Record of a Habitats Regulations Assessment of a Plan Date Published: September 2016

Record of a Habitats Regulations Assessment of a Plan Date published: September 2016

OGN 209 Form 1 Document owner: Strategic Assessment Team, Office of the Chief Executive

Version History: Document Date Summary of Changes Version Published 1.0 Oct - 2017 Document created

Review Date: September 2017

Page 1 of 45

Contents

Section 1. Plan details 2. Determining whether HRA is required 3. Test of likely significant effect - Identifying likely significant effects alone - Identifying likely significant effects in combination 4. Appropriate assessment - In the absence of additional conditions or restrictions - Taking into account additional conditions or restrictions 5. In-combination assessment 6. Integrity test 7. Consultation with Strategic Assessment Team

Page 2 of 45

1. Plan Details

Section 1: Plan details NRW Plan reference Proposals for new rod fishing controls, The Wales Rod and Line (Salmon and Sea Trout) Byelaws 2017. Content of Plan Exploitation controls by rods through new Wales rod and line byelaws. New rod fishing byelaws are proposed to reduce the exploitation on salmon and sea trout in Welsh rivers. Specifically, three new byelaws (4,7 & 8, see appendix 1) have been proposed to reduce the exploitation of salmon and sea trout and increase the survival of released fish in Welsh rivers.

These byelaws will prohibit the taking of salmon, so that fisheries continue on a catch and release basis, in addition to ensuring that the methods used by anglers are commensurate with released fish having the best chance of survival post release. The byelaws are made under the Water Resources Act 1991 and are known as “THE WALES ROD AND LINE (SALMON AND SEA TROUT) BYELAWS 2017”

The technical case, supporting the case for the byelaws can be found at http://naturalresources.wales/media/682258/technical-case-structure-final.pdf

Byelaw 4 - catch and release with rod and line (salmon) We propose to seek confirmation of a new byelaw that requires the statutory catch-and-release (C&R) fishing for salmon by rod and line from any river in Wales. Byelaw 4 prevents the removal of any salmon, dead or alive. However, on the Usk C&R will be statutory for 4 years, to be reviewed at the end of this period in line with the decision structure.

Byelaw 7 – no bait fishing We are also proposing a byelaw to ensure that angling methods used are commensurate with the highest rate of survival after release. Therefore, the use of bait fishing for salmon will be banned until the 1st September,when prawn/shrimp fishing will be allowed with single, double or treble hooks <7mm gape (barbless or de-barbed).

Page 3 of 45

Byelaw 8 – Hooks We propose a byelaw that limits the hooks that can be used for salmon fishing to barbless or debarbed. On lures (spinners, spoons and plugs), single barbless or de-barbed hooks (<13mm gape) can only be used.

Proposals for new fishing controls to protect salmon and sea trout in Wales covers all rivers except the Dee, Severn and Wye (see HRA for cross boarder rivers Wales). The geographical area covered by these new byelaws encompasses several SACs (see section 3.1.1 below).

Location Description of Area

These Byelaws will apply in Wales to those rivers and their tributaries where expressly indicated, excluding the Dee, Severn and Wye which are covered by the cross-border Byelaws. There are 21 principal salmon rivers and 30 principal sea trout rivers within the area encompassed by these byelaws. The following rivers and their tributaries will be included:-  Usk  Taff  Rhymney  Ogmore  Afan  Neath  Tawe  Loughor  Gwendraeth Fawr and Fach  Tywi  Taf  Eastern and Western Cleddau  Nevern  Teifi  Aeron  Ystwyth  Rheidol  Dyfi Page 4 of 45

 Dysynni  Mawddach  Arto  Dwyryd  Glaslyn  Dwyfawr  Llynfi  Gwyrfai  Seiont  Ogwen  Conwy  Clwyd

NRW team responsible Evidence, Policy and Permitting Directorate for developing the David Mee Plan, and name of lead Senior Advisor (Fisheries) officer NRW team responsible NRM Team, EP&P for providing the David Mee, compiling evidence from Operations colleagues information for this HRA, and name of lead officer NRW team responsible Strategic fisheries assessment team for approving the Plan Peter Gough (coordinator) (competent authority role) Plan documents  The Wales Rod and Line (Salmon and Sea Trout) Byelaws 2018  Technical case supporting a public consultation on proposals for new fishing controls to protect salmon and sea trout stocks in Wales, Annexes 1 – 8. Can be found on the our website: https://naturalresources.wales/guidance-and-advice/business-sectors/fisheries/salmon-and-sea-trout-catch- controls-2017-consultations/?lang=en

Page 5 of 45

2. Determining the need for a Habitats Regulations Assessment

2.1 Is the whole of the Plan directly connected No with or necessary to the management of a European site for the purposes of conserving If Yes, provide explanation and go to section 2.2 the habitats or species for which the European sites are designated? If No, put ‘N/A’ in section 2.4, and go to section 3

2.2 Is there a possibility that the Plan could affect a different European site to the one it is If Yes, put ‘N/A’ in section 2.4, and go to section 3 intended to conserve? If No, HRA is not required. Sign and date section 2.4, complete section 7 if applicable and delete sections 3, 4, 5 and 6

2.3 Is it necessary to carry out an HRA? Note that this question is not about determining whether there is a likely If Yes, put ‘N/A’ in section 2.4, and go to section 3 significant effect (see section 3) If No, provide explanation (e.g. no impact at all on any European site, by virtue of the scale or location or nature of the Plan), sign and date section 2.4, complete section 7 if applicable, and delete sections 3, 4, 5 and 6

2.4 For the reasons given above, this Plan is Signed: N/A not considered to require HRA

Date:

Page 6 of 45

3. Test of likelihood of a significant effects

The first stage of an HRA is a test of Likely Significant Effect (LSE), which is a ‘screening’ assessment to determine if an appropriate assessment is required. The NRW Plan-maker must consider whether the Plan may have a Likely Significant Effect (LSE) on any European site. In so doing, they must adopt a precautionary approach.  The Plan should be considered ‘likely’ to have such an effect if the Plan-maker is unable (on the basis of objective information) to exclude the possibility that the Plan could have significant effects on any European site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects - in other words the possibility or risk of significant effects is sufficient to trigger further assessment, as is being uncertain.  An effect will be ‘significant’ in this context if it could undermine the site’s conservation objectives. The assessment of that risk must be made in the light of factors such as the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the European site in question.

