RIVER WYE SALMON ACTION PLAN October 2003webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http:...Wye Salmon Action Plan Review Page 4 Fig 1 Salmon catches by rods over time The net

RIVER WYE

SALMON ACTION PLAN

October 2003

Wye Salmon Action Plan Review

Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. In February 1996 “ A Strategy for Management of Salmon in England and Wales”was launched by the National Rivers Authority setting out objectives for managingsalmon fisheries.

2. These objectives are being met by the Environment Agency through local SalmonAction Plans that are being produced for each of the principal salmon rivers inEngland and Wales.

3. The River Wye Salmon Action Plan was produced in 1999. It was due for reviewin 2004, but because of the continuing decline of Wye salmon stocks, the reviewhas been brought forward. This document is the result of that review.

4. The major issues addressed in the review are:

• Restricted access to potential spawning and nursery areas.• Poor water quality.• Physical habitat degradation.• Avian predation of juvenile salmon.• The need for better data on the status of salmon stocks.• Over-exploitation of salmon stocks.• The role of hatchery rearing and stocking.

5. Costed actions to address these issues are proposed, together with details of partnerorganisations which will help to deliver the plan.

6. The progress of this plan will be monitored and reported annually.


Page 3

1. INTRODUCTION

Following a period of public consultation, the first Environment Agency Wye Salmon ActionPlan (SAP) was published in April 1999 and was due for review in 2004. Because of thecontinuing and serious decline of salmon stocks in Wye, the decision was made to bring thereview forward to 2003. This document is the result of that review.

In producing this SAP Review the Agency has sought the support of local fishery,conservation and other interests. This collaborative approach is vital to secure the best wayforward for our salmon rivers at a time when stocks are generally at an historic low,environmental pressures are as great as ever, and funding for salmon fisheries is diminishing.

2. VISION

Our long-term vision for the River Wye is to restore stocks of salmon to achieve a favourableconservation status for this Special Area of Conservation (SAC) species at levels that alsomaximise sustainable rod fisheries. Actions within this current Wye Salmon Plan are aimed atmaking substantial progress towards this vision.

3. CURRENT STATUS OF SALMON STOCKS

Concerns over the level of exploitation of Wye salmon and the downward trend in rod catcheshave been expressed over the past 30 years. Salmon are also one of the cited species in theSSSI and cSAC designations of the Wye and the fishery is currently failing to meet therequired conservation standards. The Wye rod fishery was famous for the large number ofspring-run MSW salmon and this component of the stock has dwindled to an annual catch ofaround 100 fish in the last few years. Although there is a cyclical pattern to the trends incatches since the early 1980s (Fig 1), there has been a consistent downward trend. This hasbeen most significant in the MSW and spring salmon stocks, which further exacerbates theproblems as historically this run component has contributed more to egg deposition and thefishery.

The five-year average rod catches in the period up to 1966 compared to the period before1999 have shown a 70% decline. The rod catch in 1967 peaked at approximately 7864 salmonwith a five-year average of 5400 salmon. In comparison every year since 1997 the totalannual catch for the Wye has been less than 1000 salmon.

The clear downward trend in rod catch, and particularly the spring run component, resulted inthe introduction of the 1995 byelaws and 1999 national byelaws. These were specificallyaimed at introducing method controls to reduce the catch of MSW salmon in order to increasetheir spawning escapement. The most recent Wye specific suite of control measuresintroduced from 1 September 2003 are complementary to the previous byelaw measures withthe intention of aiding survival of salmon through the fishing season.


Page 4

Fig 1 Salmon catches by rods over time

The net fisheries in the Severn Estuary exploit stocks from several rivers, notably the Usk andSevern, as well as the Wye.

Through the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s, the Usk drift net catch, although variable, actually increased.The 1990s have seen a decline in numbers, a significant part of which is due to the reductionin season as restricted by byelaw in 1995, followed by the buy-out of the fishery in 2000.

Annual catch returns from the putcher ranks are very variable. Since the early ‘70s total netcatches have declined (Fig 2), this is probably because of fluctuating fishing effort at theGoldcliffe putcher rank.

Fig 2 Salmon catches by nets over time

Egg deposition has shown a long term decline and egg deposition has fallen below theConservation Limit since 1989 (Fig 3). The Conservation Limit equates to 34.5 million eggsand is dependent on the quality and amount of spawning habitat. As habitat improvements,access to potential spawning areas and acidified areas are ameliorated this target will changeaccordingly.

Temporal Trends in Declared Rod Catch (1945-2002) R. Wye

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

900019

45

1953

1956

1959

1962

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

Num

ber o

f fis

h

Delared annual rod catch 5 year moving average

Temporal Trends in Declared Net Catch (1952-2002) R. Wye and R. Usk Net Fisheries

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1952

1955

1958

1961

1964

1967

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

Num

ber o

f fis

h

Declared net catch (all nets) 5 Year Moving Average


Page 5

RIVER WYE ACOUSTIC FISH COUNT DATA

Preliminary Comparison of Counter Data, 1997 – 2003The tables below shows the preliminary data from the Wye fish counter up until the end ofMay 2003. Data from previous years are included for comparative purposes. The data for2003 remain preliminary and subject to refinement, and the corresponding data from previousyears are provided to enable valid comparisons between years.

The numbers to the end of May 2003 are the third highest since 1997, and are bettered only bythe numbers in 1997 and 2000. It is too early to assess whether this indicates an improved runof fish and any interpretation should undertaken with caution.

TABLE 1: Extrapolated Count (downtime adjusted)MONTH 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

January 56 5 0 0 0 85 30February 9 7 0 5 11 6 22March 69 27 108 15 29 7 73April 288 12 n/a 184 27 80 192May 297 405 171* 940 222 124 248June 944 833 718* 1351 475 240July 261 386 861 1018 373 416August 436 363 456 726 434 683September 1120 1181 168 579 118 391October 816 1484 162 92 125 399November 154 9 39 3 20 10December 1 0 3 0 25 19

TOTAL 4451 4712 2686 4913 1859 2460Notes *data less reliable due to experimentation to examine shad migration

Fig 3. Temporal Trends in Egg Deposition by salmon and grilse; R Wye (1976-2002).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

Mill

ions

of E

ggs

Grilse MSW Egg Deposition Target

Failure Period Failure Period


Page 6

TABLE 2: Cumulative Counts1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Count RunCount

