varies, according to the weather, from the insignificance of a brook to the importance of a considerable river; and its velocity, over most of its course, in times of freshet, is impetuous. Historically, its water-power, for the driving of corn, paper, and other mills, was said to be “economised by such a multitude of dams as to exceed the water-power of any other stream of its size”. There are a number of serious obstructions to fish migration. However, the RFFT holds very little data on the Water of Leith. x) RIVERS ESK
The South Esk rises on the western slopes of Blackhope Scar (651m), the highest of the Moorfoot Hills. The river flows north through Gladhouse and Rosebery reservoirs, and through the village of Temple, before receiving the Redside Burn. It is then joined by the Gore Water and then the Dalhousie Burn, just to the west of Newtongrange, before passing Newbattle Abbey. It proceeds through Dalkeith before merging with the North Esk just north of Dalkeith Palace, on the border of East Lothian, having completed a course of 30km. Migratory fish can run the river South Esk as far up as Dalkeith where access is barred by a weir.
The orth Esk rises in the parish of Linton, Peeblesshire, at Boarstone and Easter Cairnhill, and, after a brief course through barren moorland it is joined by the Carlops Burn and some other small tributaries. It proceeds in a north-easterly direction through the parishes of Penicuik, Lasswade, Glencorse, Cockpen, and Dalkeith. There are numerous dams on the North Esk which prevent fish migration upstream of Dalkeith Palace. These are the legacy of a once thriving paper manufacturing industry.
Below the confluence of the two streams, the Esk winds for 6km in a north-easterly direction and reaches the sea at
19
Musselburgh. Just upstream of Musselburgh there is a weir and a fairly large lade off- take where water is believed to be abstracted for supplying the racecourse.
xi) RIVER TY E & xii) BEIL WATER The River Tyne rises to the west of Pencaitland and flows in an easterly direction towards Haddington. Water quality appears slightly diminished at Pencaitland due to effluent from the malt works. The Humbie Water is a very attractive stream with pristine water and ample gravel areas and deeper pools.
Downstream of the confluence with the Humbie Water the Tyne is about 12m wide and exhibits ample pools and gravels and just west of Haddington the river is joined by the Colstoun Water which is a fairly substantial tributary.
West Mills Weir at Haddington is a fairly substantial obstruction at low flows as most of the water is diverted through a lade about 1km long leaving insufficient water for fish to pass. Haddington Weir just downstream is similar to the one West Mills, although fish can possibly pass in most water conditions. At the golf course there is a substantial weir known as the Cascades and improvements were carried out there in 2005 by East Lothian Council which will hopefully improve access. There is a weir at Sandy's Mill which is typical of those on the Tyne and it has a fairly lengthy lade on which a generating turbine has been placed. In low water this is a very serious obstacle to migrating fish if generation is taking place.
At East Linton there is a natural waterfall falling into a large and very deep pool. It does not seem to present much difficulty for fish which could probably negotiate the fall in almost any water conditions. Just downstream is Preston Mill, where water is diverted into another lade, this time to drive a traditional water wheel.
20
Just upstream of the tidal reach at Tynninghame there is Knowes Mill Weir. This was probably the most serious obstacle on the river but improvements in 2004 by East Lothian Angling association now allow fish upstream under most water conditions. Fish can easily pass when there is enough water this area.
Approximately 5km to the east of the River Tyne there is a small river called the BEIL WATER. It is believed that historically this was once a fairly prolific stream which carried a good head of sea trout but which has for more than a century been blocked by a dam immediately downstream of the railway culvert. The River Forth Fisheries Trust holds little data on the Beil.
xiii) The Forth and Clyde Canal and the Union Canal
The Forth and Clyde Canal runs eastwards directly through the Forth Estuary catchments, whilst the Union Canal starts in Edinburgh and joins the Forth/ Clyde system at Falkirk. These canals have two sampling points under the Freshwater Fisheries Directive and are the only cyprinid waters in Scotland that are monitored under the Directive. They have not been designated as individual fisheries management units as they run through a series of catchments that are designated in their own right.
21
3.2 Geology
The solid geology of the upper Forth catchment is composed of psammitic and pelitic greywackes, some of which are volcanic. In northern parts sandstone is predominant, that becomes inter-bedded with siltstone further south, and to the east extrusive rocks with sandstone, siltstone, mudstone and some coal seams are present. Drift till deposits are present in the mid and eastern parts of the catchment, and sands and gravels are found throughout the lowland valleys.
The rocks of the catchments discharging into the south of the Firth of Forth are predominantly inter-bedded sandstone and argillaceous rocks, with siltstone, mudstone, some coal seams, ironstones and limestones. (Figure: 2)
Till is spread throughout the area, with some sands and gravels and alluvium deposits associated with the major rivers and dominates the soft geology of the catchment (with areas of raised marine deposits). There are large mosaics of alluvium, glacial sand and gravel. Sporadic regions of peat are also notable. (Figure:3).
Figure 2: Bedrock Geology, BGS 1:625,000, © ERC
22
Figure 3: Superficial Geology, BGS 1:625,000, © ERC
23
3.3 Topographical Summary
The variations in altitude in the District are best summarised in map form and can be observed in Figure: 4.
Figure 4: Forth Catchment Altitude (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
3.4 Land Use
Arable farming occupies nearly 45% of the Forth catchment. The next most abundant land-use is improved grassland (26.8%), with urban areas, good rough grassland, heather moor, peat land and conifers being the other significant groups.
Much of the terrain on Ben Lomond is dominated by heather moor, poor rough grassland, recent planting and conifer woodland with small lochs or reservoirs of freshwater. As the Forth flows toward the lowlands, the dominant use of land within the catchment becomes arable. As the river runs toward the estuary, more urban areas are encountered (Stirling, Bridge of Allan etc.).
The region to the north of the estuary encounters further urban areas such as Alloa, Clackmannan and Dunfermline. However, the land use remains predominately arable
24 with a small mosaics of heather moor, poor rough grassland, improved grassland, fresh water, peat-land, good rough pasture and conifer woodland.
To the south of the estuary moving west to east, the dominant land use is improved grassland. More urban areas such as Falkirk, Linlithgow, Livingston and Edinburgh are encountered, nevertheless, the land use again changes to a more arable nature with a belt of heather moor, poor rough grassland and improved grassland around the periphery of the catchment. Within this region there are also sporadic mosaics of peat-land, good rough pasture and conifer woodland (Figure: 5).
Table 2: Land Use Distribution in the Forth Catchment
LAND-USE % Arable 47.440 Improved 26.7725 Grassland Urban 3.7907 Good Rough 3.6316 Grassland Heather Moor 3.5057 Peat-Land 3.3792 Poor Rough 3.354 Pasture Conifer 2.825 Other Mosaics 1.6022 Recent Planting 1.1401 Mixed Woodland 0.9022 Freshwater 0.649 Broadleaved 0.5504 Felled Woodland 0.1698 Missing/Obscured 0.1589 Scrub 0.0518 Bracken 0.0489 Tidal Water 0.0182
25 Figure 5: Land Use in the Forth District (LCS88, MLURI 1993)
3.5 Climate and Hydrology
The climate is characterised by both temporal and spatial variability. Consequently it is almost impossible to identify an average, or typical climatic condition. Dominant airflow is from the south-west, imparting a moist and windy character, which is generally mild in winter and cool in summer. Easterly airstreams are less frequent and are associated with spells of extreme summer heat or winter cold.
With regard to water flows, SEPA maintains (or has maintained in the past) a network of 49 gauging stations in the Forth catchment and graphs of flow patterns from all of the Forth’s principal rivers can be found on the SEPA website. These generally show the wet winter/ dry summer pattern of temperate, rain-fed rivers. However, there are parts of the District where these patterns are buffered by the effects and impacts of the generation of hydro electricity.
26 3.6 Water Quality
The River Forth and the North side of the District generally exhibit excellent or good water quality throughout the area, with a few stretches of fair quality. There is just one small downgraded section in the upper Black Devon due to iron, related to former mining activity in the area.
Water quality to the south of the Forth Estuary is generally of good, fair or poor quality. This is due in part, to the highly urbanised and industrialised nature of the area, particularly around the mouth of the Forth and eastwards towards Edinburgh. The major towns and cities still have their associated point and diffuse pollution problems. Agricultural diffuse pollution is a contributory factor to areas of fair water quality in some of the upper catchments.
27 4. FISH POPULATIO S
Much of what we know with regard to fish and fisheries in the District has been derived from work carried out over the years by the Forth District Salmon Fishery Board. As a result, although some work was carried out by the former Forth Fisheries Foundation, much of the information and data which exists is inevitably extremely salmo-centric in nature. This is regrettable but unavoidable and it is a pressing task for the new Forth Fisheries Trust to redress this balance and fill in some of the gaps with regard to non-salmonid species. There is a bank of presence/ absence data held at the SFCC for many of the species outlined below, but little information on stock structures, population trends or any other detailed data. 4.1 Fish Species Present in the Forth Catchment
A total of 28 fish species are known to inhabit the District (Table: 3). North American signal crayfish are currently also thought to be present in four locations. The current state of knowledge of the District’s species distributions is taken from data held by the SFCC and is reported in Figures: 6-19. Table 3: Freshwater Fish Species Found in the Forth Catchment
River Lamprey Atlantic Salmon Brook Lamprey Brown Trout Sea Lamprey Grayling* European Eel Thick-Lipped Grey Mullet Common Carp* Three-Spined Stickleback Common Gudgeon* Ten-Spined Stickleback Orfe* Common Bullhead* Dace* Sea Bass Common Minnow European Perch Roach Common Goby Tench* Flounder Stone Loach Smelt Pike Brook Char* Rainbow Trout* Powan* * = Introduced species
28 Figure 6: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
29 Figure 7: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
30 Figure 8: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
31 Figure 9: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
32 Figure 10: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
33 Figure 11: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
34 Figure 12: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
35 Figure 13: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
36 Figure 14: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
37 Figure 15: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
38 Figure 16: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
39 Figure 17: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
40 Figure 18: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
41 Figure 19: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
42 4.2 Stock Structure
The underlying stock structure of salmon and sea trout populations in the District, based on divisions in run-timing is summarised below. There are no available data on stock structures of other fish populations.
Table 4: Salmon and Sea Trout Stock Structure in the Forth District
Forth District Salmon and Sea Trout Stock Structures i) There are discrete spring, summer and autumn runs of salmon in the River Teith and to a lesser extent in the Old Forth. ii) A small population of summer salmon run the River Allan although the main run is in the autumn. iii) Only autumn runs occur in all the District’s other salmon rivers. iv) Sea trout runs occur from March onwards in most of the District’s rivers, peaking in late May.