Unless the test of LSE enables significant effects on any European site to be ruled out, the Plan will need to be subject to an appropriate assessment.

The legislation requires consideration of plans and projects “either alone or in combination with other plans and projects”. The test of likely significant effect is initially carried out by considering the plan on its own (i.e. rather than in-combination with other plans or projects). If it is decided that the Plan alone is likely to have a significant effect, it is subject to appropriate assessment alone. An assessment in combination with other plans or projects is only required if the plan would be insignificant on its own, but has effects which may be significant if combined with the effects of other plans/projects which are also insignificant on their own. This is dealt with further in sections 3.2 and 5.

When carrying out the HRA of a plan, the test of LSE is based on the plan as submitted. If additional conditions or restrictions would be needed to remove the risk of significant effects, the plan should undergo an appropriate assessment.

Page 7 of 45

3.1 Considering likely significant effects alone

Unless it has been established that the Plan does not need HRA (section 2), the Strategic Assessment Team (SAT) should always be consulted, and their advice taken into account, in completing sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 below. Their written advice (Form 2) should be appended to this document, and section 7 completed.

3.1.1 Which European sites might be affected Based on the information provided in the Plan, it is considered that the following European sites have features which by the Plan? could be affected by the Plan:

Insert European site name(s) and standard Natura site code(s) (if known)

Afon Tywi/ River Tywi UK0013010 Afonydd Cleddau/ Cleddau Rivers UK0030074 River Usk/ Afon Wysg UK0013007 Afon Teifi/ River Teifi UK0012670 Afon Eden – Cors Goch Trawsfynydd UK0030075 Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn UK0030046 Pen Llyn a’r Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau SAC UK0013117

The potential for the Plan to affect the following European sites was also initially considered, but can be ruled out without further consideration as the activity does not occur in these areas:

Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries/ Bae Caerfyrddin ac Aberoedd UK0030131 Cardigan Bay/ Bae Ceredigion UK0012712 Aber Dyfi/ Dyfi Estuary SPA UK9020284 Cors Fochno and Dyfi Ramsar UK1401A Y Fenai a Bae Conwy/ Menai Strait and the Sarnau SAC UK0030202 Sir Benfro Forol/ Pembrokeshire Marine SAC UK0013116 Burry Inlet SPA UK9015011 West Wales Marine/ Gorllewin Cymru Forol UK0030397 Dunraven Bay UK0030139

Go to section 3.1.2.

Page 8 of 45

European site and Assessment of likelihood of significant effect Designated Features I II III Relevant conservation objectives Potential impact pathway Avoidance measure Relevant conservation objectives from For each row assign appropriate Briefly describe the actions included Natura 2000 site Core Management colour (as above) and give short within the Plan that will ensure that Plan (or Natura 2000 core man plan explanation as required the potential effects are avoided, are reference and version no), or NRW not significant or are not likely Regulation 35 advice (as applicable) Afon Tywi/ River Tywi Allis shad Alosa Populations Direct capture, damage or harm to a None - Allis shad may be accidentally alosa Range designated species feature caught by the fishing methods Supporting Habitat and species proposed. Restoration and Recovery The method restrictions proposed will ensure that any fish accidentally caught will be able to be returned more quickly, with less potential physical damage, improving survival rates from any accidental capture.

Page 9 of 45

Bullhead Cottus Population There is an impact pathway in gobio Range principle but as the Bullhead is a Supporting habitats and species small demersal fish and measures 6 to 8cm long. They would not be caught by the angling methods allowed under the proposal. Bullheads are not a bycatch of salmon and sea trout angling methods. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out. River lamprey Population There is an impact pathway in Lampetra Range principle but the likelihood of river fluviatilis Supporting habitats and species lamprey being caught on rod and line by the methods proposed is highly unlikely. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out Brook lamprey Population There is an impact pathway in Lampetra planeri Range principle but the likelihood of brook Supporting habitats and species lamprey being caught on rod and line by the methods proposed is highly unlikely. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out Sea lamprey Population There is an impact pathway in Petromyzon Range principle but the likelihood of sea marinus Supporting habitats and species lamprey being caught on rod and line by the methods proposed is highly unlikely. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out Otter Lutra lutra Population Salmon and sea trout are prey of the Range otter but this proposal is for all Supporting habitats and species salmon caught to be returned to the water and therefore will have no likely impact on the prey availability for the

Page 10 of 45

otter, and perhaps may increase prey availability which may be more susceptible to capture by predators

It is highly unlikely that otters are accidentally caught by anglers as there are no reports. Otters usually stay away from human activity. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out.

Twaite shad Populations Direct capture, damage or harm to a None - Twaite shad may be Alosa fallax Range designated species feature accidentally caught by the fishing Supporting Habitat and species methods proposed. Restoration and Recovery The method restrictions proposed will Indirect effects on habitats and ensure that any fish accidentally species caught will be able to be returned more quickly, with less potential physical damage, improving survival rates from any accidental capture.

Afonydd Cleddau/ Cleddau Rivers Otter Lutra lutra Population Salmon and sea trout are prey of the Range otter but this proposal is for all Supporting habitats and species salmon caught to be returned to the water and therefore will have no likely impact on the prey availability for the otter, and perhaps may increase prey availability which may be more susceptible to capture by predators

It is highly unlikely that otters are accidentally caught by anglers as there are no reports. Otters usually stay away from human activity. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out.