Count RunCount

Count RunCount

Count RunCount

Count RunCount

Count RunCount

Count RunCount

Jan 56 56 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 85 30 30Feb 9 65 7 12 0 0 5 5 11 11 6 91 22 52Mar 69 134 27 39 108 108 15 20 29 40 7 98 73 125Apr 288 422 12 51 N/A * 108 184 204 27 67 80 178 192 317May 297 719 405 456 171 279 940 1144 222 289 124 302 248 565June 944 1663 833 1289 718 997 1351 2495 475 764 240 542July 261 1924 386 1675 861 1858 1018 3513 373 1137 416 958Aug 436 2360 363 2038 456 2314 726 4239 434 1571 683 1641Sept 1120 3480 1181 3219 168 2482 579 4818 118 1689 391 2032Oct 816 4296 1484 4703 162 2644 92 4910 125 1814 399 2431Nov 154 4450 9 4712 39 2683 3 4913 20 1834 10 2441Dec 1 4451 0 4712 3 2686 0 4913 25 1859 19 2460

TOTAL 4451 4712 2686 4913 1859 2460

Over the life of this current plan, the intention is to reassess the compliance estimates againstthe target using the counter data (Issue 5.4). The counter has been operational since 1997 sothe annual compliance estimates will be reanalysed from 1997 onwards using both counterdata and the current method that employs rod catch data. This will give two figures, but willallow comparison between the two methods.

With all the changes in rod catch effort, it is hoped that use of the counter data will provide abetter indication of run size and of how the river is performing against its egg depositiontarget.

Current egg deposition targets will need to be reviewed in light of improved data on stocks,exploitation and survival rates, together with increased spawning/nursery areas that will beopened up as the plan is implemented.

4. PROGRESS AGAINST PREVIOUS ACTION PLAN

Water Quality/Diffuse pollutionIn order to meet its obligations under the Habitats Directive, the Agency is currentlyundertaking a special investigation of water quality in the Wye catchment. This involveswater quality modelling (SIMCAT and INCA P) to identify the causes of water qualitystandard failures and ecological monitoring to ascertain the impacts of discharges on SACfeatures. These models will enable the Agency to amend discharge consents where they arethe cause of the water quality failures and also identify parts of the catchment where diffusepollution is the major cause of the failures. This project is due to report end March 2004.

The Agency is also undertaking an Assembly funded diffuse pollution project which involvesthe development of diffuse pollution action plans for failing reaches where diffuse pollutionhas been identified as the cause of the poor water quality. In addition to this the Agency is inthe early stages of developing collaboration with the conservation agencies entitled Wyecarewhich is intended to secure funding to deliver projects to address diffuse pollution issues.


Page 7

Sediment and nutrient pollution from diffuse sources is a major issue affecting water qualityin the Wye. The risk of diffuse pollution is affected by topography, soil type, land use andland management. DEFRA, Environment Agency and English Nature are funding thedevelopment of a model (PSYCHIC) which models the risk of sediment and nutrient losswithin the Wye catchment (also Hampshire Avon). It is hoped that this will be applied to allcatchments in England and Wales. However, the lessons learnt during the development of themodel should help inform the diffuse pollution projects described above.

Habitat WorkThe restoration of riparian habitat through fencing and coppicing programmes has been to thefore in the early years of the previous SAP. Projects like WHIP, which attracted substantialEuropean funding to restore four Wye tributaries, have been the envy of other catchments.This Wye Foundation led project resulted in riparian habitat works to more than 50km ofupper Wye tributaries. The confidence it brought enabled a second successful bid forEuropean funds in 2002 to further this work in the upper catchment and to also include anexperimental catchment source liming programme to ameliorate the impacts of low pH eventsin some of the upland parts of the catchment.

ObstructionsThe Wye Foundation and its partners have continued with their activities to open up areas ofthe catchment to salmon, including fish easements on the Clettwr (2) and fish passes on theDigedi. Salmon spawning on the Clettwr has been shown to have improved markedly.

EnforcementContinued vigilance and the resourcing of Agency targeted enforcement operations during thesummer in the estuary and lower river and in the winter in high quality spawning areas havebeen essential to protect the dwindling salmon population. Monitoring has shown that theamount of effort in illegal fishing has fallen dramatically both in response to stiffer penaltiesand to the reduced number of salmon present in the river. However, the importance ofprotecting stocks from illegal fishing remains.

Riparian Tree StrategyThe completion of a field level walkover survey of all the major Wye tributaries in summer2002 was the culmination of the Wye Riparian Tree Management Strategy. The project,involving a partnership of local planning authorities, Forestry Authority Wales, CCW andEAW, was instigated to catalogue the extent of tree management issues on the rivers. The dataare now stored on a GIS database and have already been invaluable in prioritising remedialworks in salmon spawning areas.

Reduction in ExploitationLegislationThe Wye featured strongly in the justification for National Byelaws to protect spring salmonintroduced in 1999. From September 2003, after lengthy consultation with the many interests,further Wye bye-laws have been enacted, designed to protect spring salmon from bait fishingwhilst supporting Wye salmon fishing in general by increasing the opportunity for salmonfishing at times of the year when the impact on the salmon stock will be less.

Catch & ReleaseVoluntary Catch & Release was encouraged after the introduction of the 1995 Wye Byelawsand compulsory release of fish caught before 16 June was introduced in the National 1999


Page 8

Byelaws. Over the period of the SAP, return rates during the voluntary release period were1999: 31%, 2000: 25%, 2001: 26%, and 2002: 32%. The launch in Spring 2003 of asponsored catch and release programme, a collaboration between WUF, EAW, EN, CCW andthe Ghillies Association, is the result of a continuing effort to improve the number of salmonreturned to the river. The sponsorship programme aims to add further impetus and increasecatch and release rates to a much higher level.

Nets and PutchersThe Usk Drift Net Fishery operated principally off Uskmouth (Newport) in the SevernEstuary. The number of licences issued annually is limited by a Net Limitation Order (NLO).The fishery was the most productive for salmon, per net, of all commercial net fisheries in EAWales. These fisheries are known from tagging studies to exploit a mixed stock of salmon,many of which are destined for rivers entering the Severn Estuary other than the Usk.

Because of this, a reducing Net Limitation Order (NLO) was brought in to force in 1997,enabling the phasing out of the fishery as licences lapsed. The NLO has a ten-year reviewperiod. Future buy-outs were made possible by the introduction of the NLO.

In 2000, a consortium including the United Usk Fishermen’s Association, the WyeFoundation, the Wye Salmon Fishery Owners and the North Atlantic Salmon Fund haveeffectively been able to close the drift net fishery by paying the netsmen not to renew theirlicences. Because of the reducing NLO this means the licences will not be re-issued for theduration of the NLO (2006). Under the same agreement the operator of Goldcliffe putcherrank has been paid not to fish for the period 2000-2004.

