River Eden
Annual Monitoring Report 2015
Compiled as part of the Eden Fisheries Plan
Contents Page
River Eden District Fisheries Association (REDFA) Rod returns, C & R and Bird Predation Report 1 – 6
Eden Rivers Trust 2015 Monitoring Summary 7 – 19
Ecological Monitoring within the DTC Programme - River Eden 2015 20
Environment Agency 2015 River Eden Fish & Invertebrate Monitoring Summary 21 – 29
Natural England Sea Lamprey redd counts, River Eden SAC, June 2015 30 - 31
1 | P a g e
River Eden District Fisheries Association (REDFA) 2015 Rod returns, C&R and Bird predation Report
REDFA Fisheries Plan actions to address declining fish stocks
A reoccurring message in the formative Eden Fisheries workshops was concerns expressed by anglers and fisheries of the noticeable decline in fish stocks in the catchment. This was felt particularly in migratory salmon & sea trout fisheries where published national angler returns portrayed a steady decline in NW catches since a highpoint in 2004.
As a result, a range of measures have been introduced and coordinated by REDFA to improve and better monitor stocks.
REDFA now collate independent annual Rod fisheries salmon returns and catch and release figures from 17 principal fisheries from Rockcliffe to Waters Meet. This provides comparative data to the published EA individual angler declared catches. The years from 2013 – 15 are summarised below. Voluntary Catch & Release codes for both salmon and sea trout where proposed by CAA and agreed by fisheries at the Wreay Workshop in March 2014. This has raised awareness of the need to conserve stocks which were estimated to have reached “At Risk” levels in 2013 & 2014 and instilled a more conservation minded approach in the catchment. Improved C & R figures are illustrated below. A salmon carcass tagging scheme was introduced in 2015 to reinforce the annual voluntary limits of fish retained by individual anglers. A register of angler tags and rod licence details are maintained for completeness. REDFA applied for and now coordinate and manage the Eden Area Predation Licence for Cormorants and Goosander. A table and report below illustrates bird count figures and management actions.
2013 – 2015 Eden rod Fisheries Returns
Table 1 provides a summarised breakdown of salmon caught by month in the seasons 2103 – 2014 – 2015 (released fish in brackets), over three sections of the Eden.
These figures are compiled by REDFA from 17 principal fisheries returns submitted at the close of each season.
The EA angler declared rod comparative catches for 2013 & 2014 are included, as are Haaf & Coop net declared catches.
For 2015 the EA published a provisional 614 salmon caught. This has since been withdrawn due to online reporting errors and the REDFA figure of 902 salmon has been credited as the official final return and used for stock assessment purposes.
2 | P a g e
Table 1 - Eden fisheries Salmon rod returns 2013 - 2014 - 2015 2013 JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT TOTAL C & R C & R % Rockcliffe → 1 4 16 (16) 15 28 22 9 (3) 130 177 66 468 (265) 57% Warwick (1) (4) (15) (28) (9) (51) (99) (39) bridge Warwick → 3 (3) 17 25 7 (7) 2 (2) 10 (6) 24 3 (2) 91 (74) 81% Armathwaite (17) (25) (22) bridge upstream of 2 (2) 9 (9) 6 (6) 1 (1) 14 33 37 102 (102) 100% Armathwaite (13) (33) (37) bridge Total rod 1 4 19 (19) 34 62 35 12 154 234 106 661 (441) 67% returns (1) (4) (34) (62) (22) (6) (71) (144) (78) EA angler rod 4 19 (19) 33 58 30 31 120 230 107 634 (443) 70% returns (3) (33) (57) (18) (16) (48) (156) (92) Eden & Esk 46 192 299 42 579 Haaf net returns 2014
Rockcliffe → 1 5 (5) 7 (7) 9 (9) 20 12 142 58 68 322 (234) 73% Warwick (1) (16) (7) (94) (44) (51) bridge Warwick → 7 (7) 5 (5) 6 (4) 2 (1) 7 (5) 10 (9) 22 59 (53) 90% Armathwaite (22) bridge upstream of 1 (1) 5 (5) 5 (5) 4 (4) 16 26 22 46 125 (123) 98% Armathwaite (15) (26) (21) (46) bridge Total rod 1 6 (6) 19 19 30 30 175 90 136 506 (410) 81% returns (1) (19) (19) (24) (23) (125) (74) (119) EA angler rod 5 (5) 22 19 28 22 143 75 135 451 (355) 79% returns (22) (19) (17) (16) (91) (55) (128) Eden & Esk 58 60 65 20 203 Haaf net returns 2015
Rockcliffe → 19 (19) 24 58 47 92 139 88 55 522 (438) 84% Warwick (24) (58) (39) (72) (97) (79) (50) bridge Warwick → 16 (16) 30 71 20 9 (7) 47 10 (9) 6 (6) 209 (200) 96% Armathwaite (30) (71) (17) (44) bridge upstream of 1 5 (5) 14 36 27 4 (4) 37 19 28 171 (167) 98% Armathwaite (1) (14) (36) (26) (35) (18) (28) bridge Total rod 1 40 (40) 68 165 94 105 223 117 89 902 (805) 89% returns (1) (68) (165) (82) (83) (176) (106) (84) EA angler rod 614 (data error) returns Eden & Esk 48 72 92 (8) 29 (2) 241 (62) 26% Haaf net (23) (29) returns
3 | P a g e
River Eden 1993 – 2015 declared catch and released rod caught salmon
The graph below illustrates angler’s conservation trends in releasing salmon over the last two decades to a highpoint in 2015 of 89% of a rod catch of 902 salmon which is well above national average.