Page 11 of 45

River lamprey Population There is an impact pathway in Lampetra Range principle but the likelihood of river fluviatilis Supporting habitats and species lamprey being caught on rod and line by the methods proposed is highly unlikely. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out Brook lamprey Population There is an impact pathway in Lampetra planeri Range principle but the likelihood of brook Supporting habitats and species lamprey being caught on rod and line by the methods proposed is highly unlikely. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out Sea lamprey Population There is an impact pathway in Petromyzon Range principle but the likelihood of sea marinus Supporting habitats and species lamprey being caught on rod and line by the methods proposed is highly unlikely. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out Bullhead Cottus Population There is an impact pathway in gobio Range principle but as the Bullhead is a Supporting habitats and species small demersal fish and measures 6 to 8cm long. They would not be caught by the angling methods allowed under the proposal. Bullheads are not a bycatch of salmon and sea trout angling methods. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out. River Usk/ Afon Wysg Allis shad Alosa Population Direct capture, damage or harm to a None - Allis shad may be accidentally alosa Range designated species feature caught by the fishing methods Supporting habitats and species proposed.

Page 12 of 45

Restoration and Recovery The method restrictions proposed will ensure that any fish accidentally caught will be able to be returned more quickly, with less potential physical damage, improving survival rates from any accidental capture.

Atlantic Salmon Population Direct capture, damage or harm to a None - salmon may be caught by the Salmo salar Range designated species feature rods Supporting habitats and species

Page 13 of 45

Sea lamprey Population There is an impact pathway in Petromyzon Range principle but the likelihood of sea marinus Supporting habitats and species lamprey being caught on rod and line by the methods proposed is highly unlikely. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out Otter Lutra lutra Population Salmon and sea trout are prey of the Range otter but this proposal is for all Supporting habitats and species salmon caught to be returned to the water and therefore will have no likely impact on the prey availability for the otter, and perhaps may increase prey availability which may be more susceptible to capture by predators

It is highly unlikely that otters are accidentally caught by anglers as there are no reports. Otters usually stay away from human activity. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out.

Twaite shad Alosa Populations Direct capture, damage or harm to a None - Twaite shad may be fallax Range designated species feature accidentally caught by the fishing Supporting Habitat and species methods proposed. Restoration and Recovery The method restrictions proposed will ensure that any fish accidentally caught will be able to be returned more quickly, with less potential physical damage, improving survival rates from any accidental capture.

Afon Teifi/ River Teifi Atlantic Salmon Population Direct capture, damage or harm to a None - salmon can still be caught by Salmo salar Range designated species feature the fishing methods proposed. Supporting habitats and species

Page 14 of 45

Bullhead Cottus Population There is an impact pathway in gobio Range principle but as the Bullhead is a Supporting habitats and species small demersal fish and measures 6 to 8cm long. They would not be caught by the angling methods allowed under the proposal. Bullheads are not a bycatch of salmon and sea trout angling methods. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out. Brook lamprey Population There is an impact pathway in Lampetra planeri Range principle but the likelihood of brook Supporting habitats and species lamprey being caught on rod and line by the methods proposed is unlikely. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out. River lamprey Population There is an impact pathway in Lampetra Range principle but the likelihood of river fluviatilis Supporting habitats and species lamprey being caught on rod and line by the methods proposed is unlikely. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out. Sea lamprey Population There is an impact pathway in Petromyzon Range principle but the likelihood of sea marinus Supporting habitats and species lamprey being caught on rod and line by the methods proposed is unlikely. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out. Otter Lutra lutra Population Salmon and sea trout are prey of the Range otter but this proposal is for all Supporting habitats and species salmon caught to be returned to the water and therefore will have no likely impact on the prey availability for the otter, and perhaps may increase prey

Page 15 of 45

availability which may be more susceptible to capture by predators

It is highly unlikely that otters are accidentally caught by anglers as there are no reports. Otters usually stay away from human activity. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out.

Floating water Population No impact pathway due to the plantain Supporting habitat location of the feature and the Luronium natans location of the activity

Afon Eden – Cors Goch Trawsfynydd Freshwater pearl Population Indirect effects on habitats and Pearl mussel larvae spend a period mussel Range species of time attached to the gills of Margaritifera Supporting habitat salmonid parr, and in the Afon Eden margaritifera depend on a healthy brown trout (including sea trout) population. Therefore any significant effect on the sea trout population could have potential significant effect on the freshwater pearl mussel population. Floating water Population No impact pathway due to the plantain Supporting habitat location of the feature and the Luronium natans location of the activity

Atlantic Salmon Population Direct capture, damage or harm to a None - salmon can still be caught by Salmo salar Range designated species feature the fishing methods proposed. Supporting habitats and species

Otter Lutra lutra Population Salmon and sea trout are prey of the Range otter but this proposal is for all Supporting habitats and species salmon caught to be returned to the water and therefore will have no likely impact on the prey availability for the

Page 16 of 45

otter, and perhaps may increase prey availability which may be more susceptible to capture by predators

It is highly unlikely that otters are accidentally caught by anglers as there are no reports. Otters usually stay away from human activity. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out.

Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn Atlantic Salmon Population Direct capture, damage or harm to a None - salmon can still be caught by Salmo salar Range designated species feature the fishing methods proposed. Supporting habitats and species

Floating water Population No impact pathway due to the plantain Supporting habitat location of the feature and the Luronium natans location of the activity

It is highly unlikely that otters are accidentally caught by anglers as there are no reports. Otters usually stay away from human activity. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out.