With the buyout and NLO reducing the licensed nets to zero, it is the Agency’s proposal viathe promotion of byelaws to close the Usk District drift net fishery beyond the life of theNLO.

The private rights to three putcher fisheries also exist in the Usk district, including theGoldcliffe fishery about 5km east of Uskmouth. Certificates for three putcher ranks in thelower end of the Severn Estuary at Slime Road, Lyde Rock and Horsepill are owned by EAW.To further reduce exploitation, the remaining years of the Slime Road, Lyde Rock andHorsepill putcher leases were bought out by EAW and the ranks dismantled.

Gravel SedimentationIn 2000 a three-year study as part of Agency R&D studied the rates of gravel sedimentation attwo sites in the Wye catchment. The report is in preparation and is due for completion in2003. The work will help to model vulnerable catchments and target diffuse pollutionprevention projects.

pHish 2002 (Powys Habitat Improvement Scheme) is a £1.5 million project which started inSeptember 2002 for a period of 3 years using European Regional Development Objective 2funding. It will undertake environmental improvement works in the Upper Wye leading to arestoration of game and coarse angling in the river. The project is led by the Wye & UskFoundation (WUF) and supported by Environment Agency Wales (EAW), CountrysideCouncil for Wales (CCW), Forestry Commission, Wildlife Trusts, Country LandownersAssociation (CLA), Anglers Conservation Association (ACA), Cardiff University, Centre forEcology and Hydrology (CEH) and Wales Tourist Board. Work is currently targeted at habitatrestoration (eg fencing and coppicing), a new hatchery, acidification problems and new fish


Page 9

passes. Angling promotion is also being undertaking, together with a new catch & releaseproject. References to these projects are included in the action tables later in this document.

Afon Duhonw, coppicing and fencing (WUF, pHish project)


Page 10

5. CONSULTATION

A Working Group made up of Agency Officers and representatives from the Wye SalmonFisheries Owners Association (WSFOA), Wye & Usk Foundation (WUF), Wye LocalFisheries Group (LFG), English Nature (EN), Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) and theGillies Association met on 4 March 2003 to determine the main issues that need to beaddressed in formulating a new Wye SAP. The group reconvened on 29 September 2003 tofinalise the plan.

6. LIMITING FACTORS ANALYSIS

Based on a multi-criteria analysis methodology (see appendix 1), members of the WorkingGroup submitted the following rankings for each of the main limiting factors to salmonproduction identified during the workshop session.Factor Mean

Ranking

Access to spawning/nursery areas 1Pesticides 2Juvenile survival and recruitment. 2Irish drift net fishery 4Acidification 4Eutrophication and other diffuse pollution 6Compaction/siltation/loss of spawning gravels 7Smolt production 8Commercial fisheries in the Severn Estuary 9Inappropriate management of riparian zone 10Rod fishery, particularly re MSW salmon 11Numbers and distribution of MSW spawners 12Predation 13Marine survival rates 14Catch & Release 15Role of hatchery rearing and stocking 16High seas fisheries 17Climate change (Biological effects) 18Climate change (Physical effects) 19Poaching/illegal fishing 20Flow regulation 21Abstraction 22Other pollution 23Impact of diseases and parasites 23Competition with other fish species 23


Page 11

In addition, members of the group were asked to give an estimate of costs versus benefits ofdealing with the issues on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being low benefit in relation to cost and 5being high benefit in relation to cost. The submissions and resulting ranking were as follows:

Factor MeanRanking

Catch & Release 1Access to spawning/nursery areas 2Acidification 3Compaction/siltation/loss of spawning gravels 3Pesticides 5Commercial fisheries in the Severn Estuary 5Rod fishery, particularly re MSW salmon 5Predation 5Juvenile survival and recruitment. 9Irish drift net fishery 9Inappropriate management of riparian zone 9Numbers and distribution of MSW spawners 9Smolt production 13Eutrophication and other diffuse pollution 14Poaching/illegal fishing 15Role of hatchery rearing and stocking 16Flow regulation 16High seas fisheries 18Abstraction 18Other pollution 18Climate change 21Competition with other fish species 21Climate change 23Impact of diseases and parasites 23Marine survival rates 25

This methodology is to some extent subjective but represents the considered views of theinterest groups involved. These groups have varying levels of knowledge about differentfactors impacting on Wye salmon stocks and as such the tables above are intended to form thebasis for a consensus view on the priority issues which need to be addressed.

7. PROPOSED ACTIONS

The analyses from the previous section have been used as the basis for the proposed actionplan tables that follow. Some of the issues identified by the group as of lower priority, egabstraction, climate change and diseases, have not been included in the action tables. Someform part of the routine (‘day job’) work carried out by the Agency, others are consideredbeyond the scope that this 5-year plan can realistically influence. Examples of routine workinclude:! Water Quality monitoring and enforcement! Water Resources monitoring and enforcement! Consenting and permitting of activities regulated by EAW (eg abstractions, discharges,

land drainage works, fish movements)! Regulation and compliance assessment of licensed activities! Rod licence and fisheries byelaw enforcement! Fisheries investigation and monitoring programme! Biological investigation and monitoring programme! Incidence response (eg to fish kills)! Influencing key stakeholders in relation to fisheries and conservation issues (eg Forestry,

Conservation bodies, Local Authorities! Advisory service to fishery owners, clubs and anglers! Protection of fisheries interests through internal liaison on EAW operations (eg Flood

Defence works)


Page 12

Strategic issues relating to Climate Change, Marine Survival, Navigation, High SeasFisheries and Irish Drift Net Fisheries are discussed in appendix 2. Diffuse pollution isconsidered locally within the plan, but is also a strategic issue which is being addressednationally by the Agency.

The following tables show the actions proposed and the groups and organisations that willplay key roles in delivery of the plan. Although the Agency will lead the process, it isintended to utilise the expertise and resources of all of the partners in the most effective wayto achieve the desired outcome for all parties. Many of the actions are dependent on securingfunds to carry out the work. Funding will be sought from the partners and from externalsources where appropriate. Although the plan is aimed at improving salmon stocks, many ofthe actions will have much wider benefits for riverine habitats and the wildlife that dependson them.

To assist in prioritising the proposed actions in the plan, the Agency will undertake a moredetailed analysis of the benefits arising from completion of each action, which will be referredto the partner organisations for comment and advice. This will take place in 2003/04.