River Eden declared salmon rod catches with catch & release rates (%) 2500 100.00%
90.00%
2000 80.00%
70.00%
1500 60.00%
50.00%
1000 40.00%
Number fish of % of % released fish 30.00%
500 20.00%
10.00%
0 0.00%
Retained Released % C & R
Figure 1 – Eden catch and release rate for salmon
The introduction of angler conservation codes in 2014 and the carcass tagging scheme in 2015 is instrumental in working towards the target of achieving 90% catch & release rate by 2017 when Net Limitation Order and Byelaw reviews are due.
Declared Salmon catch for the Eden - “Spring and Post spring salmon”
Figure 2 Illustrates rod angler reported catches of salmon caught up to a Spring (1ST June) cut off each year. Thereafter all fish caught are deemed to be Post Spring fish. It is noticeable that with the improving spring runs over the last three years and a diminishing grilse and autumn stocks a significant and greater proportion of the later Post Spring catch are in fact MSW stock by reason of their age/weight characteristics.
2014 number of Eden salmon killed per angler
Figure 3 represents the number of fish killer per angler from approx. 200 EA angler reported catch returns. 451 salmon were reported caught for the season, so a large proportion of the 125 anglers reported as killing no fish returned the bulk of the total 79% C & R rate for the river that year. This has now risen to 89% in 2015 from a rod catch of 902 salmon, interestingly the numbers of anglers registering for carcass tags in 2015 and 2016 was almost identical – 350 anglers and 2000 tags.
4 | P a g e
Figure 2 – Spring & Post Spring Salmon
Number of salmon killed per angler - Eden 2014 140
120 96 retained of 451 caught - 79% C & R 100 2255 salmon run estimate - 48% CL 80
60
40
20
0 0 1 2 3
Figure 3 – Number of salmon killed per angler
5 | P a g e
Avian Predator Report and Eden Area Licence
REDFA is now into its second year of reporting and managing the Eden catchment licence and building on the knowledge gained in our first season. Our efforts to minimise bird impact on stocks are built around the twice yearly bird count data which provides a snapshot of all species over a two hour window on 50+ walked beats on the mainstem Eden and major tributaries.
Cormorants and Goosander are present in sufficient numbers to impact on fry, parr, smolts and adult stocks and are a more recent “migrant” which many anglers will recall only started to visit our waters in the 1970`s & 80`s. Both birds have designations that only permit shooting to kill with licensed Natural England approval and observance of strict conditions, quota and season restrictions.
The licence period runs from 1st Sept to 15th March and given evidence of sufficient numbers being present an extension to protect smolts until the 15th May. The quota we receive is subject to the national limit and based on our count data and only issued in addition to non-lethal bird scare methods being used. REDFA manages and coordinates the Area licence for 10 fisheries in the catchment extending from the estuary at Rockcliffe up to Warcop.
The Angling Trust has lobbied hard to introduce this Pilot scheme and provided valuable technical support through their Fisheries catchment adviser Richard Bamforth. They have backed this with grant aid to REDFA amounting to £1893 this year for predation equipment and catchment mapping support.
High numbers of cormorants roosting and feeding in the middle Eden, with groups of 50 – 80 present October to Feb, were recorded. Similar numbers of Goosander were noticeable in lower reaches of the Eden Feb – May as they reared their broods and tracked smolts in their vulnerable migration period.
Communication channels between fisheries have improved significantly and our work is better coordinated and targeted to the extent that we have been able to disperse groups of birds much earlier into the season. Within the last 3 weeks we have seen a large influx of cormorants as flood waters have receded. A number of additional measures are being undertaken to limit the damage to fish stocks. It is our intention to carry out a study and quantify the full impact on stocks from the bird count data and their diet over a full season.
6 | P a g e
Table 2 – Eden Bird Counts 2015
08.11.15 Eden Bird Count - conditions - 1 to 2 ft overnight water, dirty & rising leaves still on some trees - some birds off water altogether or not visible Map boundaries Goosander Cormorant Merganser Heron Kingfisher Old Sandsfield to Grinsdale 95 69 5 9 Grinsadale to M6 Bridge 91 15 1 M6 Bridge to Warwick Bridge 9 16 2 Warwick Bridge to Brocklewath 20 7 2 Brocklewath to Armathwaite 4 11 2 Armathwaite to Lazonby 9 8 6 Lazonby to Langwathby 13 37 1 Langwathby to Lyvennet confluence 27 77 9 3 Lyvennet confluence to Appleby bridge 16 7 11 Appleby to Warcop 2 Warcop to Kirkby Stephen 3 5 EDEN mainstem totals 289 247 5 43 4 Caldewfoot to Dalston Dalston to Caldew Beck Caldew to Mosedale BAA Middle Irthing waters " Upper " " BAA Middle Gelt waters " Upper " " PAA Lower waters - Whinfell to Eamont Bridge 1 2 3 " Upper " - Eamont Bridge to Pooley Bridge 1 PAA Lower waters - Brougham to Helton 1 " Upper " - Helton to Shap Main Tributary totals 1 2 5 55 08.11.15 mapped Catchment totals 290 304 5 48 4 15.03.15 " " " 364 107 37 2 30.11.14 " " " 435 218 12 67 11 16.03.14 " " " 331 195 15 20 3 Comparative 07.03.04 totals 285 86 4 59 10
For more information on the data collected by REDFA please contact:
Mike Ashwin,
REDFA Secretary
Home 01768 879047 Mob 07926 489764 [email protected] 7 | P a g e
Eden Rivers Trust 2015 Monitoring Summary
Electrofishing
Our electrofishing was focussed within 7 sub-catchments in 2015 (Fig.1).