Page 17 of 45

Pen Llyn a’r Sarnau SAC

Reefs Structure and function No impact pathway due to the Range location of the feature and the Typical species location of the activity Large shallow Structure and function No impact pathway due to the inlet and bays Range location of the feature and the Typical species location of the activity Mudflats and Structure and function No impact pathway due to the sandflats not Range location of the feature and the covered by Typical species location of the activity seawater at low tide

Submerged or Structure and function No impact pathway due to the partially Range location of the feature and the submerged sea Typical species location of the activity caves Sandbanks Structure and function No impact pathway due to the which are Range location of the feature and the slightly covered Typical species location of the activity by seawater all the time

Estuaries Structure and function Direct capture, damage or harm to a Typical species include migratory Range typical species feature fish, in particular salmon and sea Typical species trout, which use the estuary as a migratory route when transitioning from saltwater to freshwater. Salmon and sea trout may be caught by the rods but the likelihood that this activity will take place in the SAC is very low. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out.

Page 18 of 45

Coastal lagoons Structure and function No impact pathway due to the Range location of the feature and the Typical species location of the activity Atlantic salt Structure and function No impact pathway due to the meadow Range location of the feature and the Typical species location of the activity Salicornia and Structure and function No impact pathway due to the other animals Range location of the feature and the colonising mud Typical species location of the activity and sand

Grey seal Population No impact pathway due to the Halichoerus Range location of the feature and the grypus Supporting habitats and species location of the activity Bottlenose Population No impact pathway due to the dolphin Tursiops Range location of the feature and the truncatus Supporting habitats and species location of the activity Otter Lutra Population Salmon and sea trout are prey of the Range otter but this proposal is for all Supporting habitats and species salmon caught to be returned to the water and therefore will have no likely impact on the prey availability for the otter, and perhaps may increase prey availability which may be more susceptible to capture by predators

It is highly unlikely that otters are accidentally caught by anglers as there are no reports. Otters usually stay away from human activity. Therefore, significant effects can be ruled out.

Page 19 of 45

3.1.3 Screening decision when considered alone

(a) If there are NO rows The Plan is not likely to have a significant effect on any European sites when considered coloured RED in column II alone. The possibility of significant effects in combination with other plans and projects of Table 3.1.2, and there are needs to be considered. ANY rows which are BLUE Put ‘N/A’ in row (b) below, delete section 4 of the form and go to Section 3.2

N/A

(b) If ANY rows in Column II of Table 3.1.2 are RED Put ‘N/A’ in rows (a) above, and go to section 4 of the form.

Page 20 of 45

3.2 Considering likely significant effects in combination

3.2.1 Identifying possible in-combination effects

The other plans or projects which should be considered for potential in-combination effects with the Plan under consideration are those that fall into ALL of the following 3 categories:

(1) they have been subject to HRA and the HRA has either concluded no LSE or no adverse effect on site integrity, but residual effects remain, and

(2) their residual effects (net of any mitigation measures) could interact with the residual effects of the Plan under consideration, for example by magnifying the effects of the Plan, or making a habitat or species feature more sensitive to the effects of the Plan, and

(3) they are one of the following: . project started but not yet completed . projects consented but not started . ongoing projects subject to repeated authorisations (e.g. annual licences) . applications lodged but not yet determined . refusals subject to appeals procedures not yet determined . projects not requiring consent but which have been approved by the competent authority concerned . proposals in adopted plans . proposals in draft plans published for consultation . allocations or other forms of proposals in adopted development plans . allocations or other forms of proposals in draft development plans published for consultation

Do not include projects which have not yet been applied for, unless the project is well defined and there are solid reasons for believing that it will be taken forward. Do not include completed plans or projects.

If there are any impact pathways recorded as blue in section 3.1 they should be listed in the left hand column of the table below

It is recommended that the Strategic Assessment Team’s advice is sought when completing these tables

Page 21 of 45

Blue impact European site Other plans/projects with Nature of the in-combination effect (if Is there likely to pathway from feature(s) concerned effects that could interact any) be any significant Table 3.1.2 with the effects of the plan in-combination to render its effects effect, in view of significant (if any) the site’s conservation objectives? ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Uncertain’ Residual impact European site

Designated feature

If the right hand column is ‘No’ in all rows) sign and date the section below

Having had regard to the advice provided by SAT, it is considered that the Plan is not likely to have a significant effect on any European site, alone or in combination with other plans and projects, and no further consideration under the Habitats Directive/ Regulations is required in order to approve the Plan

Signed______

Date______

Ensure that section 7 is completed and delete sections 4, 5 and 6. Attach copies of all written representations received from the Strategic Assessment Team (Annex 2 form)

If any rows in the right hand column are ‘Yes’ or ‘Uncertain’ go to section 4.

Page 22 of 45

4. Appropriate Assessment Tables 4.1 and 4.2 should document the appropriate assessment for the Plan. The two left hand columns should list the designated features and the impact pathways identified in RED from section 3.1.2 above, where likely significant effects are anticipated or cannot be ruled out. Any features recorded in section 3.1.2 as blue should not be considered at this stage, only in section 3.2. Table 4.1 should first consider the potential impact of the Plan as currently defined and in the absence of any additional mitigating measures, conditions or restrictions not currently included as part of the proposal. Table 4.2 should then consider additional measures to mitigate any adverse effects.

Table 4.1, and 4.2 if applicable, MUST be completed having sought and had regard to the advice of the Strategic Assessment Team, and section 7 must be completed.