Page 13

Action Plan Summary Tables.COST (£K) AND TIMESCALE

ACTIONS 2003/2004

2004/2005

2005/2006

2006/2007

2007/2008

FUNDINGSOURCES [BOLD

TYPE- LEADORGANIZATION]

NOTE

ISSUE 1: Restricted access to spawning/nursery areasRiver MonnowOsbaston WeirEnvironmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) for fish pass.Feasibility and DesignConstruction of fish pass(Subject to EIA outcome).

5

10150

EAW1.1

River MonnowSkenfrith WeirBreach has been stabilised. Noplans for reconstruction

2

CADW1.2

River MonnowKentchurch WeirFeasibility and design of fishpassConstruction of fish pass

10

50

EAW1.3

River LuggHampton Court WeirEIA, design and feasibility forfish pass.Construct fish pass

10

80

EAW1.4

River LuggOther WeirsEIA, design and feasibility forfish passes.Secure fundingConstruct fish passes

20 20

2150 150

EAW 1.5

River ArrowMapping of obstructionsEIA, design and feasibility forfish passesConstruction of fish passes

2 220

150 100

WUFEAW

1.6

Llynfi DulasRemoval of Felinfach Weir 1

WUF/Owner1.7

River IthonConstruct fish pass channel atPenybont Weir

3Network Rail, EAW 1.8

Other riversUpper Wye Tributaries 5 2 2 WUF, EAW 1.9

1.1 There are substantial areas of potentially good salmon spawning and nursery areas in the Monnowcatchment upstream of Osbaston. It is Agency policy to consider the installation of fish passes on manmade structures in these circumstances. In doing so the Agency will consider all stakeholders’ interests.An Environmental Impact Assessment will be undertaken which will include an independent review ofthe interactions (and therefore potential damage) between salmon, trout and grayling.

1.2 Substantial bank protection and bed stabilisation works were completed in 2003. Any future plans forreconstruction of the weir would require the construction of a fish pass. There are no such plans atpresent.

1.3 River level and flow data will be gathered during the autumn migration period to ascertain if a fish passwould be required at this site to make upstream areas accessible to salmon. If appropriate, feasibilitydesign and construction of a fish pass will follow.


Page 14

1.4 There are substantial areas of potentially good salmon spawning and nursery areas in the Luggcatchment upstream of Hampton Court. The design and feasibility for installation of a fish pass on theweir has been completed along with a corresponding EIA. Construction of a pass is currently underway.

1.5 There are a number of weirs on the Lugg upstream of Hampton Court that restrict or delay the passageof salmon further upstream to potential spawning areas. These weirs have been identified and prioritisedand the Agency has instructed consultants to undertake the fish pass design and feasibility studies for 4of the lowermost weirs above Hampton Court. The Agency is actively seeking to secure a fundingpackage for the scheme by approaching a variety of potential sources.

1.6 WUF, in discussion with the Agency, is planning to undertake an assessment of obstructions on theArrow catchment similar to the exercise carried out on the Lugg by the Agency. This will identify thelocation of weirs and the extent of the obstructions to fish passage. Following this, ownership can beestablished and the weirs prioritised in terms of fish pass requirements whilst funding for theprogramme is sought.

1.7 Removal of weir undertaken by WUF in July 2003 following habitat improvement work and stockingwith salmon fry upstream in previous years. Funded through the pHish project.

1.8 Provision for fish passage has been included during reconstruction of bridge footings.

1.9 Obstacles at other sites will be investigated and made passable where appropriate. Obstacles at Crysan(South Dulas tributary) and Tyn y Maes (near Llangurig) will be dealt with in 2003/04.

Note: Prioritisation of fish pass construction has been done on the basis of the extent of spawning and nurseryareas being opened up. An opportunistic approach will also be adopted where appropriate (eg Hampton Court).

Osbaston Weir, River Monnow


Page 15

COST (£K) AND TIMESCALEACTIONS 2003/

20042004/2005

2005/2006

2006/2007

2007/2008



NOTE

ISSUE 2: Poor juvenile production because of unfavourable water quality.Eutrophication and otherdiffuse pollutionIdentify problem areas throughWater Quality modelling.Review after 5 years.

75

√

EAW,CCW, EN,Welsh Water (AMP3,AMP4)

2.1

Identify problem areas throughPSYCHIC (nutrient cycling)projectDevelop and implement workplan in conjunction with 2.1

40

√ √ √ √

DEFRA/ EAW2.2

Produce costed plan forpromotion of environmentallyacceptable farming practices.(Wye Care)Implement plan

5

√ √ √ √

EAW/FWAG, EN,Wye Valley AONB 2.3

AcidificationHydrological source liming(pHish)

32 32 32 WUF, EAW, CCW,CEH, CardiffUniversity, withEuropean funding

2.4

Monitor success/benefits ofliming

25 25 25 Cardiff University &Museum, EAW, WUF,CEH, CCW

2.5

PesticidesSheep Treatment Best PracticeAwareness Campaign

40 EAW, FWAG 2.6

Targeted pollution preventionwork, focussed on sheep dip

25 25 25 25 25 EAW 2.7

2.1 Recent water quality modelling has been completed as part of the AMP3 process. Water qualityinvestigations on the Wye have identified 44 modelled stretches out 58 where diffuse pollution is thecause of RQO failures and failures to meet cSAC and SSSI requirements.

2.2 The PSYCHIC project has identified that the loadings of phosphorous and particulates are linked to theconcentration of these pollutants released in run-off and water flow through the catchment. The projecthas identified the distribution of high and low risk areas in the lower Wye, Lugg and Arrow catchments.

2.3 The developing Wye landcare collaborative project is aimed at addressing agricultural diffuse pollutionissues in the Wye catchment. It includes a demonstration farm project and vetting of agri-environmentscheme applications (Tir Gofal, Countryside Stewardship).

2.4 Funded by the pHish project. Liming of upland bogs in acidified areas of the catchment. Tarenig, Bidnoand parts of the Upper Wye will be treated in 2003 and the Irfon in 2004.

2.5 Funded through the pHish project. The Irfon will be monitored in 2003 prior to liming in 2004.

2.6 Mailshots and targeted farm visits will be undertaken aimed at raising environmental awareness.


Page 16

2.7 The Agency will continue with its rolling programme of sheep-dip related work. This will be driven bya number of different approaches:! A programme of compliance visits to farms with Groundwater Authorisations for the disposal of

sheep-dip.! An intelligence lead prioritised investigation of those dipping facilities that appear to represent a

risk to the environment.! Chemical and biological monitoring lead investigation of sub-catchments where there is non-

attributed poor biological quality or positive results for sheep dip chemicals reported from ourwater quality monitoring programme.