4.3 Trends in Stock Abundance
Catch data are notoriously equivocal indicators of stock status. However, as with all of Scotland’s salmon fisheries districts, long term data sets exist for catches of both salmon and sea trout. Electro-fishing data also exists for many populations in the catchment but these do not show any obvious long-term trends in abundance. There are no available data on trends in stock abundance for other species.
Figures: 20 and 21 represent the current state of salmon and sea trout catches for the Forth catchment from 1952-2004. The graphs will be brought up to date in the future.
The decline in the salmon catch should not be taken as a direct indication that the salmon population has actually declined in this way, though it would be reasonable to assume that a decline has taken place. Netting effort on the Forth has declined to a fraction of its former level over the same period of time and this will have had a marked effect on the total catch. Additionally, though the total salmon catch has levelled out at fewer than 2500 fish per annum, the spring component has undoubtedly declined more sharply over the same time period. These catch data therefore mask shifts in abundance for different stock components.
The situation for sea trout shows a marked decline to a 40-year low of about 1000 fish per season.
43
Figure 20: Forth Declared Salmon Catches from 1952 2004
Figure 21: Forth Decalared Sea Trout Catches from 1952 2004
44 4.4 Exploitation
The principal fish stocks that are exploited in the Forth District are salmon, sea trout, brown trout and stocked rainbow trout although coarse and grayling fishing activities are thought to be on the increase.
Commercial rainbow trout fisheries exist throughout the area. Their economic value is not known but must be considerable.
Stocked fisheries apart, the most significant fisheries economically speaking are those for salmon and sea trout. As has been previously stated, the net fishery is now a fraction of its former size, and fewer than 50 salmon and a few sea trout are declared each year. Rod-and- line angling for salmon and sea trout is still thriving in many parts of the catchment. However, direct exploitation of the stock is gradually reducing through the increase in rates of catch- and-release, a practice that is currently carried out throughout the catchment, and is an increasing trend.
The poaching of salmon and sea trout is thought to continue to a varying degree both in the estuary and in the rivers and lochs of the District. Illegal exploitation of this kind is probably at a fraction of its former level. Nevertheless, it is clearly a significant pressure on stocks in some areas.
Brown trout are fished for on most of the District’s rivers and data are held locally by angling associations. The RFFT does not hold data for the growing pike fisheries on the Lake of Menteith and Loch Venachar. Similarly, no data are held on other species, but coarse fishing is carried out in some areas and grayling are fished for by a number of enthusiasts.
4.5 Hatcheries and Stocking
Historically, the Forth District Salmon Fisheries Board ran a small salmon hatchery operation but currently there is no salmon or sea trout stocking activity going on in the District.
Brown and rainbow trout are both stocked in the District, though the River Forth Fisheries Trust currently holds little information on this subject.
A number of fisheries are stocking with various species of coarse fish, although no comprehensive data is held by the Trust.
45 5. FISHERIES MA AGEME T STRUCTURES & RESOURCES
In the Forth District two organisations, the RFFT and the FDSFB, have specific remits relating to fisheries management and for management purposes these organisations are closely integrated. In addition to these, individual local angling clubs and proprietors manage their fishings on the ground at a local level. Finally, SEPA has a direct statutory remit in preserving the aquatic environment. It will be seen that, given the scale of the catchment and also of its problems, resources are extremely thinly spread.
5.1.1 Forth District Salmon Fishery Board
The FDSFB is responsible for the protection and improvement of salmon and sea trout fisheries in the District. It raises a mandatory financial assessment from all proprietors of salmon fishings and has powers to appoint bailiffs and to enforce salmon fisheries legislation.
5.1.2 The River Forth Fisheries Trust
The new RFFT was set up in August 2008 in order to conserve, enhance and develop all freshwater fish populations and habitat in the Forth District. It aims to bring this about through delivering or facilitating research, education and fisheries improvement projects in line with those objectives.
5.1.3 Local Angling Associations and Proprietors
The majority of rivers in the District are managed by the local angling clubs and associations that have access to the fishings. In other cases, management is down to individual proprietors.
Table 5: Local Fisheries Management on the Rivers of the Forth District
RIVER LOCAL FISHERIES MA AGER Forth the proprietors Teith the proprietors Allan Allan Water Improvement Association Devon Devon AC Black Devon no angling club Leven no angling club Carron Larbert & Stenhousemuir AC Avon Linlithgow AC, Avon Bridge AC, Slamannan AC (Avon Fed.) Almond Cramond AC Water of Leith Edinburgh City Council Esks Musselburgh & District AC Tyne East Lothian AC Beil no angling club
46 5.1.4 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
SEPA does not have a direct fisheries management function. However, it does have responsibility for many relevant factors such as water quality, abstraction and in-river engineering works. The role of SEPA is fundamental in delivering many of the fisheries management objectives identified in this FMP.
5.1.5 Scottish atural Heritage (S H)
SNH does not have a direct fisheries management function. However, it has interests in many fisheries related projects and has commissioned the Trust to carry out work on a variety of issues such as freshwater pearl mussel research and survey work related to signal crayfish.
5.2 Human and Financial Resources i) Human Resources: The FDSFB shares its Director with the RFFT. The Board also employs a Superintendant who is in charge of bailiffing and fisheries protection, who is assisted by a team of sixteen part-time voluntary bailiffs. Neither the Board nor the Trust currently has any additional administrative support. Many of the angling clubs and associations in the area also donate voluntary labour in order to achieve project objectives. ii) Financial Resources: The FDSFB’s annual turnover is in the region of £100,000, while the new RFFT is still running a start-up budget and its Director’s time is donated by the Board. The RFFT, like every other fisheries trust in Scotland, has received its share of a significant government grant for constructing this FMP and for carrying out projects derived from it. Otherwise the Trust relies on raising funds that are specifically targeted at individual projects. A number of the angling clubs and associations raise significant levels of funding for carrying out projects in their areas. In particular, these include funding for a four-phase project carried out by the Slamannan AC, and the East Lothian AA have secured SEPA restoration funding for work on obstructions on the river Tyne. It is hoped that the example shown by the two clubs mentioned will be followed by others. Indeed, the Allan Water Improvement Association is currently drafting its own fisheries management plan from which it will be drawing projects for it they will be seeking funding. However, at this time in the Trust’s development and given the scale of the catchment and its many problems, resources are very thinly spread.
47 6. PRESE T MA AGEME T ACTIVITIES
Currently, very little in the way of fisheries management intervention is carried out in the District. In recent times, the FDSFB has concentrated the majority of its resources towards fisheries protection; though it has had surveys of various kinds carried out in numerous areas.
The new RFFT will be using this document as the starting point for its activities. However, it has already part-funded projects in education, research and, in a small way, habitat improvement, over the first six months of its existence.
Given the vast size of the catchment and the number of problems that have been identified, it is clear that current activities are generally on a very small scale. However, in certain areas they have been locally extremely significant. An example of this might be the four-phase Slamannan angling club project on the upper Avon. This may have already born fruit in that, in 2008, salmon were found spawning in an area of the upper river for the first time in a generation.
A summary of current fisheries management intervention activities follows:
6.1 Habitat Intervention
The Slamannan Angling Club has a four-phase plan underway to restore the physical habitat of a badly dredged section of the upper River Avon.
The East Lothian AA has drawn up a management plan to deal with habitat restoration in the Tyne catchment. This includes a plan to ease a number of man-made obstructions.
Habitat intervention initiatives in other parts of the District are aimed at river bank clearance work and general maintenance, undertaken by work parties consisting of voluntary angling club members (see table 6).
48 Table 6: Current Fisheries Improvement Initiatives in the Forth District
Habitat Intervention Initiatives Sub-Management Unit Baseline surveying Cramond AC ELAC Linlithgow AC Devon AA General Maintenance Larbert & Stenhousemuir Removal of Alien species FDSFB Cramond AC Instream Works, improvements to weirs, croys ELAC Slamannan AC Forming and clearing paths Larbert & Stenhousemuir Cramond AC Devon AA Removing obstructions to flow ELAC Larbert & Stenhousemuir Devon AA Vegetation management (trimming) ELAC Larbert & Stenhousemuir Linlithgow AC Devon AA Locating and easing of barriers to fish migration ELAC Cramond AC Allan Water AIA
Highlighting bank erosion problems FDSFB Devon AA Highlighting signs of diffuse and point source pollution FDSFB Devon AA River and river bank clearance work ELAC Larbert & Stenhousemuir Linlithgow AC Cramond AC Allan Water AIA Devon AA 6.2 Predation Control
The only predation control initiatives that are currently carried out in the District are those aimed at mink. A number of clubs raised issues with piscivorous birds; however, there are currently no control measures in place.
Mink are currently being trapped by the Larbert & Stenhousemuir, Slamannan and Devon angling clubs and associations. The Cramond and Linlithgow clubs also have highlighted 49 mink as being problematic; however, these clubs do not currently implement any management activities. On the Devon, indications are that an increasing population of otters is now causing mink numbers to reduce.
American signal crayfish have recently been discovered in three locations in the catchment and are suspected of being present at a fourth. The FDSFB with the RFFT are currently involved in a research project to identify the limits of those populations with a view to undertaking possible eradication initiatives.
6.3 Exploitation Control
In addition to the statutory requirements that are in place, the FDSFB recommends that angling club/ associations adhere to the Board’s “Code of Practice” below. In addition, each angling club/ association operates its own individual set of rules and regulations. These procedures cover numerous aspects of angling exploitation control listed below.
FDSFB Recommended Code of Practice for Anglers and Proprietors
• Bag limits to be set at a maximum of two fish per rod per day.
• All salmon to be released unharmed before 1st June and coloured salmon and all sea trout after 26th August.
• Only barbless hooks should be used during catch and release periods.
• Netting operations should be delayed until 1st June.
• Permits to include Proprietor’s Code of Practice and to have a space to record fish taken or released.
• Permits to be carried when fishing.
• Records of all fish taken or released should be completed immediately and submission to the proprietor should be a condition of renewal of permit to fish.
• The Board recommends that no more than two sea trout should be retained per angler per day and that anglers should consider returning all sea trout. Stirling Council – Five bag limit for salmon per season.
Allan Water – Two fish bag limit per day. 6.4 Easing of Barriers
The FDSFB has an active policy of relieving man-made barriers wherever possible and is currently working with the ELAA to carry out work of this type on the River Tyne.
6.5 Poaching Control
The FDSFB has a full time bailiff who is assisted by a squad of voluntary bailiffs. A water bailiff has various statutory powers of entry, search, seizure and arrest. It is an offence for 50 any person to refuse to allow water bailiffs to exercise the powers conferred by the 2003 Act or to obstruct them in the exercise of those powers. This applies also to their powers in relation to salmon-related orders made under the 1967 and 1984 Acts.
Within individual clubs, volunteers undertake general water-watching duties whilst on the river, or conduct organised patrols. All clubs encourage members to be vigilant and request other anglers to produce a valid and current permit.