4.1 Assessment of the Plan as originally set out

European site Impact Description of impacts Assessment in view of conservation objectives Can adverse (from Table pathway(s) effect on site 3.1.2 – red rows (from Table integrity be ruled only) 3.1) out? ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Uncertain’* Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar Direct capture, Salmon could be captured In order for the conservation objectives for salmon YES  River Usk/ damage or harm on rod and line by the to be met on the Usk, Teifi and Eden the population to a designated methods proposed in the must be stable or increasing over the long Afon Wysg species feature. byelaws. term. The performance indicator for salmon is  Afon Teifi/ calculated from the rod catch and must comply with the conservation limit 4 out of 5 years. The Usk is River Teifi currently meeting its conservation limit with a  Afon Eden – surplus of 309 fish and currently ‘Proabably not at Risk’ however, the juvenile electric fishing surveys Cors Goch have showed a continued decline for both fry and Trawsfynydd parr (i.e. the population size is likely to decline in the near future, and it is considered unlikely that it will  Afon Gwyrfai continue to meet its conservation limit in the a Llyn medium to long term without intervention). Therefore the aforementioned Cwellyn byelaws will be applied to the river Usk to protect declining juvenile numbers, specifically with the aim

Page 23 of 45 of ensuring that the conservation limit continues to be met. However we still have concerns are about the recruitment failure from the 2015/16 winter and returning cohorts of adults, particularly in 2019 and 2020. We therefore have aligned the byelaws to the current Wye Byelaws which will expire in 2021.

The Teifi is currently ‘Probably at Risk’ with a shortfall of 1123 adults and there is a downward trend in fry populations. Byelaws will be applied to the Teifi to protect both the declining juvenile and adult populations with the aim of providing an opportunity for recovery.

The Mawddach which contains the Afon Eden SAC is currently classified as ‘Probably at Risk’ with a shortfall of 178 adults. Recent juvenile surveys have also shown declining numbers for both fry and parr. Byelaws will be applied to the Mawddach to protect both the declining juvenile and adult populations with the aim of providing an opportunity for recovery.

The proposed byelaws will reduce the mortality of salmon associated with angling, increasing the proportion of fish released from 80-100%.

The method restrictions with also ensure that fish released have a good chance of survival, reducing any post capture mortality.

Byelaw. 4 Requires the immediate Full catch and release, alive and well, release of salmon of all salmon by both (no kill) with the rods and nets. Page 24 of 45 exception of the Usk Salmon stock levels in for the first 4 years. Wales are considerably below the level that we consider to be either sustainable or desirable. Continuing to kill fish whilst stocks are depleted presents an unacceptable risk. However, whilst the Usk is ‘Probably not at Risk’ poor recruitment on the Usk from the 2015/16 winter and returning cohorts of adults, particulalrly in 2019 & 2020 has resulted in the need for C&R.

Byelaw. 7 We seek to maximise No bait fishing for post-C&R survival. salmon - banning Risk of salmon mortality worm, prawn and caught on bait is shrimp before 1st comparatively high – September generally in excess of 85% (Lennox et Al 2017).

Byelaw. 8 Reduces risk of Barbless or de- salmon and sea trout barbed hooks only C&R mortality. Using barbless or de- barbed hooks markedly reduces handling time during unhooking and potential exposure to

Page 25 of 45

air during release phase. Promotes C&R good practice.

Byelaw. 8 Reduce risk of salmon Prohibiting the use of mortality following C&R. treble hooks with the Olsen (2010) acception of trebles <7mm gape size for flies and prawn/shrimp fishing

Byelaw. 8 Reduce risk of salmon Single hook and bycatch from using single worm - bunches of worms on restricting maximum large hooks and hook 8mm gape size associated post C&R when worm fishing mortality from bait for sea trout after 1st caught fish May

As C&R has become an increasingly popular management tool to maintain fisheries there have been extensive reviews and investigations into its effectiveness and impacts. Although there is extensive information on the C&R of salmon and non-anadromous trout (brown and rainbow), there is comparatively little known about the efficacy of C&R on sea trout. However, despite this paucity of information on sea trout it seems likely that the impacts and effectiveness will be broadly similar.

Page 26 of 45

Most of the studies that report mortality rates after C&R have used skilled anglers or artificially hooked captive fish. This may lead to lower estimates of mortality rate than might be expected if less experienced anglers caught the fish. Efforts have been made in a number of countries to inform anglers about good C&R practice through, for example, free instruction videos and advisory leaflets.

The main factors that can reduce survival are:

• the fishing method used • deep hooking leading to tissue damage and bleeding • physical damage from poor handling leading to scale loss abrasions and infection, • fish being kept out of the water for a prolonged period causing tissue and gill damage, • high water temperatures above 20oC

Physical injury caused by hooking is the most important cause of post-release mortality. Hooks that penetrate vital organs or tissues can cause critical damage. If hooks are deeply embedded (penetrating the oesophagus and/or stomach with resultant damage to internal organs such as the heart and liver), this will almost certainly result in serious injury and mortality.

The fishing gear used by anglers can influence the hooking damage and condition of fish captured. The three main fishing methods are bait, lure or spinner, and fly. There are wide ranging estimates of survival using the three methods, though it is generally considered that survival is highest with fly (often above 90%), lower with lures (around 50-80% Page 27 of 45 survival) and lowest with bait fishing (generally less than 50% with worm but r;ather higher for shrimp). However prawn/shrimp fishing will be allowed from the 1st September as water temperatures will not be as high in September as they are in the summer months. Mortality of salmon greatly increases at water temperatures above 18 degrees. The evidence is that salmon do not ingest the bait and almost without fail are hooked in the front of the mouth reducing the risk of damage to the gills/throat of the fish.

Salmon are vulnerable to capture by prawn/shrimp fishing, this method is particularly effective in low water summer conditions when few other angling methods work effectively. Rather than banning the method altogether the method will be permitted from 1st September to mitigate for factors that affect survival.

One of the main factors and predictors of mortality affecting salmon survival following capture and release is water temperature. The probability of post release fatality rapidly increases at water temperatures above 18 degrees centigrade (Lennox et al 2017).

Although water temperatures regularly fluctuate both during the day and over the months, generally warm temperatures are associated with low flow periods typically during June July and August. From September onwards, water temperatures are generally lower and salmon survival will not be adversely affected (see table below).