! An educational programme raising awareness of the impacts of poor practice particularly focussedon mobile dip contractors.

! Investigating reports of incidents.

When appropriate, the Agency will instigate enforcement action and seek to publicise the results toassist in the educational programme.

Investigations into the misuse of arable pesticides for sheep dipping will also be undertaken.

Poor farming practice


Page 17


20042004/2005

2005/2006

2006/2007

2007/2008



NOTE

ISSUE 3: Poor juvenile production because of physical habitat degradationCompaction/siltation/loss ofspawning gravelsProduce catchment status reportto assist targeting of habitatimprovement work.Interpret and implementrecommendations from report

10 10

√ √ √ √

EAW 3.1

Improve juvenile salmonidhabitat in upper reaches

15 15 15 TBC TBC pHishWith European funding 3.2

Investigate sources of siltationand impacts on survival ofsalmon embryos in R. Arrowand R. Ithon

30 10 10 EAW/GloucesterUniversity 3.3

Reduce damage to spawningareas caused by unauthorisedgravel extraction or anti-erosionworks

4 2 2 2 2 EAW, WUF, CCW,EN

3.4

Riparian zone managementFencing and coppicing of Wyetributaries to create bufferzonesReview other opportunities inEnglish part of catchment

130 130 130 TBC

√

TBC

√

pHishWith European funding

EAW, EN, WUF

3.5

Pursue collaborative riparianhabitat improvement schemeswith Forest Enterprise

√ √WUF, EAW, CCW,Forest Enterprise 3.6

3.1 Review extent of habitat degradation. Undertake vulnerability mapping. Agree high priority tributariesfor improvement work.

3.2 Led by WUF, plus additional opportunities (eg Lugg and Arrow) identified in 3.1, including targetedgravel raking if appropriate.

3.3 The project involves substrate sampling at identified spawning/juvenile habitat areas with sedimentanalysis. It aims to quantify sediment quality and habitat degradation and provide a risk assessmentmapping study of habitat to siltation. The Arrow and Ithon are included at this initial stage as these havebeen identified in associated projects as high risk in terms of siltation and key areas of importance(Arrow) but degraded in terms of salmon spawning and juvenile recruitment (Ithon).

3.4 Through enforcement and education campaigns, including production and distribution of an advisoryleaflet. Such works may constitute an offence under Section 2(4) of the Salmon & Freshwater FisheriesAct 1975 and a Potentially Damaging Operation (PDO) under SSSI legislation. Works on designatedMain River also require Land Drainage consent from EAW and authorisation from CCW or EN.

3.5 Funded through pHish project. EAW contributing £40K per year, CCW £20K, Forestry Commission£10K. Further ‘in kind’ contributions are also being made by each organisation (eg staff costs).

3.6 Forest Enterprise may help to fund habitat improvement work on rivers in forested areas.


Page 18


20042004/2005

2005/2006

2006/2007

2007/2008



NOTE

ISSUE 4: Reduced survival of juvenile salmon because of predation by birdsDevelop a co-ordinatedapproach for the control ofavian predation in the WyeCatchment (WyeMAG)

Implement above process.

5

√ √ √ √

WSFOAEAW, CCW, EN,Gillies Association,WAG, DEFRA

4.1

4.1 WyeMAG are proposing a co-ordinated ‘whole river system’ approach to reduce avian predation on theRiver Wye, rather than the present system of individual licence applications. The aim is to provide astructured scaring programme supported by the licensed shooting of an agreed number of birds alongsections of the river at appropriate times throughout the year.

Predation on fish by birds is an issue that concerns many fishery owners and anglers. Fish-eating birdscan cause serious damage to certain fisheries, though this can be difficult to demonstrate, particularly onrivers. A range of measures can be employed to reduce the impact of predation by birds, though theireffect will vary from one site to another. One measure, shooting to kill, must be licensed by the DEFRAor the Welsh Assembly Government; this is only permitted as part of a pre-determined programme ofscaring. The Salmon & Freshwater Fisheries Review made a range of recommendations on birdpredation, which the Agency supports.

• Where there is clear evidence of serious damage to fisheries, we support the control of birdpredation on a case by case basis, including where necessary, shooting to kill within the legislation.

• We will support the changes in the legislation recommended by the Salmon and FreshwaterFisheries Review.

• We will advise fisheries interests on management measures to control predation.• We will support further research into more effective ways of preventing serious damage to

fisheries.

Advice on Cormorants


Page 19


20042004/2005

2005/2006

2006/2007

2007/2008



NOTE

ISSUE 5: Improve knowledge of salmon stocks and population dynamics to better target improvement WorkJuvenile survival andrecruitmentInterpret factors that impact onsurvival of salmon embryos inthe River Ithon. (Links to issue 3.1)Implement recommendations

40

√

SouthamptonUniversity/EAWFunded by DEFRA

5.1

Analyse juvenile salmonidpopulation data to contribute tovulnerability mapping project(Links to issue 3.1)

2 2EAW

5.2

Assess success of improvementwork (See issues 1, 2 and 3)

10 10 10 10 10 EAW, WUF 5.3

Adult runsInterpret data from Redbrookcounter for future (EDT)compliance assessment.Produce annual compliancereport.

2

1

2

1 1 1 1

EAW5.4

Review Egg Deposition Target(EDT) as better stock andexploitation data becomeavailable and as new areas areopened up for spawning.

2 1 1 1 1EAW

5.5

Numbers and distribution ofMSW spawnersCompile and interpret data onspawning distribution. Link withhabitat improvement plans.

5EAW

5.6

5.1 Continuation of combined egg/juvenile survival and siltation assessment study on the Ithon and othercatchments in England. Investigation is currently in year 2. It is anticipated that once the techniques arerefined they can be applied to other parts of the Wye catchment as part of a wider siltation investigation.This work will identify areas of concern that require action under the guise of the Wyecare project.

5.2 Use juvenile monitoring in conjunction with the siltation assessment work to identify issues and areasfor remedial work.

5.3 Undertake investigative surveys over and above the baseline monitoring programme to determine iftargeted improvement work has been effective. In-kind costs attributed to the pHish project andsubsequent costs.

5.4 With the counter at Redbrook being operational for a number of years, there is the opportunity to usethe data to reassess compliance with the Egg Deposition Target (EDT). Given the changes in rod catcheffort and introduction of byelaws this may provide a more reliable compliance estimate. In future,catch based data will be used primarily for trend analysis. Counter data will be used for EDT analysis.