Recent improvements in water quality have also helped rejuvenate salmon and sea trout populations in some areas. Due to the increasing recognition that the watercourses of the Forth catchment are returning to a cleaner more productive environment, containing greater numbers of salmon and sea trout, poaching is once more becoming a significant problem. With limited numbers of warranted bailiffs on a sizeable piece of water, close contacts and a good working relationship are being forged between the FDSFB and local Police Wildlife Liaison Officers.
6.6 Hatchery and Stocking Activities
There is currently no stocking of salmon in the Forth District but brown and rainbow trout and various species of coarse fish are known to be stocked by various parties from time to time. It is now an offence to stock with any species of fish without the appropriate licence from FRS. The FDSFB and RFFT do not currently hold a register of stocking activities in the catchment.
51 7. LIMITI G FACTORS & MA AGEME T ACTIO S 7.1 Factors that Limit Fish and Fisheries Production
Given the vast size and varied nature of the Forth District, most of the generic problems that are known to limit fish and fisheries production elsewhere in Scotland are almost certainly evident somewhere in the catchment. Given the extremely patchy nature of the data held by the RFFT and FDSFB, it is impossible to produce a complete list of factors as they apply to specific locations. However, Tom McKenzie, former Clerk to the FDSFB has prepared a set of tables, together with maps to which they relate, showing details where they are known. These are reproduced in Annex 1 of this FMP and provide an initial framework that can be refined and expanded over time.
In the past the CRF sent questionnaires to the District’s river managers in order to gather their opinions as to what they believed limited fisheries production in their area and these data are summarised in Annex 2 of this FMP.
Finally, the current River Basin Management Planning initiative, co-ordinated by SEPA, has identified the vast majority of the significant physical and chemical constraints to fish production and an exhaustive list of these is available from the Trust’s office.
Given that much of the lower Forth catchment is urban and heavily populated, by far and away the most dramatic and obvious impacts are caused by ongoing poor water quality that is largely anthropogenic and multi-factorial in origin. Much of the lowland catchment bears the heavy scars of the region’s industrial past, with water courses that are heavily modified with a huge number of man-made obstructions and many other morphological alterations. It is against this backdrop that other less obvious but locally significant limiting factors should be considered.
52 Table 7: Generic Factors that limit, or have the Potential to limit, Fish and Fisheries Production in the Forth District GE ERIC LIMITI G FACTORS 1. Point Source Pollution 2. Diffuse Pollution 3. Abstraction 4. Morphological Impacts 5. Man-Made Obstructions 6. Development 7. Aquaculture 8. Fish Disease 9. Stocking Practices 10. Human Exploitation 11. Alien Species 12. Predation 13. Riparian Management 14. Over-Grazing 15. Forestry 16. Drainage 17. Access 18. Lack of Education 19. Climate Change 20. Estuarine/Marine Factors
7.2 Limiting Factors and Associated Actions
The factors listed in Table 7 above will now be considered with associated potential actions for amelioration. However, no attempt will be made to add detailed costings or time-tables for carrying out such actions at this stage in the FMP’s life. It remains an objective that these will be fleshed out in more detail during the Plan’s scheduled review processes.
7.2.1 Point Source Pollution
There are many potential origins for point source pollution in the Forth District and these translate into a variety of pollution incidents each year. They range from one-off acute events such as ammonia or diesel spills, to ongoing chronic problems with water quality caused by discharges, such as those from sewage treatment works, industrial plants or agricultural processes. Point source pollution tends to be concentrated in, but not confined to, the lower reaches of the District’s rivers and in the estuary.
53 At its most damaging, pollution of this kind can kill fish over a considerable distance downstream of the source. In less acute cases, chronic water quality issues can still limit fisheries production and damage the ecological balance. For example, nutrient enrichment can cause excessive growth of undesirable plants and cleaning detergents can damage invertebrate populations.
Currently, water quality problems caused by point source pollution are thought seriously to limit fish and fisheries production in the District. Though the situation has clearly improved, a number of sections are not even expected to achieve good ecological status by the key Water Framework Directive date of 2015. Potential Actions: i) Follow up reported pollution events; events are frequently first observed by anglers and other river users such as canoeists. React quickly to pollution when events occur as evidence can disperse rapidly.
ii) Identify sources of point source pollution through observation, juvenile fish survey work and invertebrate studies. Provide objective data to inform future action.
iii) Liaise with SEPA to deal with unlicensed polluters.
iv) Liaise with SEPA and SNH to deal with licensed discharges that are harmful either to fish species or to the wider aquatic environment.
7.2.2 Diffuse Pollution
There are many sources of diffuse pollution in the District. Diffuse pollution occurs when run-off carries pollutants such as pesticides, fertilisers, organic wastes and other chemicals, along with silt and soil, into water courses. Pollutants of this kind can dramatically limit fisheries production over large areas.
There is no question that diffuse pollution is a problem in the District. Many of the remarks applied to point source pollution in 7.2.1 above, also apply to diffuse pollution.
54 Figure 22: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright) Potential Actions: i) Liaise with SEPA and SNH to ensure regulations are being followed by relevant parties in the area. Work with SEPA to help limit the impact of run-off from road drainage, cultivated drained land and forestry, which can add sediment, nutrients and other chemicals to water courses.
ii) Where possible, identify sources of diffuse pollution through survey work.
iii) Where appropriate, encourage the use of buffer strips, preventing livestock from causing damage to river banks, and from adding additional sediment and organic waste to the water.
7.2.3 Abstraction
Abstraction from watercourses can have a marked effect on fisheries production. The resulting reduction in water volume can limit fish migration, raise water temperatures and reduce the wetted area, thus reducing the quantity of juvenile habitat. Additionally, where pollution is a problem, abstraction can reduce the dilution factor, resulting in pollutants having a more serious impact. Abstraction may also have a marked effect on fish behaviour reducing the “catchability” of fish by anglers. 55
Water is abstracted from many of the watercourses of the Forth District but the RFFT is not aware of any work that has been done to gauge the impact of those abstractions on fish or fisheries in the area. Uses of the abstracted water include agriculture, distilling, paper milling and other industrial processes and filling water supplies for drinking water.
Potential Actions: i) Liaise with SEPA and SNH over the abstraction licence review process through the local Area Advisory Group.
ii) A number of DSFBs have carried out flow modelling to quantify the impacts of abstraction on fish migration. This is extremely expensive but could be carried out in the Forth District.
iii) Attempt to quantify the loss of juvenile salmonid habitat due to abstraction.
7.2.4 Morphological Impacts
Section 7.2.5 deals with the issue of man-made obstructions with regard to their impact on fish migration. However, degraded habitat has a major impact on fishery management and other morphological alterations to rivers in the forth catchment are extensive (see figure 23). These problems have been caused by many factors, among them being the construction of flood prevention schemes and the construction and/or maintenance of commercial fisheries. These have obviously had a marked impact on the quality of habitat in the District’s rivers.
Dredging and bank alterations have marked impacts on stream morphology and can result in a serious loss of in-stream habitat both in dredged areas and further downstream in areas of deposition. Changes in flow rates due to alterations in river bank structure substantially alter rates of sediment carry and deposition. Furthermore, morphological alterations to many of the urbanised lower-river stretches of the District’s rivers have been extreme, including the culverting of the entire stream. The effect of all such work causes loss of in-stream habitat for fish.
56 Figure 23: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
Potential Actions: i) Restore dredged and degraded areas with physical project work designed to create and restore good quality habitat for fish.
ii) Educate land-managers and farmers on the potential detrimental impacts of dredging and other detrimental works.
iii) Ensure that Controlled Activity Regulations (CAR) are enforced by working with SEPA.
iv) Ensure that planning processes are informed of the need for detailed conditions with regard to engineering works etc.
7.2.5 Obstructions to Fish Migration
The single most critical problem for migratory fish (salmonids, lampreys etc.) entering the system is poor access to the potential spawning grounds (see figure 24). In the Forth District, man-made obstructions are numerous. These can take a number of forms but include weirs, fords, bride aprons and culverts. On the River Almond there are known to be at least 13 serious obstructions of varying difficulty to fish passage and across the District at least 70 have been identified. Some of those obstructions have fish passes of debatable levels of suitability constructed on them, whilst others obstacles have no fish passes at all.
57
Figure 24: (Derived from OS 1:50,000 Panorama data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright)
Potential Actions:
i) The RFFT holds an extensive but incomplete list of the Forth District’s obstructions. This must be completed and a prioritised, detailed data-base produced.
ii) Where necessary survey work should be carried out in order to assess the biological impact of any obstruction.
iii) Contact must be made with the owner of an obstruction where this can be established. The owner should be reminded of his duties under the fish passage legislation.
iv) Professional engineering expertise should be secured to design and cost potential remedial action prior to the easing or removal of any obstruction being attempted.
v) Funding must be secured either through the SEPA Restoration Fund where no CAR licence is in place or potentially from the owner of the obstruction where CAR licences exist.
vi) It may be necessary to use the services of FishLegal in order to require owners to take the appropriate steps. 58
vii) Physical engineering work should be carried out with consideration to potential downstream impacts of that work.
viii) Any improvements that are made should be monitored in terms of their impact on fish populations.
7.2.6 Development
Housing, industrial and other developments have potential to cause severe impact on the aquatic environment. Such developments create a demand for water, sewage and waste water disposal and road access and transport requirements. Construction processes can cause diffuse pollution. Transport developments that cross rivers are likely to have a direct impact in stream morphology and riverine habitats. The problems associated with urban/ industrial development are long-term or permanent in nature. Additionally, in the Forth district, given that it is a heavily urbanised and industrialised region, problems are only likely to increase as populations and demands for resources grow.
Potential Actions: i) Monitor planning applications and respond where appropriate.
ii) Monitor and comment on local plans from local authorities and the National Park Authority.
iii) Form working relationships with planners, SEPA, SNH, National Park Authority, etc.
iv) Review existing planning consents in terms of their current impact and examine the potential for amelioration.
7.2.7. Aquaculture
Aquaculture has the potential to impact on fish populations and fisheries in a number of ways. There is a potential risk of disease transfer from wild to farmed fish populations. Fish farm developments have the potential to degrade the aquatic environment through nutrient enrichment from discharges and water abstraction. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, aquaculture operations generally carry an inherent risk that farmed fish will escape into the wider environment. This would impose risks of compromising the genetic integrity of wild fish stocks as well as potentially causing competition and predation impacts on wild stocks.
59 Potential Actions: i) Ensure the Trust holds a comprehensive data-base of aquaculture operations carried out in the District.
ii) Monitor aquaculture-related planning applications and respond where necessary.
iii) Monitor the aquatic environment for evidence of escape from fish farms.