Target sub-catchments Electrofishing for Salmon and Trout Fry numbers was mainly undertaken across the River Petteril and Trout Beck sub-catchments in 2015. Our aim in these sub-catchments is to be able to detect large scale changes in river health using fry numbers, and we use our standard five-minute surveys to achieve this. We ran some very basic statistical tests on our existing trout fry data to assess the number of sites we would need to survey on each river in a year to reliably detect change from the previous year. Salmon fry densities can’t be used as effectively in this way as the salmon’s migratory habit means results are naturally much more variable between years. Additional to this fry data we also record the presence of other fish species such as Bullhead and Stone Loach. This data can help us identify pressures as these species have particular habitat/water quality demands just as salmonids do. For example, Stone Loach are particularly sensitive to heavy metals.
The order of change to be detected is quite large - whole density classes across the whole river (e.g. shifting from generally “poor” to generally “fair”) – but with a large enough number of sites to be able to confidently say there is a genuine difference between years. Key features of this method are that sites must be picked randomly (“stratified random sampling”) and that common sense must still be used when interpreting results: they tell us there is a difference but not why that difference occurs.
This method of monitoring is currently under review by the Trust so as to ensure we are directing resources in a manner that best helps us achieve our objectives.
For more information about our monitoring of Target Sub-catchments including how we classify what’s ‘Poor’ or ‘Good’ please contact us and request a full electrofishing report.
River Restoration A smaller number of sites were also covered on the R.Lyvennet with Aberystwyth University and by ourselves on the R. Leith to look at fish numbers at our River Restoration Demonstration sites (Barnskew and Thrimby) where work was carried out in 2013 to restore natural river processes and diverse habitat that results from such. Results so far from these restoration sites has been very encouraging with very good numbers of both trout and salmon fry numbers present at Barnskew on the R.Lyvennet and good numbers of trout fry present at Thrimby on the R.Leith. The surveys also covered Parr habitat which showed good numbers of Parr present at these sites too.
Demonstration Test Catchments Finally, a small number of detailed fully quantitative surveys were undertaken on the Newby Beck, Dacre Beck and Pow Beck at the Demonstration Test Catchment (DTC) monitoring sites. These surveys were carried out with Lancaster University and will help provide some ecological background to the DTC monitoring sites. They will also provide a baseline from which to detect change to fish communities at the sites in question.
For more information about the Demonstration Test Catchments please follow the link: http://www.edendtc.org.uk/
Further information on the monitoring carried out by DTC in the Eden catchment can also be found in this report.
8 | P a g e
Figure 1 – Areas electro-fished in 2015 by Eden Rivers Trust
Results In essence there was no significant change in Trout or Salmon fry numbers in either the Petteril (Fig.2a & 2b) or Trout Beck (Fig.3a & 3b) catchment compared to previous recent year’s results, though recent low numbers of adult salmon to the River Eden is reflected at some of our sites which are primarily dominated by trout and effectively
9 | P a g e peripheral salmon habitat. Recent years has seen an increase in the number of such sites where salmon fry are absent.
Figure 2a – R. Petteril Salmon Fry Results
Figure 2b – R. Petteril Trout Fry Results
10 | P a g e
Figure 3a – Trout Beck Salmon Fry Results
Figure 3b – Trout Beck Trout Fry Results
11 | P a g e
The electrofishing surveys at our river restoration sites on the Lyvennet at Barnskew showed good numbers of both Trout and Salmon Fry and Parr, with Trout dominating the wooded section and salmon dominating the more open faster reaches (Fig.4a). Bullhead, Lamprey and Stone Loach are also present in good numbers.
Of concern however is the overall condition of Howe Beck, a tributary that enters the R.Lyvennet at Barnskew. Despite some of the habitat being restored the ecology is still being curtailed within this tributary. Wider investigation is required to identify the reason for this and find a solution to remedy such if possible.
Figure 4a – Restored open section of the R.Lyvennet at Barnskew is excellent for juvenile salmon. Some natural woody material input and bankside cover will also make it attractive to trout.
On the Leith at Thrimby (Fig.4b), good numbers of Trout fry and parr were recorded as were a number of larger adult trout. Bullhead and Stoneloach were also present in good numbers. Salmon were absent, which has proven to be the case upstream of Sherriff’s Park wood since the Trust started electrofishing many years ago.
We are hoping to investigate whether the weir and fish pass at Sheriffs Park on the Leith is still significantly obstructing the upstream migration of adult fish or whether habitat suitability is the more fundamental reason as to why few salmon are ever found upstream of Sheriffs Park.
Figure 4b – Restored section of R.Leith at Thrimby is excellent for mixed age classes of Brown Trout
What is encouraging is that the habitat now created at both restoration locations is diverse and sustains all fish life stages including adult fish. Resilient and diverse habitat will become increasingly important for our fish species to thrive during such extreme climatic events as we are now more frequently experiencing across Cumbria.
12 | P a g e
Eden Rivers Trust has been carrying out electrofishing within the Dacre, Newby Beck and Pow Beck catchments for a number of years now, largely to compliment other ecological and water quality data being collected in these catchments by the DEFRA funded Demonstration Test Catchments project (DTC). In 2015 undertook a small number of fully quantitative fish surveys at specific locations within these catchments to assist Lancaster University in characterising there monitoring sites.