5.5 The EDT can be reassessed as habitat improvements are undertaken and previously unproductive areasof the catchment can potentially be used for spawning and juvenile recruitment.

5.6 Qualitatively assess spawning distribution and spawning intensity using redd counts as appropriate.Assess historical redd count data to establish the existence of tributaries favoured by spring salmon.


Page 20


20042004/2005

2005/2006

2006/2007

2007/2008



NOTE

ISSUE 6: Over-exploitation of adult salmon stocks (particularly spring running, MSW fish).Commercial fisheries in theSevern EstuaryIntroduce byelaw for permanentclosure of Usk Drift Nets

√ EAW6.1

Seek permanent closure ofGoldcliff putcher rank

√ √ EAW6.2

Seek permanent closure ofLydney Park putcher rank

√ √ EA Midlands6.3

Cap exploitation of otherfisheries to current operatinglevels

√ EA/EAW6.4

Review Heritage Fisheries vMixed Stock Policy andpromote heritage whereappropriate

20 EA/EAW6.5

Rod fisheriesIntroduce additional Wyebyelaws to protect salmonstocks

√EAW 6.6

Promote Catch & Release ofsalmon throughout the season.

Monitor uptake of this initiativewith review after 3 years.

6

√

6

√

6

√

WUF, EAW, EN,CCW

6.7

Review need for furthermeasures to reduce exploitation

√ EAW 6.8

Undertake mid-term review of1999 National byelaws

√ √ EAW 6.9

Review new Wye byelaws (see6.6 above).

√ EAW 6.10

Illegal fishing/poachingContinue targeted high impactenforcement work.

√ √ √ √ √ EAW 6.11

High Seas and Irish Drift NetfisheriesContinue to lobby for reductionin marine exploitation.

√ √ √ √ √ NASCO, ICES, NASF,WAG, DEFRA, EAW,WUF

6.12

6.1 The Usk drift net fishery is subject to a reducing (zero) Net Limitation Order. The fishery currently hasno preference licence holders and therefore, for the remainder of the period covered by the existingNLO (to November 2007), no net licences are available for issue. The permanent closure of the fisheryis being sought as part of an ongoing byelaw review on the grounds that the fishery exploits mixedstocks of salmon. Following advice from ICES to NASCO, Agency policy and Welsh AssemblyGovernment direction recommends that such fisheries be phased out and closed at the earliestopportunity.

6.2 On the grounds of size of catch, location near to the River Wye and exploitation of mixed stocks ofsalmon.


Page 21

6.3 On the grounds of size of catch, location near to the River Wye and exploitation of mixed stocks ofsalmon.

6.4 To restrict exploitation at the current relatively low levels.

6.5 Some of the Severn Estuary fisheries use unique methods, have been in existence for many years andmay therefore have a significant cultural or heritage value. This is particularly relevant to the BlackRock Lave Net fishery, which is small and has a minimal impact on salmon stocks. A formal R&Dproject will be used to examine this issue.

6.6 New byelaws introduced in September 2003 will delay the opening of the salmon rod season to 3March, will ban all bait fishing, but will allow spinning from 3 March to 30 April.

6.7 Current byelaws require the return of all rod caught salmon before 16 June. WUF will be leading a newCatch & Release initiative aimed at encouraging anglers to release salmon caught after this date as aconservation measure to increase the spawning stock. Anglers who return fish will be offered asweatshirt embroidered with a ‘Saving Wye Salmon’ motif. EAW, EN and CCW will be contributingfunds in support of the project. Aim for 75% return of fish during the voluntary period by 2006.

6.8 Further statutory measures may be required if stocks remain below conservation limits.

6.9 The 1999 National Byelaws aimed at reducing the exploitation of spring salmon are being reviewed in2003/04. A review paper went to EAW FERAC in July 2003 following a survey of representativesamples of anglers, ghillies/keepers and Agency fisheries staff. Details of the survey will be publishedon the Agency’s web site. The paper will also go for comment to National Federation of Fishermen’sOrganisations, the Moran Committee, CCW, EN, DEFRA and WAG.

6.10 A requirement for this review is specified in the byelaws.

6.11 Includes both the estuary and river, with particular emphasis on protecting salmon during the spawningperiod. Subject to current Agency review of this activity.

6.12 Details of the current status of marine salmon fisheries are included in appendix 2

Release of rod-caught salmon.


Page 22


20042004/2005

2005/2006

2006/2007

2007/2008



NOTE

ISSUE 7: Role of hatchery rearing and stockingInterpret implications for theWye of the Agency’s newnational salmon stocking policy

1 EAW 7.1

Develop and implementstocking plan for the Wye

10 5 5 5 5 EAW/WUF/WSFOA 7.2

Continue operation ofPainscastle salmon hatchery

20 15 15 15 15 WUF7.3

7.1 National policy due for publication in 2003/04

EAW currently supports stocking as one possible means of stock restoration in the followingcircumstances:a) for mitigation of lost spawning/nursery areas (eg above impassable dams)b) for rehabilitation of damaged spawning/nursery areas (eg through acidification, siltation)c) for ‘kick starting’ the re-colonisation of areas opened up by fish passes or removal of obstaclesd) for replacing pollution losses.In determining its future policy for the Wye, EAW will undertake an appropriate assessment of theneed, impacts and effectiveness of a stocking programme. This will include an assessment of thegenetic implications of stocking.

7.2 EAW, in partnership with WUF and WSFOA, will develop a long-term resourcing plan to undertakeagreed stocking programmes. This will include a review of the hatchery sites at Painscastle andClywedog (Midlands) and resolution of broodstock acquisition issues. Use of reared on parr or smoltsas broodstock and the provision of trapping facilities at future fish passes will be evaluated. Support forcurrent broodstock collection will continue. The Agency will not currently support the operation ofGreenbottom as a salmon hatchery. Nor will the Agency support enhancement stocking, stocking withnon-local fish or stocking above natural impassable obstacles.

7.3 Funded by the pHish project.

Clywedog Salmon Hatchery


Page 23

8. MANAGEMENT OF THE PLAN

The Environment Agency will be responsible, with other identified organisations andindividuals for implementing the Action Plan. Progress will be monitored and reportedannually by means of a review document that will be publicly available.The review document will comprise the following information:

• A detailed comparison of actual progress against planned progress.• Additional actions to maintain progress in the light of changes in the catchment.

A Regional and a National Salmon Action Plan summary report will be produced each yearand will include information on the status of the salmon stocks in the rivers, and progressagainst the plans.