7.2.8. Fish Disease
Fish diseases self-evidently have the potential to damage fish populations severely. In addition to particular threats posed to salmon populations by Gyrodactylus salaris, there are generic threats to fish health. The principal vector by which fish disease is likely to spread is through the introduction or release of infected fish within the District. In the case of G. s. The potential for disease-transfer on anglers’ or canoeists’ equipment has been highlighted. As previously mentioned, aquaculture operations have the potential to serve as vectors for disease transfer.
Potential Actions: i) Monitor aquaculture operations as highlighted in 7.2.7 above.
ii) Monitor stocking practices as set out in 7.2.9. below and, where possible, serve as consultee to the fish transfer licensing process
iii) Education and facilitation with regard to the necessity for precautions against the introduction of G. s.
7.2.9. Stocking Practices
Fish transfers and stockings are now regulated through licensing by Marine Scotland (formerly Fisheries Research Services). Stocking of fish may present problems for natural fish populations as they may compromise genetic integrity and, as previously stated, spread disease. Additionally, stocked fish may impose competition pressures on natural populations. This may be particularly acute where alien species are introduced.
Potential Actions: i) As far as possible, monitor licensing of stocking within the District.
ii) Where possible, police illegal transfers within the District.
iii) Liaise with the FDSFB, who control stocking of migratory salmonids within the District.
60 iv) Education as to the dangers of stocking with alien species, for instance the inadvertent release of fish intended by anglers as live bait.
7.2.10. Human Exploitation
Stocks of salmonid fish are widely exploited within the Forth District. Little information exists with regard to the exploitation of non-migratory stocks. However, both salmon and sea trout exploitation may, in some measure, be monitored through an analysis of anglers’ catches. Though catch and release of both salmon and sea trout is now widely practised within the District, significant numbers of both species are still killed. Additionally, netsmen still catch numbers of fish within the estuary. Finally, poaching is still inherent and there is evidence that a significant number of fish are illegally taken each year. The control of exploitation rates is an essential precautionary element in modern salmon fisheries management. This is particularly true with regard to vulnerable stocks, for instance that of spring salmon and those of salmon in recovering rivers.
Potential Actions: i) Continue to collect accurate data as to the salmon and sea trout taken in both the rod and net fisheries.
ii) Work with the FDSFB to form a coherent conservation code based on the practice of catch and release. The code should be targeted at vulnerable stock.
iii) Continue to monitor juvenile salmon and sea trout populations with a view to highlighting vulnerable stocks within the district. A long-term objective might be put in place to establish spawning targets for the district tributaries.
iv) Continue to enforce salmon fishery legislation in both fresh and salt-water parts of the District with a view to reducing and eliminating poaching.
v) Where mixed-stock interceptory nets are shown to take fish from the Forth District, efforts should be made to purchase or otherwise eliminate them were feasible.
7.2.11. Alien Species
A number of invasive species have been identified in the Forth District. Invasive animals include the North American mink and the American signal crayfish. Invasive plants include Japanese knotweed, giant hogweed and Himalayan balsam. Invasive plants have the potential to impact on the riparian zone through reducing plant and invertebrate diversity and destabilising banks. Mink impact on fish species through direct predation, whilst signal crayfish prey on invertebrate species and juvenile fish and also destabilise banks by burrowing activities.
61 Potential Actions: i) Information held by the RFFT with regard to alien species is patchy. Necessary to survey and map populations of alien species within the district.
ii) Liaise with SNH, SEPA and local authorities.
iii) Form a coherent plan for the monitoring control or eradication of invasive alien species.
7.2.12 Predation
There are many species that prey on fish within the Forth District. In particular American mink (Mustela vison) and the goosander (Mergus merganser) have been shown to impact on salmonid populations. Additionally, seals have the potential to prey on migratory fish in the District’s estuaries.
Potential Actions: i) Review and prioritise the impact of native and non-native predators on fish populations.
ii) Encourage the widespread and humane removal of mink from the district and prevent re-colonisation.
iii) Monitor populations of piscivorous birds and other predators.
7.2.13 Riparian Management
Broadleaved riparian woodlands can create excessive shading of burns and, if not managed, may thus reduce productivity. Excessive shade may also limit the growth of other vegetation on river banks. This may contribute to the vulnerability of banks to erosion.
Potential Action: A number of Scotland’s fisheries districts are currently carrying out coppicing regimes with a view to enhancing the productivity of water courses. They plan then to monitor the benefits of coppicing on fish populations. The RFFT should shape its policy with regard to riparian coppicing based on the results.
62 7.2.14 Over grazing
Animals that over-graze riparian vegetation may damage the aquatic environment through the additional input of sediment into water courses. Deer, sheep, rabbits and cows may all cause damage to the riparian zone. Grazing prevents tree and shrub regeneration. Complex vegetation structures may also potentially slow down run-off. Reduction of riparian vegetation may also reduce invertebrate abundance.
Potential Actions: i) Identify through habitat surveys areas subject to excessive grazing pressure.
ii) Prioritise areas most at risk.
iii) Liaise with land managers and SNH to identify solutions e.g., controlling the number of grazers or the erection of stock-proof fencing.
7.2.15 Forestry
Coniferous forestry has three main impacts on fisheries potential. Tunnelling where trees on the bank form a dense canopy over a water course may reduce bank stability through preventing vegetative growth and would also reduce invertebrate food sources for fish. The second issue surrounds the impact of coniferous forestry on water chemistry. The acidification caused by forestry may impose mortality on salmonids through its effect on blood chemistry. Finally, forestry may have a marked impact in causing diffuse pollution through harvesting operations.
Potential Actions: i) Identify all areas of forestry which do not comply with the Forest and Water Guidelines.
ii) Encourage forestry managers to restructure where there is incomplete compliance with the forest and water guidelines.
iii) Appeal to Forestry Commission Scotland.
iv) Monitor harvesting schedules and operations.
7.2.16 Drainage
Upland drainage has been undertaken for centuries and has increased sediment input. Drainage has greatly reduced run-off time. This has produced a more “flashy” hydro-regime. This has reduced the window in which fish have suitable water conditions in which to migrate upstream. This problem has been exacerbated by forestry practices (see 7.2.15).
63 Potential Actions: i) Habitat surveys will in the future be required to determine to what extent upland drainage regime constitute a problem in the Forth District. ii) If drainage problems are found, then liaison with land managers will be required in order to take remedial action.
7.2.17 Access
Impacts on fisheries through recreational activities such as canoeing and walking have been established on various rivers in Scotland. Canoeists may end up in direct competition with anglers on a given stretch of river; whilst in other areas sediment inputs from footpath erosion have been identified.
Potential Action: It is not clear to what extent recreational activities present a problem for fisheries in the Forth District. However, it is important to liaise with local authorities, e.g., the National Park Authority and local councils, to ensure that the Scottish Access Code is complied with.
7.2.18 Education
Lack of knowledge with regard to issues relating to aquatic ecosystems is widespread. This may result in unintentional damage to water quality and habitat by water users, land managers or members of the public.
Potential Actions: i) Communicate with stake holders targeting specific problems as they are found to have arisen.
ii) Develop an education program in schools within the District. The RFFT currently supports the Clackmannanshire Fish Go to School project and it is envisaged that, in the long term, this project should be rolled out across the district.
iii) Seek the inclusion of stake holders in the management of the river in order to encourage dialogue.
7.2.19 Climate Change
Increased water temperatures that may occur as a result of climate change may well increase thermal-related stress and mortality of fish within the District. Changes in temperatures are an emerging problem and their impact on aquatic ecosystems are, as yet, unclear. 64 Potential Action:
A number of Scotland’s fisheries districts are currently carrying out riparian work aimed at climate-proofing their water sources. Given that the effect of this work is as yet unclear, the RFFT will shape its policy based on the evidence that may emerge from work carried out in other districts.
7.2.20 Estuarine and Marine Factors
It is now widely recognised that the principal drivers of migratory salmonid abundance occur in the marine environment. Our ability to ameliorate marine pressures on salmonid populations is very limited. However, the Forth Estuary presents significant problems to migrating fish. Given the urban and industrialised nature of the estuary, poor water quality is unquestionably a problem. Additionally, given the size of the estuary, policing poaching activities is also difficult. The estuary is an area of the catchment on which the RFFT holds little data.
Potential Actions: i) Continue genetic research, a spin-off of which will be to provide date to assist marine research that will allow salmon to be identified when discovered at sea.
ii) Gathering information concerning issues within the Forth Estuary
iii) Monitoring and liaising with relevant regulatory authorities and agencies.
iv) Build up an information network around the estuary to improve policing the activities of poaching.
65 8. POTE TIAL RESEARCH, PROJECTS and ACTIO S
It is unquestionably the case that the Forth District demonstrates a marked mismatch between the scale of the pressures faced by its fisheries and the level of resources available to relieve them. The area is greater than 3600km2; it contains over 4000km of water-courses, many lochs, man-made still-waters and two major canals. Moreover, the majority of the principal rivers in the catchment run for at least part of their course through heavily populated and industrialised areas, imposing many anthropogenic limiting factors on fish populations. It is against this backdrop that the Forth’s fisheries management resources should be considered.
The document contained in Annex 1 of this FMP contains tables outlining a number of limiting factors as they occur in various parts of the catchment. However, just as importantly, it delivers a framework into which new information may be subsequently inserted as it is gathered. The tables identify almost all of the most significant water courses in the area, including the burns that realistically constitute the smallest management sub-units that are practicable. It is envisaged that in time this framework will be expanded to include the District’s still-waters, about which the RFFT holds very little data; and also to include additional limiting factors either as they emerge or as data becomes available.
In addition to the framework outlined above in 2007, the CRF collated the information that is tabulated in Annex 2. It is by no means an exhaustive list, but represents the current state of knowledge held by fisheries managers in the Forth District on specific identified problems. The table includes the CRF’s suggestions for corrective action together with the projected outcomes of taking such action.
In Section 2.5 of this FMP on Expectations, it was pointed out that:
“In producing their FMPs, many of Scotland’s fisheries trusts are now at the stage in their evolution where they are in a position to produce detailed programmes of fisheries restoration works with costings and time-tables attached. The RFFT is not yet in that position, given that it is Scotland’s newest, and in terms of resources, smallest trust. ... In many cases the information does not yet exist. If action is to be based on sound scientific evidence then, on many issues, the new Trust is now embarking on the initial research phase of its work. ... Given the size of the District and the paucity of financial and human resources currently available, it is inevitable that much that is defined in this plan must remain aspirational until such time as adequate resources can be found”.
For the reasons given in the preceding paragraph, this section will not outline a detailed, costed schedule of works but will aim to set out an operational template that can be applied both to the specific factors that are identified in the annexes attached to this FMP, and also to new problems as they emerge. In addition, this section will set out research objectives for future action and opportunities for applying existing legislation to solve problems; and it will prioritise key areas for fisheries management intervention when resources become available.