On Newby Beck a good number of trout fry, parr and some mature adults were found (Fig.5a). No salmon were found which is to be expected as there is a natural barrier downstream in the village of Morland.
Figure 5a – Newby Beck (DTC) fully quantitative electrofishing results
On the Pow Beck, a fully quantitative survey revealed very little presence of fish of any species. To compliment this, a number of presence / absent surveys (Fig.5b) were carried out downstream on the same beck, including downstream of a number of old dilapidated weirs which may be restricting movement of adult fish which are need for recruitment upstream. Results however found very little fish life at all sites, with just one trout fry recorded in the lowermost site. Until the reason for absence of fish, particularly salmonids, is determined the Trust will not pursue habitat restoration along this watercourse other than restoring riparian habitat which can provide multiple benefits.
13 | P a g e
Figure 5b – Despite good physical habitat, this lower reach of the Pow Beck held no juvenile salmon or trout in 2015
In Dacre Beck, both trout and salmon were recorded with an encouraging number of fry present for both species indicating a good carrying capacity, at least within the reach surveyed on a tributary of the Dacre Beck, Thackthwaite Beck. The results showing the number and size of fish captured can be seen below.
Figure 5c – Thackthwaite Beck (DTC) fully quantitative Brown Trout electrofishing results for 2015
14 | P a g e
Figure 5d – Thackthwaite Beck (DTC) fully quantitative Atlantic salmon electrofishing results 2015
Invasive non-native plant species
Himalayan balsam management was carried out at several sites in 2015. The most significant being around Ullswater in partnership with the LDNPA volunteers where the challenge remains eradicating the small remnant population which is spread over a huge area.
Almost all of the Japanese knotweed sites previously managed by ERT were revisited and sprayed by the apprentices in 2015. These sites will need consistent management year on year until eradication is achieved. The Trust is at capacity for ongoing management though, so now new sites cannot be taken on without volunteer assistance.
Giant hogweed management has continued, particularly in the upper reaches of the Eden, Crowdundle, Petteril and Ullswater system. We still do not know where the source is on Eden although it is upstream of Kirkby Stephen.
Many Invasive plant species capitalize on disturbance, so the recent flood damage to river banks provides an opportunity for colonisation. Please be observant when you are down at the river and report any new sightings. We particularly need help identifying where Japanese knotweed and Giant hogweed occur. Please continue to implement biosecurity steps of checking, cleaning and if possible drying equipment used on the river. Minimising transportation of invasive species will hopefully minimise future impacts. With Himalayan Balsam everyone can play their part, particularly anglers whilst walking the river – if you pull some out (including the root) it all adds up and will make a difference.
White Clawed Crayfish
For several years Eden Rivers Trust has worked on projects to restore habitat for native white-clawed crayfish in the Eden catchment. Along with providing benefits for crayfish these projects have also improved conditions for other species, both aquatic and terrestrial, by reducing diffuse pollution and restoring natural river features. These natural features not only benefit wildlife, they restore processes in the river, which in some cases add to attenuation during high and low flow events. Whilst the projects have been active, several hundred surveys have been carried
15 | P a g e out to investigate population distributions, abundances and health. Reasons for continuing to monitor include –
Keeping a finger on the pulse, making sure that the population of this endangered species is still thriving. Establishing baseline population data for areas where the Trust has aspirations to work, as part of the River Restoration Strategy, in the coming years. To continue assessing the impacts of previous habitat restoration projects. To look for new populations in streams that haven’t previously been surveyed. To inform people about this endangered species and to promote its conservation.
It was decided that in 2015 that a scaled back monitoring programme would be carried out with 17 sites surveyed (Fig.6a), with volunteers contributing 20 survey days, covering 4 sub-catchments of the Eden during August and September. The sub-catchments surveyed included Hoff and Helm Becks, along with the Rivers Leith and Lyvennet. The ‘Life in UK Rivers’ standard manual search method was employed meaning that for each site fifty of the most suitable stones were lifted and all crayfish underneath were recorded.
Results A total of 544 white-clawed crayfish were observed, of which 401 were caught. Juvenile crayfish (<25mm carapace length) represented 66.73 % of the total observed. 51.2% of the identifiable crayfish were male and 48.9% female. 3.24% of crayfish caught during the survey had porcelain disease. One crayfish was recorded as having Burn Spot disease and no crayfish plague was recorded. No non-native crayfish species were found during the survey
16 | P a g e
Figure 6a - A map of the River Eden and tributaries with the sub-catchments surveyed for white- clawed crayfish in 2015 highlighted. The total number of crayfish observed during each survey are indicated for each site surveyed.
17 | P a g e
Abundance White-clawed crayfish abundances were consistent with what we would expect for the Rivers Leith and Lyvennet and also for Hoff and Helm Becks. Crayfish were found in reasonable numbers at the monitoring site in the new channel on the river restoration site on the River Lyvennet. This is an important site to keep monitoring in the future to check that recruitment is taking place as expected. Recruitment It is vital for the future of any population that enough juveniles are being produced to, at the very least, keep numbers of adults in a population stable. For white-clawed crayfish it has been determined that at least 40% of crayfish observed whilst using the Life in UK Rivers survey methodology should be juvenile in order to say the population is recruiting well. Given that 66.73 % of the crayfish seen in the 2016 survey were juveniles, it can confidently be said that on the whole the population is recruiting well enough. There was one site on a tributary of the River Lyvennet where juveniles made up only 24% of the crayfish observed. This could have been down to a sampling anomaly, or down to poor recruitment. It would be worth monitoring this site again in the future to check recruitment rates. Disease Porcelain disease is the most common disease found in native white-clawed crayfish populations and it is thought to be passed on through cannibalism. Diseases can be used as indicators of stress in a population and consequently it is informative monitoring levels. 3.24% of crayfish caught in this survey showed visible signs of Porcelains Disease. This is below the 10% threshold for a population in favourable condition, but fractionally above the 3% normally expected in a healthy population (as per the Life in UK Rivers methodology). Again this is consistent with previous year’s findings, suggesting that there is no increased stress on the population as a whole.