Page 24

9. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

ACA Anglers Conservation AssociationAMP3, AMP4 Water Company Asset Management Plans for 2000- 2005 and 2005 –

2010AONB Area of Outstanding Natural BeautyCADW Welsh Historic Monument Executive AgencyCCW Countryside Council for WalesCEH Centre for Ecology and HydrologyCLA Country Landowners AssociationDEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsEAW Environment Agency WalesEDT Egg Deposition TargetFERAC Fisheries, Ecology and Recreation CommitteeFWAG Farming and Wildlife Advisory GroupGIS Geographical Information SystemsICES International Council for the Exploration of the SeaINCA P Integrated Catchments model of Phosphorus dynamicsMSW Multi-Sea-Winter (salmon that have spent more than one winter at sea

before returning to freshwater)NASCO North Atlantic Salmon Conservation OrganisationNASF North Atlantic Salmon FundNLO Net Limitation OrderpHish Powys Habitat Improvement SchemePSYCHIC Phosphorus and Sediment Yield Characterisation in CatchmentsRQO River Quality ObjectivecSAC (SAC) Candidate Special Area of ConservationSAP Salmon Action PlanSIMCAT Simulated Catchment ModelSSSI Site of Special Scientific InterestUDN Ulcerative Dermal NecrosisWAG Welsh Assembly GovernmentWHIP Wye Habitat Improvement ProjectWSFOA Wye Salmon Fishery Owners AssociationWUF Wye and Usk FoundationWyeMAG Wye Management Advisory Group


Page 25

APPENDIX 1

The following tables were used to analyse the relative importance of the main factors limitingsalmon stocks in the River Wye

ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITINGFACTORSFactor Comments Confidence Impact Benefit Score Cost

/BenefitIMPACTS ON PHYSICALHABITATAccess to spawning/nursery areas Monnow, Lugg, othersAbstraction Impacts in nursery areas

Flow regulation Upper and lower river

Compaction/siltation/loss of spawninggravels

Farming practices, land usechange, gravel extraction

Inappropriate management of riparianzone

Role of fencing, coppicing etcto counteract impacts

Climate change Temperatures and river flowsIMPACTS ON CHEMICALHABITATAcidification Upper reachesPesticides Sheep dipsEutrophication and other diffusepollution

Resulting in siltation ofspawning gravels

Other pollution

FISHERIES LIMITING FACTORSFactor Comments Confidence Impact Benefit Score Cost

/BenefitSPAWNING AND RECRUITMENTNumbers and distribution of MSWspawners

Better understanding /targeting of improvements

Juvenile survival and recruitment. Better understanding /targeting of improvements

Smolt production Better understanding /targeting of improvements

Role of hatchery rearing and stocking Greenbottom, PainscastleEXPLOITATION ISSUESHigh seas fisheries Greenland, FaroesIrish drift net fisheryCommercial fisheries in the SevernEstuary

Severn Estuary SAP

Rod fishery, particularly in relation toMSW salmon

Byelaws

Catch & Release Promotional campaignPoaching/illegal fishingBIOLOGICAL LIMITINGFACTORSFactor Comments Confidence Impact Benefit Score Cost

/BenefitMarine survival rates

Competition with other fish species salmonids, coarse fish

Predation Birds, fish, mammals

Impact of diseases and parasites Past (UDN) and present

Climate change River and sea temperatures


Page 26

SCORINGVarious factors which may affect the salmon fishery are evaluated by a weighted scoring system which attributesnumerical values to each factor in three categories: confidence in assessment, impact rating and potential benefit onresolution. The final score is the mathematical product of the three categories.

Possible scores for each category are:

Confidence in assessment (do you really know this and is it a quantified factor?)

5 certain3 highly likely2 probable1 don't know

Impact rating (NB this refers to impact at any scale, eg waterfall may be major impact, but only apply to a smallarea – this is catered for in the benefit score)

10 major effect, resolution feasible now8 major actual, but long term (>3yrs) and cross regional issue6 major potential impact, requiring long term investigation/action6 medium impact, resolvable in medium term (<3yrs)4 medium potential impact, but requiring long term solution or further investigation2 low impact, but solvable1 low impact with no solution apparent

Potential benefit (NB here, this is intended in terms of fishery/stock benefits)

5 large benefits re total catchment3 medium benefit2 small but measurable benefit1 very small but theoretical benefit

The actual weighted impact score for any particular factor can be anywhere between a maximum of 5x10x5 = 250and a minimum of 1x1x1 = 1, allowing a grading of potential impacts and prioritisation of possible responsiveactions.

Cost/Benefit Ratio (in monetary terms)The final column gives an indication of costs v benefits on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being low benefit in relationto cost and 5 being high benefit in relation to cost.


Page 27

APPENDIX 2

Climate change is considered to be an issue beyond the remit of this plan. However, it isimportant to recognise that the impact of climate change will constrain the success of actionsidentified in this plan and is one of the major environmental challenges facing society ingeneral. Latest global climate assessments predict that there will be an increase in variabilityand in extreme events such as heat waves and heavy rainfall. Predictions show that by 2080,temperatures in the UK could increase between 2 and 3.5 degrees but as much as by 5º insouth east England under a high emissions scenario. Summer rainfall could decline by 10-50% and winter rainfall increase by 10-30% depending on greenhouse gas emissions. Achanged climate will generally bring wetter winters, drier summers in the Southeast and moreextreme events of flooding and drought. These predictions have considerable implications forsalmon survival. For example changes in flow patterns can alter run timing. Extreme floodevents can cause increased run off leading to siltation and/or gravel mobility and wash out ofredds. Higher temperatures have implications for time of fry emergence and for growth. Parrwill grow quicker and smolt earlier. Altered ocean temperatures have implications formigration speeds, feeding success and vulnerability to predation.

Marine survival has decreased greatly in recent years with mortality rates currently twice ashigh as in the 1970s. Many factors may affect marine mortality including environmentalchanges, diseases and parasites, predation, pollution, competition, availability of food,exploitation (including by-catch in fisheries for other species) and freshwater factors whichsubsequently influence survival in the ocean. These factors, operating alone or incombination, may affect mortality and life history responses such as age at maturity. NASCOhas recently established an International Co-operative Salmon Research programme to furtherunderstanding of the factors affecting salmon at sea.

Marine survival of salmon depends on both natural mortality and marine fisheries. Marinefisheries targeted at salmon have declined markedly in recent years. Poor marine survival isthought to be due primarily to increased natural mortality.