66 8.1 Research Projects
i) Spatial Surveys – “Who lives where?”
In the past, surveying effort on the Forth has been sporadic apart from work at a number of core sites which, in recent years, have been sampled annually. Data collection has been opportunistic, in that it has only been carried out as and when funding has become available. The SFCC electro-fishing database holds data from 133 unique locations within the catchment, accumulated over seven field seasons. The Trust therefore has some idea of who lives where, and the species maps in section four of this FMP demonstrate the current state of knowledge. However, the picture is far from complete and there is still a need for catchment- wide baseline electric fishing surveying, with the highest priority going to areas where the Trust currently holds minimal data.
Action: Ultimately, several hundred sites should be surveyed so as fully to characterise the system and complete the picture. Realistically, the pieces of the jigsaw will have to be built up over a long period of time.
ii) Temporal Surveys – “How are the fish doing?”
The Trust already holds a geographically limited, but good quality, temporal data-set taken from 15 monitoring points in the Forth catchment and currently the Trust holds up to six years’ worth of quantitative data from those sites.
Action: In an ideal world, temporal surveys should be extended to include sites on all of the rivers draining into the Firth of Forth. Suitable sites should emerge as the pieces in the spatial surveying puzzle are completed. Once again, given that the Trust does not currently employ a dedicated biologist, the work will have to be carried out when resources become available.
iii) Habitat Surveys – “What is the current state of fish habitat?”
The Forth District contains many recovering rivers that are burdened with limiting factors, many of which are directly of anthropogenic origin. The Forth’s fish experience a wide range of difficulties such as point source and diffuse pollution, abstraction, barriers to fish migration, the introduction of alien species and both legal and illegal exploitation. In order to gauge the relative importance of the various pressures and to help place electro-fishing results in context, there is an urgent need to pursue a systematic habitat survey across the catchment. The RFFT already holds sketchy habitat survey data. However, further work would standardise the methodology and fill the yawning gaps that currently exist.
Action: The RFFT should commission habitat surveys as and when resources are available. The River Clyde Foundation has estimated that in order to complete the habitat picture it would take more than 260 man-days per annum for five years. Given current levels of resources, there will be habitat base line surveying to do for many years to come. Habitat surveys are particularly important with regard to project work as, not only do they highlight problems that can be corrected, but they set a benchmark against which the effectiveness of those projects can be gauged.
67 iv) Population Structures Research into Salmon Genetics
In its first six months of operating, the RFFT has carried out the collection of genetic material from juvenile salmon to identify the specific genetic stock structures of populations of salmon in the Forth District. This project links with similar projects being carried out throughout Scotland to map out the genetics of salmon populations and will in the future be a valuable tool for a wide range of salmon management purposes.
Action: The FDSFB and RFFT believe that this project is of great value. The Trust will continue to collect genetic material and will have the material that has already been collected analysed. Thus far, this has been achieved with the help of a substantial Scottish Government grant. In the future there may be opportunities to carry out genetic research into the stock structures of other fish populations in the District.
8.2 Using the Law
If the fisheries of the Forth are to be adequately protected, conserved and in some cases rejuvenated, it is essential that the existing legal framework is used to best advantage. In particular, there are two bodies that have legal remedies at their disposal to correct pressures that are illegally imposed on the Forth’s fisheries. These are SEPA and the FDSFB:
i) The Role of SEPA: Fisheries interests have the opportunity of working with SEPA to assist it in carrying out its role of protecting the aquatic environment. Fishermen and fisheries managers are frequently the first to report aquatic pollution events and the FDSFB maintains a dialogue with SEPA when these occur. Additionally, there are two key areas where fisheries interests have an obvious opportunity to work with SEPA to deliver fisheries management objectives. These are through membership of River Basin Planning Advisory Groups and through the Controlled Activities Regulation (CAR) process. Two-way flow of information is of great importance.
River Basin Planning Advisory Groups:
To support river basin planning across Scotland, SEPA has formed a National Advisory Group and a comprehensive network of Area Advisory Groups working more locally. Fisheries interests are represented in all of these groups by individual DSFBS and Trusts as Area Advisory Group members. The Association of Salmon Fishery Boards/ RAFTS are the National Advisory Group members. The Forth Area Advisory Group covers the same area as the FDSFB.
The FDSFB is a member of this AAG and is working with members to help support the preparation and implementation of the River Basin Management Plan for the River Basin District and the Area Management Plan for the advisory group area. Further information on the river basin planning process is available from SEPA’s website:
(http://www.sepa.org.uk/wfd/rbmp/index.htm)
68 Controlled Activity Regulations:
The Controlled Activity Regulations provide SEPA with the opportunity to regulate a range of activities which can relate to fishery management issues. In addition to existing controls on point source pollution (which were revised as part of the same regulations) SEPA now regulates activities including:
• Water abstractions • Water impoundments and • River engineering
Diffuse pollution is also controlled via General Binding Rules. Further information on these regulatory regimes is available from SEPA’s website:
(http://www.sepa.org.uk/wfd/regimes/index.htm)
The implementation of these regimes by SEPA provides opportunities to protect the water environment to the benefit of fisheries and fish. However, a due and formal regulatory process must be followed which allows third-party representations to be made at certain times. Essentially SEPA must advertise all licences where it considers that “good ecological status” objectives will not be achieved through the licence conditions. This allows any interested parties to make representations to SEPA to inform its regulatory decision and the FDSFB and FFT will use these opportunities to respond to relevant consultations in order to achieve better environmental outcomes for the fisheries of its area.
The National and Area Advisory groups themselves cannot make or be involved in regulatory decision-making but their members are clearly well-informed enough to respond to relevant licence advertisements where this is required. As the FDSFB is a member of the relevant Area Advisory Group fisheries, interests will be well placed to inform licence determinations. Action: It is imperative that the FDSFB and RFFT work with SEPA and any other relevant regulators to ensure the law is used to protect the fisheries environment.
ii) The Role of FDSFB:
The FDSFB has legal remedies at its disposal in carry out its fisheries protection role. Fishery Board bailiffs have the authority to enforce salmon fisheries legislation and have the duty of arresting poachers who are attempting to exploit the salmon resource illegally. However, the Board also has remedy at law when considering the matter of impassable barriers and obstructions. If a barrier has a CAR licence then the owner must allow the free passage of salmon and sea trout or he is breaking the law.
Action: The FDSFB must ensure that if necessary it enforces salmon fisheries legislation and that it uses the law effectively in delivering its fisheries protection role.
69 8.3 Project Work
Given the current resources available to the RFFT its role will frequently involve delivering projects through facilitating other bodies in the Forth District to carrying out those projects. Three angling clubs: Slamannan Angling Club, East Lothian Angling Association and the Allan Water Improvement Association currently have their own management plans and it is hoped that in the future the Trust will have a key role in helping them obtain funding and deliver projects against them.
Suggested Framework for Project work: i) Identification of Project:
Given that the RFFT is not resourced to carry out large numbers of fisheries management projects concurrently, projects must be carefully prioritised to ensure that they deliver the most favourable cost benefit ratio. However, in reality beneficial projects will frequently be chosen from a list of desirable projects as and when resources become available.
The results of research projects outlined in “8.1” above will suggest possible projects and many may be drawn from the tables set out in Annexes 1 and 2 of this FMP.
Example: A weir is identified as requiring removal or by-passing.
ii) Obtain Resources:
Ensure that sufficient human and financial resources are in place to deliver the project.
Example: Apply for a SEPA restoration funding grant to remove a weir with no CAR licence. Match fund with money from other grants.
iii) Carry Out Research and Obtain Permissions:
Many physical fisheries management projects that could be carried out in the Forth District would require a full research/ monitoring phase to be done before they could be implemented. As previously stated, habitat surveys are critical in identifying areas for future project work and baselines must be established through habitat and population surveys in order to judge their subsequent effectiveness; a process that in turn informs decisions on future projects. Additionally, in complex large-scale projects requiring hydro-engineering or similar work, an engineer’s report would be a necessary precursor to action.
Example: Carry out detailed hydrographical engineering report. Ensure as much baseline biological data as possible has been collected. Obtain all necessary permissions.
iv) Carry Out Project:
Subject to the initial phases being completed the project can now be carried out.
Example: Remove or by-pass weir.
70 v) Monitor Results:
Monitor the effectiveness of the project in delivering its objectives against baselines set before the project started. These data can then be used to inform future project work.
Example: Electro-fish above weir location. If weir is found to be effectively by-passed apply the same planning to another weir on the river.
8.4 Education Projects
The RFFT is committed to delivering or facilitating fish and fisheries related education projects. In 2008, the Trust contributed to the Clackmannanshire “Fish Go to School” project and plans to do so again in 2009.
The Trust will seek to deliver or facilitate education programs in other areas in the District.
8.5 Prioritisation Given that the RFFT has only been in existence for six months it is unrealistic to expect a fully costed and time-tabled list of specific projects at this time. As detailed elsewhere in this document the data necessary to complete such a task have not yet been collected, and currently there are minimal resources available.
However, the following list of priorities has been drawn up for the first year of this FMP’s life-time, pending a review of this section after the plan has run for one year. At that review it is envisaged that a detailed, costed, prioritised plan will be produced from which projects may be drawn in the years that follow.
71 Prioritised Actions for 2009:2
(It is envisage that this list will change in light of the current consultation)
a) Research: Plan and carry out as many of the research objectives as possible that are detailed in 8.1 above. Progress with these will depend on the availability of funding. In particular, the Trust aims to continue the salmon genetics project it began in 2008 and to carry out targeted electro-fishing surveys to help fill gaps in the general picture. Given a serious fish farm escape in 2008 on the River Devon, the Trust aims to carry out follow-up electro- fishing surveys to monitor the situation. It is envisaged that in the fullness of time the Trust will include in its plans a regular cycle of bio-security monitoring at all fish farms in the catchment. In addition, the Trust aims to carry out surveys on the upper River Avon, following three phases of a large four-phase restoration project by Slamannan Angling Club. b) Education: In the coming year the Trust will be contributing to the Clackmannanshire “Fish go to School” project and will be investigating carrying out a similar project in Stirling. c) Removal or By Passing of Obstructions: The East Lothian Angling Association has obtained SEPA restoration funding for surveys pertaining to the removal or by-passing of obstructions on the River Tyne. The RFFT will facilitate this process in any way it can, with a view to carrying out similar projects on other obstructed rivers in the future. The FDSFB will examine the possibility of easing passage for fish migration into the Calair Burn. The burn is of excellent quality but fish find it hard to access except in unusually high water conditions. If investigations are favourable then an attempt will be made to raise funds for this project. d) Invasive Species: The RFFT will be carrying out mapping of the four known or suspected populations of signal crayfish in the District in the spring of 2009 with the help of a grant from SNH. In addition, the Trust hopes to carry out surveys of invasive plants on the River Allan. e) Water Quality: The RFFT will work with SEPA to resolve issues with both point source and diffuse pollution and abstraction. f) Exploitation: The FDSFB will attempt to reduce the level of exploitation on salmon and sea trout stocks in the district through modifying catch and release recommendations.