Monthly Water Temperatures at Whitemill on the Tywi:

Page 28 of 45

2014- 2016 June July August September Min 10.7 13.2 13.1 14.2 Max 21.8 24.4 19.4 17.7 Average 16.2 17.3 16.0 15.9 Mode 15.7 16.3 15.6 15.6 Median 16.2 17.1 15.9 15.9

The anecdotal evidence we have received during the consultation, and investigations, suggest that salmon caught on shrimp/prawn, are more often than not, hooked in the forward portion of the mouth, as the fish do not ingest the bait.

Shimp/prawn fishing is normally undertaken with the prawn mounted on a ‘shrimp pin’ and a treble hook. As our evidence is that the fish caught using this method are generally hooked in the ‘scissors’ or front of the mouth avoiding the more vulnerable gill and throat area using a small barbless treble hook would also be commensurate with permitting methods where fish have a high chance of survival post release.

Shrimp/prawn fishing as a method may be considered commensurate with good practice catch and release once water temperatures have declined sufficiently.

In the most recent extensive review made of pan- holarctic post release mortality of angled Atlantic salmon, Lennox et al (2017) concluded that salmon captured by flies had higher survival (95%) than salmon captured by lures (85%) or bait (86%).

Page 29 of 45

Hooks A large variety of different hook designs are readily available to anglers. In most cases the selection is a matter of personal choice. However, some fisheries prescribe, via local voluntary or mandatory codes, the number and size and design of hooks.

A number of byelaws already exist in Wales to control fishing. These have been introduced in the past for a range of reasons in order to reduce the potential risks from foul hooking and to reduce injury to fish.

Traditionally barbed hooks are used to minimise loss of fish once hooked. In many forms of angling (especially C&R based fisheries), barbless hooks are now regarded as preferable and equally effective, and have in some cases become the standard hook pattern used because they are more easily removed from fish.

Exposure to air is one of the key factors in fish survival post capture. Arlinghaus et al (2007) concluded that barbless hooks are consistently less injurious and result in less mortality than barbed hooks, and suggest that barbless hooks should be widely adopted by anglers.

The use of single barbless hooks complements the growing interest and adoption of good practice catch-and-release principles.

Trebles and doubles Hooks used in fly fishing may be single, double or treble hooks, with or without barbs. Treble and double hooks are also used in combination with tubeflies and waddington shanks. Traditionally one or several sets of treble hooks are used with Page 30 of 45 spoons, spinners and plugs. When fishing with worms, single hooks are most commonly used, but whilst fishing with shrimp or prawn treble hooks are normally employed.

Comparative studies of fish mortality linked to the use of singles, doubles and trebles have shown contradictory results (Olsen et al 2010). Single hooks may be more deeply ingested than treble or double hooks however, if ingested, treble hooks can cause more severe injuries.

Generally treble hooks are less easily manipulated and removed when compared to double or singles, and therefore the removal of treble hooks generally requires longer handling times. Replacing treble hooks with single hooks (or even double hooks) is a means of reducing injuries associated with hook penetration. Generally, using fewer hooks or single hooks, instead of doubles or trebles, reduces potential physical injury and reduces unhooking times. However, small trebles with a gape size less than 7mm will be allowed on flies, the evidence is that this will not affect survival of released fish, as flies tend to be hooked in the front of the mouth and not ingested.

Gargan et al (2015) reported on the survival of wild Atlantic salmon after C&R angling in three Irish rivers. In total, 76 fish were tagged with radio transmitters after C&R angling. Survival to spawning was much higher for fly caught fish (98% survival – 59 of the 60 fish surviving) than lure caught fish (55%, 6 of 11 fish survived). Importantly, the lures in this study were spinning lures (flying C type lures).

The risks from these types of lures can be reduced if the treble hooks are replaced with an appropriate Page 31 of 45 single hook. Some suppliers in Wales have already recognised this and are stocking this type of lure with single hooks for anglers who want to increasingly release fish. Experience with single- hook flying c lures on the River Wye has been very good with few fish believed to be lost due to the hook type (Marsh-Smith, pers. com.). Lures will be limited to 3 single hooks to reduce the additional injuries to fish and increase survival.

ICES (2009) report that C&R recreational fisheries provide an intermediate management strategy between a full retention fishery and fishery closure for populations that are below target levels. C&R fisheries would be expected to result in population sizes that are higher than those in a full retention fishery. The evidence we have suggests that if fish are caught and handled according to good practice guidelines, most of them will survive. Carefully releasing fish rather than retaining them can therefore make a real contribution to conservation.

Additionally there will be the revocation of the Cenarth bait restrictions. The current byelaw restricts fishing methods to bait only and a 6mm hook in a short section directly downstream of Cenarth falls on the river Teifi. The original intention of this bylaw was to stop Illegal fishing and in particular foul hooking. Happily these activities are less prevalent these days, and therefore we believe the restrictions can be lifted allowing the fishery to develop on a catch and release basis. However fishing here will need to adhere to the byelaws

Page 32 of 45

Allis Shad Alosa alosa Direct capture, Allis shad could be captured In order for conservation objectives for allis shad to YES damage or harm by rod and line by the be met on the Tywi there must be no decline in to a designated methods proposed in the adult run size or spawning distribution. Spawning species feature byelaws. distribution is assessed by kick sampling for eggs and/or observations of spawning adults. Absence from sites in particular stretches in 2 consecutive surveys will result in an unfavourable condition assessment.

The shad although not targatted can be an occasional bycatch by rod and line. All fish are returned.

Mature adult Allis shad enter the estuaries of many European rivers from April onwards and migrate some distance upstream, though the exact distance  Afon Tywi/ is variable (Maitland & Hatton-Ellis 2003).

River Tywi The rod and line fishing season commences on the st 1 April on the Tywi and closes in early October. This time period includes part of the main migrating period for the adult shad which migrate through estuaries in March-May.