Changes in ocean climate are considered to be a factor in determining natural mortality butthe exact mechanism is not clearly understood. There is some evidence emerging that seatemperatures affect migration speeds and routes and can affect the extent to which migratingsalmon are killed by predators, as well as having more indirect effects on food availability.The abundance at sea of salmon which would return as multi sea winter fish is related to theavailability of ocean at temperatures preferred by salmon (6-8°C). The amount of suchsuitable thermal habitat was lower in the 1980s and 1990s than during the 1970s. Whilemarine conditions for salmon have shown some improvement in recent years - in terms ofmore sea area with optimum temperatures - it appears that the expected response from thestocks to this increase has been slow or has not yet occurred.

The marine phase of the life cycle of a salmon is largely outside of the control of theEnvironment Agency. NASCO has set up the International Atlantic Salmon Research Boardto investigate, and if possible counteract the causes of marine mortality.

NavigationEA Wales became the Navigation Authority for the Rivers Wye and Lugg in December 2002(Wye Navigation Order 2002). Wye Navigation Byelaws are planned for enactment in 2003.These byelaws will provide useful support for the management of the competing demands of


Page 28

river users whilst protecting the natural features and habitats of the river system, pending thedevelopment of the first Wye Navigation Plan. The Agency will consult on this plan and onits navigation responsibilities with a statutory Wye Navigation Advisory Committee which isin the process of being set up. This committee will have an independent chairman andrepresentatives from 21 interest groups including the Wye Salmon Fishery OwnersAssociation, the Salmon & Trout Association and the National Federation of Anglers.Management of the navigation will have due regard to the status of the River Wye as acandidate Special Area for Conservation (cSAC). Salmon are one of the species cited in theSAC designation and as such will be afforded particular protection in any plan for the river.

Greenland FisheryThere has been a net fishery on the West Coast of Greenland since the 1960s. Catches peakedin 1971 at 2689 tonnes. The importance of the West Greenland fishery is that it exploits onlysalmon that would have returned to Europe or North America as multi-sea winter fish.

Since 1976, only Greenlandic vessels fish this area and since 1984 a quota agreed at NASCOhas usually limited the catch. Prior to negotiated quotas, the exploitation rate on the multi-seawinter component of English and Welsh stocks was estimated to be in the region of 10-20%.Quota reductions have been significant since the late 1980s and as a result of this and buyouts in 1993 and 1994, exploitation of potential multi-sea winter fish is believed to have fallento very low levels. Between 1998 and 2000, the allowable catch was limited to internalconsumption only, estimated at 20 tonnes. In 2001 the allowed quota was 114 tonnes,although the total recorded catch was only 34.5 tonnes with an additional 8 tonnes of “privatesales”.

However, in August 2002, commercial fishermen in West Greenland signed a five-yearagreement with the North Atlantic Salmon Fund (NASF) suspending all commercial salmonfishing and allowing only an annual subsistence harvest.

Current levels of exploitation of English and Welsh multi-sea winter salmon by this fisheryare therefore at very low levels.

Faroes FisheryAlso developed in the 1960s, this fishery uses long–lines and exploits both grilse and multi-sea winter salmon of mainly northern European (Scandinavia, especially Norway, Scotlandand Russia) origin. The catch peaked at 1027 tonnes in 1981. Between 1991 and 1998, theFaroes quota agreed at NASCO was bought out by the North Atlantic Salmon Fund (NASF),although the Faroes Government continued sampling through a research fishery within the200 mile economic zone taking up to 23 tonnes per year.

Prior to these buyouts, tag recoveries indicated that exploitation of salmon of English orWelsh origin was very low, perhaps 1%.

In 1999 no fishing occurred (although a quota was set by NASCO), but in 2000 one vesselfished 8 tonnes. Since 2000, no quota has been set by NASCO. Instead, the FaroesGovernment is managing the fishery in a precautionary manner and with a view tosustainability. There were no reported landings in 2001 or the spring of 2002.

Currently, exploitation of salmon originating from England and Wales has been negligible forsome years.


Page 29

Ireland FisheryThe reported catch of salmon in Ireland increased from about 700 tonnes in the 1960s to apeak of over 2000 tonnes in the mid 1970s. This coincided with the expansion of a coastaldrift net fishery. In 1997, new regulations were introduced to restrict fishing to 4 days a weekduring daylight hours within 6 miles of the coast and cutting the season to 2 months (June andJuly).

Tagging studies indicated that, prior to these regulations, the Irish drift nets took a significantthough variable proportion of the stock destined for Welsh and English rivers. Exploitationrates for North East England stocks were low (~1%) but higher (~5-10 %) for rivers in theNorth West and Wales and perhaps 10-20% for rivers on the south coast of England.

More recent unpublished data suggests that levels of exploitation have been significantlyreduced (believed to be by at least 50%) following the introduction of management measuresin Ireland in 1997.

Commercial salmon quotas operated within the 17 Fishery Districts in Ireland during 2002and the total annual quota was a 7% decrease on the number of salmon caught in 2001 bynetsmen. A further 17% reduction has been imposed in 2003. Further cuts are likely unlessIrish stock abundance increases. The impact of the Irish drift net fishery on SouthernEuropean salmon stocks, including those of England and Wales, remains a source of concernand has been raised with the Irish Government. There have also been private complaints to theEuropean Commission about the fishery’s impact on salmon stocks in those rivers which aredesignated as Special Areas of Conservation.

International FisheryAn unregulated high seas fishery has, at least in the past, operated in international waters byships flagged to countries that are not signatories to the NASCO convention. In 1995, annualcatches were thought to have been 25 to 100 tonnes, comprising predominantly Europeanstocks. Diplomatic efforts by NASCO were made to restrict these catches. There is noevidence that this fishery still operates, although surveillance has been limited.

Other home water fisheriesFew tags of English and Welsh origin have been returned from home water fisheries inNorthern Ireland and Scotland. The exploitation rates of English and Welsh salmon in thesefisheries have not been estimated but are thought to be low.

Impact of fisheries for other speciesThe potential catch of salmon post smolts in marine fisheries (including those for sandeelsand mackerel) continues to be a matter of concern. Information provided by ICES to NASCO,based on results of special fishing experiments for post smolts conducted in the Norwegiansea, indicates that by-catches of salmon in the mackerel fishery could potentially be large andare a concern. The Council has referred the question of whether this fishery poses a threat tosalmon stocks to the Board of the International Co-operative Salmon Research Programme.

Documents

RIVER WYE SALMON ACTION PLAN October 2003webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http:...Wye Salmon Action Plan Review Page 4 Fig 1 Salmon catches by rods over time The net