2 Sources of funding Funding for the actions identified will be sought from a multitude of sources (e.g. private sector organisations that exploit the river, local authorities, public funds, private subscription, agri- environmental schemes, landfill tax, contract work, National Park grants, etc.).
72 A EX 1. MAPS & TABLES Management Units of the Forth Fisheries District
* * *
As compiled by Mr. Tom McKenzie former Clerk to the Forth District Salmon Fishery Board
“The River Almond”
73
Figure 1: Map Showing the Significant Rivers of the Forth District
* Five significant systems that are not identified on this map are detailed below:
i) The Bannock Burn enters the Forth east of Stirling.
ii) Loch Venachar feeds the southern fork of the upper Teith system.
iii) The Leny and Balvaig feed the northern fork of the upper Teith system.
iv) The Black Devon enters the estuary south- east of Alloa.
v) The Beil Water that enters the Firth of Forth to the north-east of Dunbar.
74
8 7 6 4
18 5
21
17 20 3 19 2 1 12 16
9 15
10 11 14 RIVER FORTH 13
RIVER FORTH TRIBUTARIES 1. Touch Burn 8. Rednock Burn 15. Auchentroig Burn 2. Craigniven Burn 9. Watson Burn 16. Kelty Water 3. Gargunnock Burn 10. Leckie Burn 17. Braevaal Burn 4. Watson Burn 11. Boquhan Burn 18. Dounans Burn 5. Goodie Water 12. Poldar Burn 19. Spling Burn 6. Tarr Burn 13. Garden Burn 20. Duchray Water 75 7. Ruskie Burn 14. Mye Burn 21. Abhainn dubh/ Water of Chon
OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT RIVER FORTH CATCHME T umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies Forth 52 1 yes No No Arable, Yes Trout, eel, stickleback, Hogweed forestry, minnow, stoneloach, lowland moss lamprey spp., others? 1 Touch Burn 3 1 ? ? ? No No Arable, For Trout, eel grazing, forestry 0.7km
2 Craigniven 3 1 ? ? No No No Arable, grazing, For Trout, eel Burn Forestry 0.7km 3 Gargunnock 4 1 ? ? No No No Arable, grazing, For Trout, eel, stickleback, Burn urban 1km minnow 4 Watson 3 1 ? ? No No No Arable For Trout?, others? Burn 1km 5 Goodie 11 1 ? Yes Sewage No No Arable, forestry, Yes Trout, eel, stickleback, Rainbow Water treatment lowland moss minnow, stoneloach trout, works hogweed 6 Tarr Burn 4 1 1 1 ? ? ? No No Arable, forestry, ? ? ? lowland moss 7 Ruskie 3 1 1 1 1 Yes ? ? No No Arable, hill harming ? Trout ? Burn 8 Rednock 5 1 Yes ? ? No No Arable, hill farming ? Trout ? Burn 9 Watson 3 1 ? ? ? No No Arable, hill farming ? Trout Hogweed Burn 10 Leckie 5 1 ? ? ? No No Arable, hill farming ? Trout Hogweed Burn 11 Boquhan 5 1 3 ? yes No No Arable, hill farming For Trout, eel, stickleback, ? Burn 2km minnow, stoneloach
76 OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT RIVER FORTH CATCHME T (contd.) umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies 12 Poldar Burn 3 No ? ? No No Arable, ? Trout, eel ? lowland moss 13 E. Garden Burn 5 No ? ? No No Arable, forestry ? Trout, eel, Hogweed stickleback, stoneloach 14 Mye Burn 5 No Yes Yes No No Arable, forestry ? Trout, eel, ? stickleback, minnow, stoneloach
15 Auchentroig 7 No ? ? No No Arable, Trout, eel, ? Burn woodland stickleback
16 Kelty Water 8 1 6 Yes No No No Arable, For Trout, eel, forestry 2km stickleback 17 Braevaal Burn 2 ? No No No No Arable, ? Trout, eel, ? hill Farming stickleback
18 Dounans Burn 5 1 ? No No No Yes Woodland For Trout, eel, 0.6km stickleback
19 Spling Burn 2 1 No ? ? No No Forestry ? ?
20 Duchray Water 12 1 1 No ? ? No No Forestry ?
21 Abhainn dubh/ 7 3 3 ? ? ? No No Forestry, ? Trout Water of Chon woodland
Total 157 6 13 1 0 0 8
77
1
2
BA OCK BUR
BA OCK BUR 1. Bannock Burn 2. Chartershall Burn
78
OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT BA OCK BUR CATCHME T umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies 1 Bannock 14 3 1 4km ? Fish farms Domestic No Arable, forestry, For Trout, Rainbow trout, Burn water supply, hill farming, 6km minnow, hogweed fish farms urban stickleback, lamprey spp., eel 2 Chartershall 3 1 2 ? ? Fish farms Fish farms No Grazing, arable No ? Rainbow trout, Burn hogweed
Total 17 0 0 0 4 3 4
79
11 13 12 11 10 15
7 14 8
6
9 8 4
5
3 2
1 LE Y/ BALVAIG SYSTEM
LE Y/ BALVAIG TRIBUTARIES 1. Trean Burn 6. Immervuilin Burn 11. Allt Gleann Crotha 2. Leny Burn 7. Kings House Burn 12. Monachyle Burn 3. Anie Burn 8. Calair Burn 13. Allt Carnaig
4. Ardchullarie Burn 9. Imerion Burn 14. Inverlochlaraig Burn
5. Allt Mhor 10. Kirkton Burn 15. River Laraig
80 OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT RIVER LE Y/ BALVAIG CATCHME T umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies Leny 5 1 1 No No No Yes No Arable, forestry, hill Yes Trout, minnow, ? farming stickleback, eel
Balvaig 9 2 No No No Yes No Grazing, forestry Yes Trout, minnow, ? stickleback, eel 1 Trean Burn 2 1 ? No No No No Arable, hill farming For Trout? ? 0.75km 2 Leny Burn 2 1 ? No No No No Hill farming, forestry, For Trout, eel? ? arable 0.75km 3 Annie Burn 2 ? No No No No Hill farming, forestry, For Trout, eel? ? arable 0.75km 4 Allt Mhor 2 1 ? No No No No Hill farming, forestry, ? ? ? arable 5 Ardchullary 4 ? 1 ? No No No No Hill farming, No Trout, others? ? Burn woodland 6 Immervoulin 2 1 ? No No No No Forestry For Trout, others? ? Burn 0.5km 7 Kingshouse Burn 3 ? Yes ? No No Arable, forestry, hill No Trout, others? farming 8 Calair Burn 9 1 1 8 No No Yes No Hill farming, grazing, Yes Trout, eel ? forestry 9 Imerion Burn 3 ? No No No No Hill farming, grazing, Yes Trout, eel ? forestry 10 Kirkton Burn 4 1 ? No No No No Hill farming, grazing, For Trout, eel ? arable, forestry 0.5km
81
OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT RIVER LE Y/ BALVAIG CATCHME T (contd.) umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies 11 Allt Greann Crotha 12 Monachyle Burn
13 Allt Carnaig
14 Inverlochlaraig Burn 15 River Laraig
82
13
12 11
10
9
8
6 5 4
7
3 VE ACHAR SYSTEM 1 2
VENACHAR TRIBUTARIES 1. Balloch Burn 6. Finglas Water 11. Strone Burn
2. Allt Nan Gobhar 7. Allt a Cham-ruaidh 12. Allt a’ Sput Dubh
3. Drunkie Burn 8. Allt Glassahoile 13. Glengyle Burn 4. Milton Burn 9. Couligart Burn 5. Lendrick Burn 10. Letter Burn 83
OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT RIVER VE ACHAR CATCHME T umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies Venachar 22 2 2 1 ? Yes ? Glasgow No Upland Yes Trout, eel ? water grazing, supply forestry 1 Balloch Burn 3 1 1 ? ? ? No No Forestry No ? ? 2 Allt Nan Gobhar 3 1 1 ? ? ? No No Forestry No ? ?
3 Drunkie Burn 4 1 1 2 3 Yes ? No No Forestry For Trout, eel Rainbow trout, 0.5km pike 4 Milton Burn 2 1 ? ? ? No No Forestry For Trout, eel ? 0.3km 5 Lendrick Burn 3 1 3 ? ? No No Forestry, For Trout, eel? ? grazing 0.3km 6 Finglas Water 6 1 1 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Forestry For Trout, eel? ? 0.5km
7 Allt a 3 ? ? ? No No Forestry ? ? ? Chamruaidh 8 Allt Glassahoile 3 1 1 ? ? ? No No Forestry ? ? ? 9 Couligart Burn 3 1 ? ? ? No No Forestry ? ? ? 10 Letter Burn 3 1 ? ? ? No No Forestry ? ? ? 11 Strone Burn 3 1 ? ? ? No No Forestry ? ? ? 12 Allt a Sput dubh 2 1 ? ? ? No No Forestry ? ? ?
13 Glengyle 3 ? ? ? No No Forestry ? Trout Rainbow Trout, Pike Total 63 0 8 2 3 4 6 6
84
10 2
9 7 8 5 12 4
11 6
1 3
RIVER TEITH
RIVER TEITH TRIBUTARIES 1. Wester Row Burn 7. Coillechat Burn 2. Ardoch Burn 8. Keltie Water 3. Blairdrummond Burn 9. Sruth Geal 4. Cambus Burn 10. Bracklinn Burn 5. Annet Burn 11. Greenock Burn 6. Lanrick Burn 12. Mollands Burn 85 OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT RIVER TEITH CATCHME T m) umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (k Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies
River Teith 20 1 ? Yes Sewage 2 Yes Arable, forestry, Yes Trout, minnow, Hogweed, works hill farming, stickleback, grayling, rainbow trout, urban roach, lamprey spp., American signal eel crayfish
1 Wester Row Burn 2 1 2 ? No No No Arable ? ? American signal crayfish
2 Ardoch Burn 11 5 1 ? ? No Yes No Hill farming, Yes Trout, minnow, Hogweed grazing, stickleback, lamprey arable spp., eel
3 Blairdrummond 2 1 ? ? ? No No Arable, ? Trout Burn forestry, urban
4 Cambus Burn 3 1 3 No No No No Hill farming, No Trout, others? grazing, arable, forestry
5 Annet Burn 8 1 2 5 No No No No Hill farming, For Trout, others? Hogweed grazing, arable, 3km woodland 6 Broich Burn 2 1 2 ? ? No No Arable No Trout, others?