Riverfly monitoring
The River Eden and its tributaries are full of aquatic life including iconic species like brown trout, otters and kingfishers. These predatory species are towards the top of a complicated interdependent food web and they are rely on many other species for their existence. One of the vital jigsaw pieces in a river based food web are riverflies and their larvae, which spend many months developing in the river. As well as being an important part of the food chain these riverfly larvae can be used as indicators for the health of a river. The attributes which make them most valuable in this role are the length of time that they spend in the same section of river developing from egg to adult and most importantly that they have different tolerances to changes in water quality. You might ask, why not carry out a chemical test to see whether the water quality is good. The main reason that a chemical water quality test isn’t enough is that it will only tell you what is in the water at that moment in time, it won’t tell you what the water quality was like several hours, days or weeks before. It is also pretty expensive to carry out extensively. Monitoring invertebrates, including riverfly larvae, on a regular basis can give an indication whether water quality has changed over a period of time.
The Environment Agency monitor aquatic invertebrates such as riverfly larvae to assess water quality. They are however limited as to how much of this monitoring they can do, so an organisation called the Riverfly Partnership developed a simplified method which enables volunteers to monitor aquatic invertebrate groups in a way that would pick up on severe water quality issues. This monitoring complements that of the Environment Agency and is supported by them. The Riverfly Partnership monitoring concentrates mainly on the larvae of mayfly (Fig. 7a), stonefly and caddisfly which require clean water to survive.
18 | P a g e
Monitoring is carried out on a monthly basis by following a protocol whereby a person disturbs stones on the river bed with their feet for three minutes, whilst moving between different habitat types within their selected stretch of river. Riverfly larvae and other aquatic life are disturbed and washed down into a waiting net held by the volunteer. The net contents are examined after the three minute sample has been completed and abundances of seven different riverfly groups are estimated, along with freshwater shrimp numbers. Each abundance estimate for a group is given a score between 0 and 4 with higher abundances gaining the highest score. Figure 7b shows thirteen months of scores for one site. You can see that it is possible over a period of months to build up a picture of what groups should be present and roughly what score you might expect within the Figure 7a - One type of mayfly larvae belonging the monitored reach. For this site a score between 9 Heptogeniidae family. This is one of several families and 15 is expected. There is some natural variation which are monitored as part of the Riverfly monitoring due to riverfly life cycles, sampling differences and programme, with their abundances being estimated variations in conditions, but if the score suddenly after every sample. falls off a cliff, then the Environment Agency are informed and an investigation into possible sources of pollution can begin.
Since 2008 Eden Rivers Trust have been part of the Riverfly Partnerships monitoring programme, training volunteers to monitor sites which are generally close to where they live. In 2015 13 volunteers attended a one day workshop to learn how to monitor a site (Figures 7c & 7d).
Overall in 2015 twenty four volunteer monitors carried out one hundred and eleven samples at thirty three sites. Although there were a few instances where scores declined more than might have been expected there were no reports of trigger breaches, which could have signalled severe pollution. The low scores were investigated by Eden Rivers Trust staff and advice sought from the Environment Agency to ensure that nothing alarming was happening.
The Eden catchment is a huge area, so there is always a need for more monitors to help ensure that pollution incidents aren’t being missed. If you would be interested in giving up approximately one hour a month to monitor your local river let us know as we can provide training and equipment.
Acknowledgements
A very big thank you to all the volunteers who gave their time to help with the surveys and to all landowners and farmers who allowed access across their land. We could not have completed the surveys without your help. Also a big thank you to the Environment Agency and RiverFly Partnership for continued support and too the Heritage Lottery Fund for support and funding.
For more information please contact:
Telephone: 01768 866 788
Fish surveys & River Restoration: [email protected]
Crayfish, Invertebrate and Invasive non-native plant Surveys: [email protected]
19 | P a g e
Figure 7b - A bar chart showing monthly abundance estimate scores for aquatic invertebrates caught during Riverfly monitoring, at a site on the River Eden near Kirkby Stephen, over the period of 2014/2015.
Figure 7c - Monitors learning to Figure 7d - Monitors learning how to identify an 20 | P a g e take kick samples on the training estimate numbers of riverfly larvae on the training day. day.
Ecological Monitoring within the Demonstration Test Catchment Programme - River Eden 2015 The Eden Demonstration Test Catchment (DTC) programme is a catchment-scale research platform funded by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to examine the relationships between agricultural production, ecology and environmental quality. Within each of three small sub-catchments, macroinvertebrate (insects, invertebrates and arthropods seen by the naked eye), macrophyte (higher plants) and benthic diatom (a type of single-celled algae) communities are monitored, all of which are important to fish.
Benthic diatoms, found within a slimy brown film on rock surfaces, form the base of the aquatic food webs and are highly sensitive to the dynamic changes in their environment (Fig. 1). For example, the diatom community composition responds to the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus within the streams, as well as water depth and velocity. Monthly assessment of the diatom community is undertaken to explore relationships between land-use, physical and chemical changes in streams, and impact on community composition. Such information can then be used to assess restoration requirements and inform wider catchment management.