Shad are not the target species as it is an offence under schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

It has been suggested that spawning shad can disturb salmon and anglers targeting salmon will actively act to avoid areas where shad may be spawning.

Whilst the mortality rates of shad post capture is high, the number that are likely to be caught is low. Page 33 of 45

For the reasons set out under Salmon above, the byelaws will lead to a reduction in shad mortality due to rod fishing.

Twaite Shad Alosa fallax Direct capture, Twaite shad could be In order for conservation objectives for twaite shad YES damage or harm captured by rod and line by to be met on the Tywi there must be no decline in to a designated the methods proposed in the adult run size or spawning distribution. Spawning species feature byelaws. distribution is assessed by kick sampling for eggs and/or observations of spawning adults. Absence from sites in particular stretches in 2 consecutive surveys will result in an unfavourable condition assessment.

The shad can be an occasional bycatch by rod and line used under this proposal. All fish are returned.

Mature adult Twaite shad enter the estuaries of  Afon Tywi/ many European rivers from April onwards and migrate some distance upstream, though the exact River Tywi distance is variable (Maitland & Hatton-Ellis 2003).

The rod and line fishing season commences on the 1st April on the Tywi and closes in early October. This time period includes part of the main migrating period for the adult shad which migrate through estuaries in March-May.

Shad are not the target species as it is an offence under schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Spawning shad disturb salmon and anglers targeting salmon will actively act to avoid areas where shad may be spawning. Page 34 of 45

Whilst the mortality rates of shad post capture is high, the number that are likely to be caught is low. For the reasons set out under Salmon above, the byelaws will lead to a reduction in shad mortality due to rod fishing.

Freshwater Pearl Mussel Margaritifera margaritifera Direct capture, Pearl mussel larvae spend a For pearl mussel to be in favourable conservation damage or harm period of time attached to status, all of the following to a designated the gills of salmonid parr, conditions must be satisfied: species feature and in the Afon Eden 1. The freshwater pearl mussel population must be depend on a healthy brown viable throughout its distribution in the river trout (including sea trout) and maintaining itself on a long-term basis. population. 2. There will be no contraction of the number, age range, distribution or size of mussel beds found within the population. 3. Within the distribution of these beds there will be  Afon Eden – sufficient habitat to support a viable populations. Cors Goch 4. The transference of pearl mussel glochidia Trawsfynydd (larvae) is facilitated by an abundant and selfsustaining brown trout (includinf sea trout) population. 5. All factors affecting the achievement of these conditions are under control.

The act of fishing for sea trout using rod and line targets adult fish over parr which are essential to the pearl mussel lifecycle.

Therefore there would be no adverse effect on peal mussel populations.

Page 35 of 45

* If any rows in the right hand column are ‘No’ or ‘Uncertain’ go to section 4.2 If all adverse effects can be ruled out without the need for additional mitigation (i.e. the right hand column is ‘Yes’ in all rows) go to section 4.3

Page 36 of 45

4.2 Assessment of Plan taking into account additional mitigating measures, conditions or restrictions

Feature (from Description of Can Description of additional mitigation measures, and how they After additional Table 4.1 – ‘No’ adverse effect(s) adverse would be secured (e.g. contractual obligations, consent mitigation, can and ‘Uncertain’ effect(s) conditions) adverse effects rows only) be on site mitigated? integrity be ‘Yes’ or ruled out now? ‘No’ ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Uncertain’

4.3 Concluding the appropriate assessment of the project alone

(a) If the right hand column of Table It has been ascertained that the Plan, when considered alone, will not adversely affect the integrity 4.1 and Table 4.2 (if applicable) of any European sites. shows ‘Yes’ for all features Go to row (b) below

(b) Are there any residual effects of Yes the Plan (net of any mitigation measures identified) which, though insignificant on their own, could be significant if considered in combination with the effects of other plans or projects?

(c) If there are any ‘No’s or ‘Uncertain’s in the right hand column of Table 4.1 that cannot be resolved to ‘Yes’ through mitigation measures identified in Table 4.2

Page 37 of 45

5 In-combination assessment

5.1 Identifying possible in-combination effects

The other plans or projects which should be considered for potential in-combination effects with the Plan under consideration are those that fall into ALL of the following 3 categories:

(1) they have been subject to HRA and the HRA has either concluded no LSE or no adverse effect on site integrity, but residual effects remain, and

If, despite ruling out adverse effects in section 4.2, there are likely to be any residual effects that might be significant in-combination with the effects of other plans/projects, these should also be listed in the left hand column of the table below.

It is recommended that the Strategic Assessment Team’s advice is sought when completing these tables

Page 38 of 45

Residual effect European site Other plans/projects with Nature of the in-combination effect (if Is there likely to (from Table 4.2) feature(s) concerned effects that could interact any) be any significant with the effects of the Plan in-combination to render its effects effect, in view of significant (if any) the site’s conservation objectives? ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Uncertain’ Atlantic salmon On-going licenced net fisheries New net byelaws are being proposed NO Potenital 15% Salmo salar that are currently subject to for all Wales to protect salmon and sea mortality of further restrictions. trout stocks. The three net byelaws that released rod Sea trout will impact on the activity will be caught salmon Salmo trutta morpha byelaws 4,5 & 6. trutta (assuming highest levels of mortality,  Byelaw 4 – annual close season i.e. worst case  Byelaw 5 – annual close season scenario) exceptions  Byelaw 6 - catch and release with nets (salmon)

To further reduce the risk of salmon mortality caught in the net fisheries, and without unduly compromising sea trout net fisheries, byelaw 4 proposes to close all net fishing at the end of July. Few sea trout are caught in August (in 2015 29 salmon and 35 sea trout were caught during August and in 2016 29 salmon and 20 sea trout were caught).