7 Coillechat Burn 5 1 2 5 No No No No Hill farming, For Trout, eel grazing, arable, 0.3km woodland
86 OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT RIVER TEITH CATCHME T (contd.) umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies Passable atural Obstructions 8 Keltie Water 10 1 1 No No No No Hill farming, ? Trout, eel grazing, arable, woodland
9 Sruth Geal 4 1 4 No No No No Hill farming, No Trout, eel grazing, arable, woodland
10 Bracklinn 3 1 No No No No Hill farming, For Trout, eel Burn grazing, arable, 1km woodland 11 Greenock 2 No No No No Hill farming, Yes Trout, eel Burn grazing, arable, woodland 12 Mollands 2 No No No No Hill farming, ? Trout, eel grazing, arable, forestry Total 74 10 10 0 1 2 1 21
87
16
15
14 1km 6 5 10 11 13
18 4 7 9 8 12 20 17 3 21 19 2 23 22 1
RIVER ALLA
RIVER ALLA TRIBUTARIES
1. Cocksburn 7. Toddhill Burn 13. Keir Burn 8. Glassingallbeg Burn 14. River Knaik 2. Wharry Burn 3. Scouring Burn 9. Geordie Burn 15 Arrevore Burn 10. Muckle Burn 16. Coriebeg Burn 4. Glassingall Burn 5. Lodge Burn 11. Feddal Burn 17. Blueton Burn
6. Cambushinnie Burn 12. Millstane Burn 18. Rhynds Burn 88 OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT RIVER ALLA CATCHME T m) umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P .S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (k Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies River Allan 21 3 3 Agriculture, Sewage Borehole Ashfield Arable, Yes Trout, eel, Hogweed, Forestry treatment abstraction at Mill forestry, stickleback, rainbow trout, plants, Blackford. urban minnow, possibly other Septic tanks Ashfield Mill stoneloach, coarse fish lamprey spp. 1 Cocksburn 1.5 1 1 1.5 ? No No No Arable, No Trout, eel Rainbow trout grazing 2 Wharry Burn 4 1 1 1 Smolt No No Hill For Trout, eel, Farmed salmon production farming, 1km stickleback, unit forestry minnow, stoneloach 3 Scouring Burn 4 1 1 4 ? No No No Arable, For Trout, eel, grazing, 0.2km stickleback urban 4 Glassingal Burn 3 1 3 No No No Arable ? ?
5 Lodge Burn 4 1 3 2 Yes ? Water for sport No Arable, hill Yes Trout, eel, Rainbow trout, fisheries farming, stickleback, hogweed forestry minnow, stoneloach 6 Cambushinnie 3 1 1 2 Yes ? No Forestry For ? ? Burn 0.3km 7 Toddhill Burn 3 1 1 2 ? ? No No Arable, hill For Trout, eel, Hogweed farming 0.7km stickleback, minnow 8 Glassingalbeg 3 1 1 2 ? No No No Arable, hill For Trout, eel, Hogweed Burn farming 1km stickleback, minnow 9 Geordie Burn 3 1 1 1 1 2 ? Surface road Dam built on No Arable, hill For Trout, eel, Hogweed run-off burn farming 1km stickleback, minnow 10 Muckle Burn 7 3 2 1 4 ? ? No No Arable, hill Yes Trout, eel, Hogweed farming stickleback, minnow
89 OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT RIVER ALLA CATCHME T (contd.) umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P .S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies
11 Feddal Burn 3 3 5 3 Forestry Silt from For sport No Forestry ? ? Rainbow trout spraying ponds fishery
12 Millstane Burn 4 1 1 1 4 ? ? No No Arable, hill farming, ? Trout, eel Hogweed forestry
13 Keir Burn 7.5 1 ? ? No No Arable, hill farming, Yes Trout, eel, stickleback, Hogweed forestry minnow 14 Knaik 10 3 ? Sewage No No Arable, hill farming, Yes Trout, eel, stickleback, Hogweed plant forestry minnow, stoneloach
15 Arrevore Burn 3.5 1 1 2.5 No No No No Hill farming For 1km Trout, eel, stickleback, 16 Corriebeag Burn 4 No No No No Hill farming Yes Trout, eel, stickleback,
17 Blueton Burn 2 1 ? ? No No No Arable, hill farming, For Trout, eel, stickleback, forestry 0.5km 18 Rhynds Burn 3 3 4 ? Yes ? No No Arable, hill farming, ? Trout, eel, Rainbow Rainbow trout, carp, forestry trout, carp, dace, dace, roach, ide, roach, ide, gudgeon, gudgeon, etc., etc. Hogweed 19 Buttergask Burn 4 1 1 3 ? No No No Arable, hill farming For 1km Trout, eel, stickleback, Hogweed minnow, stoneloach 20 Carsebreck 2 1 1 ? No No No No Arable ? ? ? Burn 21 Ogilvie Burn 5 1 No No No No Arable, hill farming Yes Trout, eel, stickleback, minnow, 22 Danny Burn 4 1 1 2.5 No No No No Arable, hill farming For Trout, eel, stickleback, Hogweed 1.5km minnow, stoneloach 23 Upper Allan 3 No No No No Arable, hill farming For ? Hogweed 1.5km Total 111.5 12 9 6 17 16 37.5
90
7
4 5 3 2
1 6
RIVER DEVO
RIVER DEVO TRIBUTARIES 1. Menstrie Burn 5. Muckhart Mill Burn 2. Alva Burn 6. Gairney Burn 3. Tillicoultry Burn 7. Glendey Burn 4. Burn of Sorrow
91 OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT RIVER DEVO CATCHME T umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies River 27 1 1 2 3 4 ? Yes Sewage works, Domestic Yes Arable, forestry, For Trout, minnow, Rainbow trout, Devon Septic tanks, water hill farming, 15km stickleback, lamprey hogweed Mines, supply, Urban spp., eel Fish farms Fish farms
1 Menstrie 3 1 1 1 1 ? No No No Hill farming, For Trout, minnow, Hogweed Burn grazing, arable, 1km stickleback, lamprey urban spp., eel
2 Alva Burn 4 1 1 1 ? ? No No No Hill farming, For Trout, minnow, Hogweed grazing, arable, 1.5km stickleback, lamprey urban spp., eel
3 Tillicoultry 4 1 1 1 0.5 No No No No Hill farming, For Trout, minnow, Hogweed Burn grazing, arable, 1km stickleback, lamprey urban spp., eel
4 Burn of 4 1 ? ? ? No No No No Hill farming, ? Trout, others? Hogweed Sorrow grazing, arable, urban
5 Muckhart 3 1 3 ? No No No Hill farming, no Trout, others? Mill Burn grazing, arable 6 Gairney 5 2 1 ? ? ? No No Hill farming No Trout, others? Hogweed
7 Glendey 6 No No No No Hill farming, No Trout, others? Hogweed Burn grazing, arable, woodland Total 56 1 8 4 7 6 0 3.5
92
3 2
1
BLACK DEVO
BLACK DEVO TRIBUTARIES 1. Saline Burn 2. Roughcleugh Burn 3. Aberdona Burn
93 OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT BLACK DEVO CATCHME T umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies Black 12 1 ? ? 1 ? Mining Sewage Gartmorn No Arable, ? ? ? Devon works, Dam forestry, Mines, urban., open Open cast cast mining
1 Saline Burn 6 Mining Sewage No No Hill farming, No ? ? works, grazing, Mines, arable, urban Open cast
2 Roughcleuch 4 Mining Mines, No No Hill farming, No ? ? Burn Open cast grazing, arable, urban 3 Aberdona 2 ? ? No No Hill farming, No ? ? Burn grazing, arable, forestry
Total 24 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
94
2
1
3
4
6 5
RIVER LEVE
RIVER LEVE TRIBUTARIES 1. Kennoway/ Back Burn 2. Lothrie Burn 3. Lochty Burn 4. River Ore 5. Gelly Burn 6. Fitty Burn 95 OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT RIVER LEVE CATCHME T umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies Leven 21 1 8 3 1 8 Yes Yes Yes Balgonie, Arable, For Trout, Rainbow Fettykil urban 12km minnows, eel, trout, flounder hogweed
1 Kennoway/ 6 1 2 1 Yes Yes No No Arable, Yes Trout, eel Hogweed Back Burn urban 2 Lothrie Burn 7 1 5 ? No Yes No Arable, ? Trout, eel, urban minnow 3 River Ore 18 1 Yes Yes No No Arable, No Trout, eel, Hogweed urban minnow, stickleback
4 Lochty Burn 8 Yes Yes No No Arable, No ? Hogweed urban
5 Gelly Burn 3 1 ? ? No No Arable, No Trout, eel ? woodland 6 Fitty Burn 7 1 ? ? No No Arable No Trout, eel ?
Total 70 1 0 10 3 8 4 8
96
N
3
7 5 4
1
6
2
RIVER CARRO
RIVER CARRO TRIBUTARIES 1. Bonny Water 5. Buckie Burn 2. Red Burn 6. Fauchlin Burn 3. Anchor Burn 7. Earl’s Burn 4. Castlerankine Burn
97 OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT RIVER CARRO CATCHME T umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies Carron 29 1 1 3 1 1 5 ? Sewage Domestic No Arable, forestry, hill For Trout, minnow, Rainbow works, water farming, urban 15km stickleback, trout, Septic tanks, supply. Fish lamprey spp., hogweed Fish farms Farms eel 1 Bonny water 10 Yes Sewage ? No Arable, urban ? Trout? Hogweed works, Septic tanks, Industry 2 Red Burn 5 Sewage No No Urban, arable No No ? works, Septic tanks, Industry 3 Anchor Burn 10 1 2 1 3 yes Septic tanks, Yes No Hill farming, For Trout, minnow, Hogweed Fish farms grazing, arable, 1km stickleback, urban lamprey spp., eel
4 Castlerankine 7 2 yes ? No No Hill farming, For Trout? Burn grazing, arable, 0.5km urban
5 Buckieburn 5 1 2 ? ? Septic tanks, yes No Hill farming, No Trout, others? ? Fish farms grazing, arable, urban
6 Fauchlin 2 1 ? No No No Forestry No ? ? Burn 7 Earlsburn 7 2 ? No No No Hill farming, no Trout, others? grazing, arable, forestry Total 75 1 3 5 3 7 0 8 0
98
1 3 10 8
6 2
9 4 7
5 RIVER AVO
RIVER AVO STREAMS
1. Linlithgow Burn 6. Boxton Burn
2. Brunton Burn 7. Cross Burn 3. Stand Burn 8. Ellrig Burn 4. Logie/ Couston Water 9. Slammannan Burn 5. Barbauchlaw Burn 10. Threaprigg Burn 99 OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT RIVER AVO CATCHME T umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies
Avon 28 1 1 1 1 ? Yes Yes No No Arable, forestry, Yes Trout, minnow, Hogweed hill farming, stickleback, urban lamprey spp., eel
1 Linlithgow Burn 1 1 1 No ? No No No Grazing, arable, ? Trout, eel Hogweed urban
2 Brunton Burn 3 1 1 ? ? ? ? ? Grazing, arable No Trout, eel
3 Stand Burn 3 Yes Yes No No Grazing, arable No Trout, eel
4 Logie/ Couston 6 1 6 Yes Yes No No Grazing, arable, No Trout, others? Hogweed Water urban
5 Barbauchlaw Burn 11 11 Yes Yes No No Hill farming, No Trout, others? grazing, arable 6 Boxton Burn 3 1 ? ? ? No No Hill farming, No Trout, others? Hogweed peat cutting 7 Summerhouse 3 No No No No Hill farming, No Trout, others? Hogweed Burn grazing, arable, woodland 8 Crossburn 3 1 2 No No No No Hill farming, No Trout, others? Hogweed grazing, arable, woodland 9 Eilrig Burn 2 Yes Yes No No Hill farming, No Trout ? peat stripping 10 Slamannan Burn 13 Yes Yes No No Hill farming, Yes Trout, eel? Hogweed grazing, arable, woodland Total 76 1 2 1 3 3 1 19
100
2
3
1
6 7 4
5 RIVER ALMO D
RIVER ALMO D STREAMS 1. Gogar Burn 5. Murieston Water 2. Niddrie Burn 6. West Calder Burn 3. Beugh Burn 7. Breich Water 4. Linhouse Water 101
OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT RIVER ALMO D CATCHME T umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies Almond 37 7 1 20 Yes Yes Yes No Arable, grazing, Yes Trout, eel, Hogweed forestry, urban minnow?