The drier summer and autumn of 2015 which preceded Storm Desmond, and the storm itself, was captured within our examinations of the benthic stream community. The immediate impact of the storm was observed through physical abrasion which scoured the benthic community and re-sorted the physical bed habitat. The ecological recovery of the stream will be assessed through 2016. Continuous monitoring helps us to identify periods of greater ecological sensitivity, and consequently when adverse land use activity may have a greater potential impact on ecosystem health. It is therefore important to consider the interactive effects of more frequent high intensity events and warmer drier summers together with land use practices. Within the River Eden catchment, our data show that management of winter agricultural practices in particular is critical. Such understanding will assist catchment managers in targeting those land use changes and in-stream restoration measures most effective in improving the water quality and biological diversity of our streams. Improvements in ecosystem health will benefit not only instream communities, such as fish and plants, but also attract a more diverse array of wildlife, thus providing a greater array of ecosystem services for all to enjoy.
(a) (b) (C)
Figure 1: (a) benthic biofilm community on stream cobble bed; (b) slimy brown diatom biofilm and; (c) microscopic view of diatom assemblage.
For more information about the Eden Demonstration Test Catchment project follow the link: http://www.edendtc.org.uk/
For more information about anything in this summary please contact the author:
Maria Snell, Lancaster University. Email: [email protected] 21 | P a g e
Environment Agency 2015 River Eden Fish & Invertebrate Monitoring Summary
Fish The majority of the Environment Agency’s fish survey work on the River Eden is carried out as part of the National Fisheries Monitoring Programme (NFMP), the main aims of which are to describe the status of our fish populations and inform fisheries management. Of the 184 sites across the Eden that we survey, the majority are surveyed once every six years to help detect differences across the catchment while the remainder (26 sites) are surveyed every two years to better understand how fish populations vary through time. Areas targeted by our surveys are intended to reflect the distributions of salmon, brown trout and coarse fish.
However, we often survey additional sites during the course of the year to satisfy local monitoring needs including specific project work and impact assessments (e.g. fish kills). We have also been surveying River Caldew sites more frequently in the absence of fish trap (count) data from Holmehead Weir. A relatively light survey programme was carried out on the River Eden in 2015 and our core sites were primarily those in brown trout or coarse fish areas rather than salmon ones. Including the additional surveys described above, a total of 83 surveys were completed in the catchment in 2015.
All sites were fished as single-pass surveys during which we try to catch all the fish we see in the site (our survey sites are typically 30-50m long). The majority of surveys are carried out between June and October, with the exception of some coarse fish surveys in the lower Eden tributaries that are carried out in the spring. For salmon and trout, these catch figures are then used to estimate fish densities for comparison with previous years’ data and to produce the fish density classifications presented below (Figures 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d).
Salmon results, 2015
As mentioned above, relatively few surveys were carried out on the Eden in 2015, mainly because most sites are surveyed on a six year rolling programme which covers all of Cumbria and others catchments were the main focus in 2015. Furthermore, many of those sites surveyed were not in what we consider to be prime salmon spawning areas, rather they were in areas more suited to trout or coarse fish.
Although this makes a broad assessment of the health of our juvenile salmon difficult, they were relatively scarce in areas where we would expect to find them in good numbers, including the River Caldew, the River Lyvennet, and some tributaries of the River Lowther including Heltondale Beck. This is clearly a concern to us all, given the decline in numbers of adult salmon, particularly one-sea-winter grilse, returning to many of our rivers including the Eden.
22 | P a g e
Figure 1a - Salmon fry density classifications, River Eden 2015 Figure 1b - Salmon parr density classifications, River Eden 2015 23 | P a g e
Figure 1c - Brown / sea trout fry density classifications, River Eden 2015 Figure 1d - Brown / sea trout parr density classifications, River Eden 2015 24 | P a g e
However, in the case of Heltondale Beck this may in part reflect the fact that abstraction licence changes were yet to take place here that will increase the amount of water going down this stream throughout the year and particularly at spawning time. As with many parts of the Lowther system, a great deal of time and effort has been spent here over the years to try and improve flow conditions for fish and other river life.
As mentioned above, we have been carrying out surveys on the River Caldew more frequently following the loss of the Holmehead Weir fish trap and will continue to review this monitoring as improvements in this are desirable. Although we did find a small up-turn in salmon fry numbers in 2015 at two of our most-visited sites, Mosedale and Caldbeck, this pattern was inconsistent and indeed salmon fry remained absent at a previously prolific site on Carrock Beck( Fig. 2a). Parr numbers remain a cause for concern but this may in part reflect the time lag between improvements in adult returns and the changes in parr densities (Fig. 2b).
Figure 2a - Salmon fry densities at three sites in the Caldew catchment, 2002-2015
25 | P a g e
Figure 2b - Salmon fry densities at three sites in the Caldew catchment, 2002-2015
Brown / sea trout results, 2015
In contrast to salmon, good densities of juvenile trout were found in many parts of the catchment that were surveyed, including the Caldew, the Pennine streams, the Irthing and the Lowther. The most notable part of the catchment where trout were scarce was in the tributaries of the lower Eden around Carlisle, such as Brunstock Beck and the Pow Maughan. However, these streams are currently more suitable for coarse fish species than trout or salmon, not least because they contain few opportunities for salmonids to spawn.