Byelaw 5 will bring in a common start date of 1st May, this will assist in achieving greater escapement, principally of large multi-sea winter and previous spawner sea trout to contribute to the spawner and egg deficit targets identified principally on the rivers Tywi,

Page 39 of 45

Taf and Teifi. However, a cessation in fishing effort in earlier months will further protect salmon as there will be no unnecessary bycatch.

Byelaw 6 prohibits the removal of salmon dead or alive from any river in Wales which supersedes Byelaw 4 of the 1999 National Salmon Byelaws (early season catch and release of salmon in specified net fisheries), further protecting returning salmon. As the changes in conditions seek to reduce mortality rates in licenced net fisheries, and the changes to the rod byelaws mean there will be decreased mortality rates as set out earlier in this document (i.e. they will lead to a net benefit), there can be no likely additional adverse effects on atlantic salmon in the aforementioned European sites. Regardless of this, it is considered that mortality rates after net catch and release are likely to be extremely small, and when combined with the small residual effect of mortality from rod catch and release remain insignificant.

Page 40 of 45

If the right hand column is ‘No’ for all rows, go to section 6

If any rows in the right hand column are ‘Yes’ or ‘Uncertain’, go to section 5.2

Page 41 of 45

5.2 Addressing in combination effects

Use this table to identify conditions, restrictions or other measures, applicable to the Plan, and/or to the other plans/projects giving rise to the in combination effect, which could remove the risk of likely significant effect or adverse effects on the European site features. Clear details should be included of how such measures would be applied, and who would be responsible for applying them.

In combination effect Conditions, restrictions or other measures, if any, applicable to the Plan, Taking into account (list any ‘Yes’ or ‘Uncertain’s and/or to the other plans/projects giving rise to the in combination effect, any additional from the right hand column of which could remove the risk of adverse effects on the European site measures identified the table in section 5.1) features. Include details of how such measures would be applied, and who and how they would would be responsible for applying them. be applied, can adverse effects on site features from in-combination effects be ruled out? ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Uncertain’

Complete section 6

Page 42 of 45

6. Integrity test

The Integrity Test is the conclusion of the appropriate assessment, and includes the approving team’s (competent authority’s) decision as to whether it can be ascertained that the plan will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European sites. The approving team (or the plan-maker) cannot approve or otherwise give effect to the Plan unless it has been ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of any European site. If a conclusion of adverse effect on integrity is reached, this is likely to be specifically in relation to one or a small number of proposals within the plan (i.e. not the whole plan) – the option for the Plan-maker then is to go back and amend the specific proposal/s to remove the adverse effect on integrity, or to submit the Plan for approval after having removed the specific problematic proposal/s altogether.

Prior to completing this table, the Strategic Assessment Team must be formally consulted and their advice taken in to account. Their written advice (Annex 2 form(s)) should be appended to this document, and section 7 completed. See OGN 209 for how to proceed in instances where SAT disagrees with the conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity

6.1 In light of the conclusions of the appropriate assessment (sections 4, and 5 if Insert ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Uncertain’ applicable), and taking account of the advice received from the Strategic If ‘Yes’: Assessment Team, has it been established that the Plan will not adversely affect the - sign and date row 6.2 integrity of any European sites, taking into account any conditions or restrictions, - strike out row 6.3 either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects? - ensure that section 7 of the form has been completed If ‘No’ or ‘Uncertain’: - strike out row 6.2 - sign and date row 6.3 - ensure that section 7 has been completed 6.2 It has been ascertained the Plan will not adversely affect the integrity of any European site, if applicable subject to any conditions or restrictions identified. Signed: Approval of the Plan, subject to any conditions or restrictions as applicable, would be compliant with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (and/or with Government Date: policy towards Ramsar sites, if applicable) 6.3 It has not been ascertained that the Plan will not adversely affect the integrity of any European site. Approval for the Plan cannot be given unless: Signed:  the Plan, and/or the terms under which it might be approved, are modified so as to remove the risk of adverse effects, and a revised HRA report is prepared

Date:

Page 43 of 45

7. Consultation with the Strategic Assessment Team, and how sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this HRA report (as applicable) take into account that advice

Delete any rows that do not apply

N/A

Relevant Date(s) of correspondence* and How the comments from the Strategic Assessment Team have been taken into section of any meetings with the Strategic account the HRA Assessment Team report 2

*Attach copies of all written representations (Form 2) received from the Strategic Assessment Team

Page 44 of 45

References

Araujo, R. & Ramos, M.A. (2000). Action Plan for Margaritifera margaritifera in Europe. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Gargan, P.G., Stafford, T., Okland, F. and Thorstad, E.B., (2015). Survival of wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) after catch and release angling in three Irish rivers. Fisheries Research, 161, 252-260. Lampert, W. & Sommer, U. (1996). Limnoecology: The Ecology of Lakes and Streams. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Lennox Robert J. Cooke Steven J., Davis Colin R., Gargan Paddy,. Hawkins Lorraine A, Havn Torgeir B., Johansen Martin R., Kennedy Richard J., Richard Antoine, Svenning Martin-A., Uglemb Ingebrigt,, Webb John, Frederick G. Whoriskey h, Thorstad Eva B. (2017). Pan- Holarctic assessment of post-release mortality of angled Atlantic salmon Salmo salar Biological Conservation 209 (2017) 150–158

Maitland, P.S. & Hatton-Ellis, T.W. (2003). Ecology of the Allis and Twaite Shad. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No.3 English Nature, Peterborough.

Olsen, R.E., Naesje, T.F., Poppe, T., Sneddon, L.U. and Webb, J., (2010), Risk Assessment of Catch and Release, Opinion of the panel on Animal Health and Welfare of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety. doc.nr 09/804, 1-79.

Skinner, A., Young, M. & Hastie, L. (2003). Ecology of the Freshwater Pearl Mussel. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers. Ecology Series No. 2. English Nature, Peterborough.

Page 45 of 45