1 Gogar Burn 10 ? ? ? Yes Yes No No Arable, grazing, No ? ? forestry, urban 2 Niddrie Burn 9 9 Yes Yes No No Arable, grazing, ? Trout, eel, ? forestry, urban minnow 3 Beuch Burn 7 7 Yes Yes No No Arable, grazing, ? Trout, eel, ? forestry, urban minnow 4 Linhouse 9 1 2 2 4 4 No No No No Grazing, forestry ? Trout? ?
5 Murieston 8 1 2 1 8 No No No No Grazing, forestry ? Trout? ? Water 6 W.Calder 5 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? No No Grazing, forestry ? Trout? ?
7 Breich Water. 10 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? No No Grazing, forestry ? Trout? ?
Total 95 2 4 7 4 4 48
102
1
2
WATER of LEITH
WATER OF LEITH 1. Water of Leith 2. Harlaw Burn
103 OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT WATER of LEITH CATCHME T umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies Passable atural Obstructions 1 Water 19 3 1 ? Yes Sewage works, No Yes Arable, forestry, hill For Trout, minnow, ? of Septic tanks, farming, urban 0.5km stickleback, lamprey Leith urban spp., eel, bullhead
2 Harlaw 4 3 ? No Domestic No Hill farming, No ? ? Burn water supply, grazing, urban Fish farms Total 23 0 0 0 3 4 0 0
104
2
1
orth Esk
3
4
5 6
South Esk
ORTH ESK and SOUTH ESK
RIVER ORTH ESK TRIBUTARIES RIVER SOUTH ESK 1. Park Burn TRIBUTARIES 2. Cornton Burn 4. Dalhousie Burn 3. Black Burn 5. Gore Water 6. Redside Burn 105 OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT RIVERS ESK CATCHME T umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies Esk 6 ? Sewage No No Arable, forestry, Yes Trout, bullhead, ? works, urban stickleback, Septic tanks lamprey spp., eel
orth Esk 25 2 4 25 Yes Sewage No No Arable, urban, No Trout? ? works, coal workings Septic tanks, industry
South Esk 16 2 2 16 Yes Sewage No No Arable, urban, For Trout? ? works, coal workings 1km Septic tanks, industry
1 Park Burn 7 yes ? No No Hill farming, No Trout? ? grazing, arable, urban
2 Black Burn 7 yes ? No No Hill farming, No Trout? ? grazing, arable
3 Cornton 3 2 ? No No No Hill farming, No Trout? ? Burn grazing, arable, urban
4 Dalhousie 7 ? No No No Forestry No ? ? burn
5 Gore Water 8 ? ? ? ? ? No ? ?
6 Redside 5 1 ? No No No Hill farming, No Trout? ? Burn grazing
Total 84 0 0 2 6 5 0 41 0
106
2
1 6
7 3
4 5
RIVER TY E and BEIL WATER
RIVER TY E TRIBUTARIES BEIL WATER TRIBUTARIES 1. Bearford Burn 6. Whittinhame Water 2. Back Burn 7. Sauchet Water 3. Coulston Water 4. Humbie Water 5. Keith Water 107 OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT RIVER TY E CATCHME T umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies River Tyne 40 1 6 ? ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Arable, grazing Yes Trout? ? 1 Bearford Burn 4 Yes ? No No Arable, grazing ? Trout? ? 2 Back Burn 5 Yes ? Yes No Arable, grazing, urban ? Trout? ? 3 Coulston Water 10 Yes Yes Yes No Arable, grazing, ? Trout? ? forestry 4 Humbie Water 11 1 No No No No Upland grazing, ? Trout? ? forestry 5 Keith water 5 1 No No No No Upland grazing, ? Trout? ? forestry Total 75 2 6 1
OVERVIEW OF RISKS TO HABITAT BEIL WATER CATCHME T umber Land Use Tributary Generating Abstraction Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Obstructions Alien Species Other Species P. S. Pollution Salmon Present Diffuse Pollution Passable atural Capable of Access Total Length (km) Improvement (km) Impassable atural Passable Man Made atural Water Bodies Impassable Man Made Impounded Water Bodies Beil Water 8 1 7 Yes Fish Farm Yes No Agriculture For Trout? ? 1km 1 Whittinghame 9 2 1 9 ? ? ? No Agriculture No Trout? ? Water 2 Sauchet Water 5 5 ? ? ? No Agriculture No Trout? ?
Total 22 1 2 1 21
108 A EX 2. A Table of Factors perceived by Fisheries Managers as Limiting Fisheries Production in the Forth District Factors are linked with associated Management Actions and Outcomes
* * *
As compiled by the Clyde River Foundation from surveys carried out in the Forth District
109
River Issue Action Expectation Benefit Monitoring/ Assessment/ Research Priority
Tyne West Mills Weir Negotiating with ELC 1 Fish passage 2009/ 2010 Significant areas of Yes Haddington and similar juvenile habitat obstructions Abstraction CAR licenses 1 Better water quality & Improved habitat Yes quantity Poaching FDSFB bailiff patrol 1 Decreasing over time Improved stock Patrols Esk Poaching FDSFB bailiff patrol 1 Decreasing over time Improved stock Patrols orth Esk Obstructions Removal 1 Access to excellent Increased nursery Yes spawning habitat areas Dalkeith Park Weir Protected, listed building 1 Access to excellent Increased nursery Yes spawning habitat areas Water quality in lower Coal Authority improving 1 Better water quality Improved habitat Yes reaches area South Esk Unicorn Weir (Dalkeith) FDSFB investigating 1 Access to excellent Increased nursery Yes and other obstructions ownership spawning habitat areas Lothian Bridge Weir FDSFB investigating 1 Access to excellent Increased nursery Yes ownership spawning habitat areas Water of Obstructions Input fish pass 1 Access to spawning habitat Increased nursery Yes Leith areas Almond Water quality Coal Authority improving 1 Better water quality Improved habitat Yes area Obstructions FDSFB investigating 1 Access to spawning habitat Increased nursery Yes areas Avon Poor habitat Habitat restoration 1 Better quality habitat Increase nursery Yes Erosion alleviation areas (Slamannan AC) Westfield Weir Removal 1 Access to spawning habitat Increased nursery Yes areas Carron Fankerton Weir Developer required to 1 Access to spawning habitat Increased nursery Yes provide adequate access areas (4.4km) for fish Poor water quality Remediation practices 1 Better water quality Improved habitat Yes (Bonny Water) Forth Diffuse pollution Improved agricultural 1 Better water quality Improved habitat Yes practices (NFU 4-point plan) Acidification (Duchray Improved Forestry 1 Better water quality Improved habitat Yes Water) Practices Teith Venachar Dam, Loch FDSFB negotiate with 1 Access further up system Increased fish Yes Katrine Dam, Loch Scottish Water to improve numbers Achray, freshets, etc. Glen Finglas Dam. (Abstraction) Calair Burn FDSFB investigating 1 Improve accessibility of Increase spawning Yes spawning area and juvenile habitat Allan Diffuse Pollution (Upper Improved agricultural 1 Better water quality Improved habitat Yes reaches) practices (NFU 4-point plan) Erosion (Historical Land Grass over banks Stabilisation of banking Improved substrate Yes Drainage Works) Ashfield Generating C.A.R Review Increased access for Improved Yes Station migratory fish migration TABLE 110 (contd.)
River Issue Action Expectation Benefit Monitoring/ Assessment/ Research Priority
Alien Species (Orfe, Ide, Better management advice Containment Preserve natural Yes Gudgeon, Rainbow trout) and screening fishery Walter’s Muir Reservoir Appropriate screening Containment Preserve natural Yes fishery Devon Alien species (Rainbow Better management advice Containment Preserve natural Yes trout) and screening fishery Obstruction (Rumbling Removal 1 Access to spawning habitat Increased nursery Yes Bridge) areas Water impoundment CAR license 1 Complementary flow Better habitat Yes Diffuse pollution Improved agricultural 1 Better water quality Improved habitat Yes practices (NFU 4-point plan) Point source pollution CAR review Better water quality Improved habitat Yes (Tillicoultry STW) Eutrophication SEPA Better water quality Improved habitat Yes Black Devon Morphological alterations Catalogue Identify areas where Improved habitat Yes naturalisation may have occurred Water quality Coal Authority improving 1 Better water quality Improved habitat Yes area Leven Balgonie Power Station CAR review Increased water quality/ Improved habitat Yes (serious obstruction to quantity and improved fish and increased stock migration) passage Obstruction (Leslie) Jacobs investigating Create fish passage Increased stock Yes options Ore Pollution Coal Authority improving 1 Better water quality Improved habitat Yes area Diffuse pollution Improved agricultural Better water quality Improved habitat Yes practices (NFU 4-point plan) Estuary Poor water quality Raise awareness with Better water quality Improved habitat Yes leading monitoring group (SEPA) Diffuse pollution Improved agricultural Better water quality Improved habitat Yes practices on catchment- - wide basis (NFU 4-point plan) Longannet, entrapment of Improved screening Reduce mortality of Increased stock Yes migratory fish migratory fish
111