Coarse fish surveys, 2015
As mentioned above, surveys are carried out on lower Eden tributaries in the spring of each year specifically to look for coarse fish, including Brunstock Beck, the Pow Maughan and the lower reaches of the River Petteril. Although this covered just four sites in 2015, no dace and only one chub were found (in the Pow Maughan). Interestingly, juvenile grayling remain as elusive as ever in all of our surveys – although we know from angler information that they are numerous in the catchment they are rarely caught electrofishing. We suspect that this is because grayling are predominantly found in the mainstem Eden where the river is simply too wide to survey effectively, although we have recorded them in Brunstock Beck and the lower Petteril in the past.
For More information on the EA fish monitoring summary please contact:
Dr Andy Gowans,
Fisheries Technical Specialist,
Cumbria & Lancashire| Environment Agency,
Ghylll Mount|Penrith 40 Business Park | Gillan Way| Penrith | CA11 9BP
Email: [email protected]
26 | P a g e
Invertebrates In early 2015, the Macroinvertebrate community at 27 sites were scheduled to be sampled in the Eden catchment. A review of the monitoring network in order to tactically reduce the amount of sites was completed in August where 13 sites were removed from the programme.
Fourteen sites (Table 1) remained with the majority sampled in Spring and Autumn, most of which were sampled for Water Framework Directive purposes. Other monitoring drivers include Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS), Drought Monitoring and Local Water resources purposes.
The sites surveyed were spread throughout the catchment on most major tributaries.
Sampling for the RSA (Restoring Sustainable Abstraction) programme continued in 2015 where a total of 34 sites were sampled in the upper Lowther catchment including becks which are abstracted from into Haweswater reservoir.
There is a foreseeable risk that the planned monitoring for 2016 on the Eden catchment will be subject to a Strategic Monitoring Review currently taking place.
For More information on the EA invertebrate monitoring summary please contact:
Daniel Atkinson,
Environmental Monitoring Officer - Level 1,
Analysis & Reporting,
Cumbria & Lancashire| Environment Agency,
Ghylll Mount|Penrith 40 Business Park | Gillan Way| Penrith | CA11 9BP
Email: [email protected]
Glossary of terms (As per Table 1)
ASPT (BMWP Methodology)
The Average Score Per Taxon (ASPT) is an index which reflects organic influences upon the macroinvertebrate community according to the sensitivity/tolerance to taxon present at a particular site. It is calculated by dividing the BMWP score (sum of all taxon scores present in a sample) by the Number of BMWP Scoring taxa.
Ntaxa (BMWP Methodology)
Refers to the number of scoring taxa (families) present in a sample.
LIFE
This refers to the Lotic-invertebrate Index for Flow Evaluation and links the macroinvertebrate community to the prevailing flow regimes in British waters. It is primarily based on the velocity preferences of each taxon. It may be calculated to Family or Species level.
27 | P a g e
Table 1 – EA 2015 Invertebrate survey results
Site (including NGR) Date BMWP ASPT Ntaxa LIFE WFD Class Species present of interest
Petteril 100m d/s bridge at Stoneyholme 08/04/2015 167 (138) 5.96 (5.52) 28 (25) 8.23 (8.17) Good (NY4130856415) 15/10/2015 118 (182) 5.62 (6.07) 21 (30) 8.18 (8.26) High Taeniopteryx nebulosa (February red Stonefly)
Lowther 20 meters downstream Lowther bridge 16/04/2015 173 (103) 6.18 (6.06) 28 (17) 8.66 (7.93) Good (NY5245628221) 22/10/2015 127 (104) 6.05 (6.02) 21 (17) 7.9 (8) Good Belah 20 meters upstream New bridge near Kaber 27/04/2015 166 (104) 6.64 (6.5) 25 (16) 8.69 (8.71) High
18/09/2015 159 (149) 6.36 (6.48) 25 (23) 8.96 (7.91) High
Caldew 400m ptc Eden (NY7929512063) 08/04/2015 121 (120) 6.05 (6) 20 (20) 8.6 (8.32) Good 15/10/2015 134 (157) 6.09 (5.61) 22 (28) 8.64 (8.04) High Swindale Beck - AT NY686253 15/04/2015 139 (137) 6.62 (6.85) 21 (20) 9.07 (8.58) High 30/09/2015 121 (63) 6.37 (6.3) 19 (10) 8.53 (8.75) Good
Argill beck - AT NY825129 27/04/2015 150 (114) 6.82 (6.33) 22 (18) 9 (8.18) High 18/09/2015 133 (115) 6.33 (6.39) 21 (18) 8.75 (8) High
Scandal beck at Soulby 25m d/s ford 17/04/2015 182 (150) 6.28 (6.52) 29 (23) 8.81 (7.76) High (NY7537311036) 23/09/2015 159 (169) 6.12 (6.26) 26 (27) 8.41 (7.56) Good
Eden at Temple Sowerby (NY6039128147) 22/04/2015 157 (137) 6.04 (5.96) 26 (23) 8.41 (8.67) Good 30/06/2015 126 (132) 6 (5.28) 21 (25) 8.73 (8)
23/09/2015 169 (134) 5.83 (5.83) 29 (23) 8.52 (8.46) High
Eden at Warwick bridge (NY4709456553) 27/04/2015 158 (177) 6.32 (6.32) 25 (28) 8.33 (8.43) Good
16/10/2015 199 (144) 6.22 (5.76) 32 (25) 8.26 (8.28) High Taeniopteryx nebulosa (February Red Stonefly) Cald beck below Caldbeck church (NY4709456553) 25/03/2015 125 (133) 6.25 (6.05) 20 (22) 8.81 (8.05) Good
23/09/2015 133 (70) 6.65 (5.83) 20 (12) 8.63 (8) Good
Swindale beck near Hall Garth (NY7733913436) 17/04/2015 186 (110) 6.89 (6.47) 27 (17) 8.93 (8.19) High 18/09/2015 149 (163) 6.21 (6.52) 24 (25) 8.64 (8) High
Pasture beck ptc Hayeswater Gill (NY4158212665) 24/04/2015 143 6.81 21 8.84 N/A 17/09/2015 144 6.55 22 8.47 Hayeswater Gill ptc Pasture beck 29/05/2015 127 6.68 19 8.8 N/A 10/09/2015 100 6.25 16 8.38
R.Gelt at Low Gelt bridge (NY5192059173) 08/04/2015 152 (154) 6.61 (7) 23 (22) 8.96 (8.54) High 22/09/2015 96 (140) 6.36 (6.4) 15 (22) 8.6 (8.41) Good
28 | P a g e
Natural England Sea Lamprey redd counts, River Eden SAC, June 2015
The River Eden and the Solway Firth Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) have all three native lamprey species listed as features: the river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis), brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri) and sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus). Condition monitoring within river systems for river and brook Lamprey is readily achieved through ammocoete surveys using electrofishing techniques. Such a survey was commissioned by Natural England in 2014 (APEM 2014) in order to inform condition monitoring of river and brook lamprey within the River Eden and Solway Firth SACs. Monitoring sea lamprey is more difficult as their ammocoetes tend to prefer habitat not as readily accessible to electrofishing techniques. One of the simplest ways to get a basic indication of the status of sea lamprey populations using a river system is to perform redd counts. In northern Europe, sea lamprey migrate upriver from May to August and upon reaching suitable habitat, move material on the river bed to create large redds. They are well known for being capable of moving sizable rocks and redds are typically in excess of 0.5m diameter. This makes them readily identifiable and possible to count using a foot based survey.
Previous (2003) survey by Environment Agency staff surveyed redds along the Eden main stem from Kirkby Stephen to the River Irthing and along major tributaries including the rivers Caldew, Eamont and Petteril.
In June 2015, Natural England and Eden Rivers Trust staff surveyed the river Eden for sea lamprey redds. Areas known to have active sea lamprey or historic records of significant redd numbers (i.e. EA 2003 survey) were targeted. On the main stem: Wetheral, Stony Holme golf club, Eden Lacy, Eden Bridge on the B6412 and the confluence with the river Lyvennet. Tributaries targeted were: River Eamont (upper and lower sites), River Lowther and Goldrill beck.
Surveys were carried out on foot and positions taken using geo-referenced photographs. For each record, the overall site, number of redds counted at that geo-reference and any pertinent notes were recorded. Thus for sites with redds found along a significant stretch of river, a number of individual counts will have been made. Table 1 shows example survey data for two records at Wetherall.
Table 1. Example data sheet
Photo_id Site X Y Redd_Count Notes 20150625_102114 Wetheral - 54.897934 4 1 composite redd 2.824719 20150625_102330 Wetheral - 54.897808 4 Redd building/spawning activity 2.824937 sighted
Sea lamprey redds were recorded on the main stem Eden and on the upper river Eamont (see Figure 1). Overall, the distribution was not as extensive as that observed in 2003. The greatest concentrations of redds along with observations of redd building activites were once again in the vicinity of Wetheral. A large number of adult sea lamprey (c.50) were observed at the bottom of the weir in this location, with frequent attempts being made to pass the barrier. It is likely that many more adults were just downstream of the weir, obscured by the standing wave. There was no successful passage of the weir in ~20 minutes of observation. The river was not very high, owing to recent dry weather, so the water was not flowing down the sides of the weir where slower flows may have allowed passage.
Redds were also recorded further downstream of this weir, but owing to the large size of the river downstream of the river Irthing, potential wide distribution and time constraints, it was not possible to count all redds in this lower
29 | P a g e stretch. However the ease with which redds were found in the vicinity of Stony Holme golf club suggests that much of this stretch, which is easily accessible for sea lamprey, will have seen redd building activity.
Potential Sea Lamprey Redds were only observed at one other location upstream of this weir, the river Eamont, immediately downstream of Ullswater. This indicates that at some point, sea lamprey may have been able to pass this and other barriers in order to reach this location. No active redd building was observed here, so it is likely that redds in this location were built by and earlier run of sea lamprey. More recent research at this location may suggest that Sea Lamprey are not accessing this area and that old salmon redds have been misidentified as Sea Lamprey redds. Any evidence of Sea Lamprey activity at this location would be gratefully received.
Little is known about site fidelity or migration patterns in sea lamprey, other than the migration tends to last in the order of months. It is therefore conjecture that sea lamprey migrating at a specific time may target a certain part of a catchment, but these observations would support this.
The results of this work are somewhat at odds with the findings of the previous (EA 2003) survey, which suggested sea lamprey were capable of spawning through a much wider area of the Eden catchment than previously thought. It is likely that dry weather meant that the sea lamprey had not had the opportunity to pass a number of barriers and repeated survey later in the year may indicate whether or not the spawning distribution observed in 2003 has been maintained
Figure 1 - Observed & Potential spawning locations of sea lamprey in the river Eden catchment, June 2015
For further information on the summary above please contact:
Laurence Browning
Marine Lead Adviser - Cumbria Team Natural England
Email [email protected]
30 | P a g e
For more information about the Eden Fisheries Plan please go to; http://www.edenfishing.co.uk/docs/efp-april2016.pdf
31 | P a g e