SNH Commissioned Report 55: Electro-fishing survey in ... survey in selected tributaries of the River Teith candidate ... Ammocoetes were examined and identified as either Lampetra

C O M M I S S I O N E D R E P O R T

For further information on this report please contact:

Helen DohertyScottish Natural HeritageBallochyleSandbankDUNOONPA23 8RDTelephone: 01369 705377E-mail: [email protected]

This report should be quoted as:

Bull, C. (2004). Electro-fishing survey in selected tributaries of the River Teith candidate Special Area of Conservation. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 055(ROAME No. F03LG04).

This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of Scottish Natural Heritage.This permission will not be withheld unreasonably. The views expressed by the author(s) of this report shouldnot be taken as the views and policies of Scottish Natural Heritage.

© Scottish Natural Heritage 2004.

Commissioned Report No. 055

Electro-fishing survey in selectedtributaries of the River Teith candidate

Special Area of Conservation(ROAME No. F03LG04)

Background

An electric fishing survey for the presence and abundance of lamprey ammocoetes (Lampetra planeri, L. fluviatilis and Petromyzon marinus) and juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) was conducted in namedtributaries of the River Teith candidate Special Area of Conservation during October 2003. This survey wasdesigned to increase current knowledge of the fish fauna in these tributaries and to complement the recentfish survey data made available to Scottish Natural Heritage by the Forth Fisheries Foundation.

A total of 37 sites were identified for lamprey survey, but no suitable lamprey habitat was found at 12 predetermined survey stretches. Therefore, lamprey surveys were conducted at 25 of the potential surveysites. Salmon habitat was found, and surveys conducted, at all 17 predetermined stretches. Where lampreyhabitat was optimal, quantitative sampling was undertaken within a 1m2 quadrat. Where lamprey habitatwas sub-optimal, or where the quadrat could not be used, semi-quantitative sampling was used over ameasured area. Ammocoetes were examined and identified as either Lampetra spp. or P. marinus.Transformers were identified as L. planeri, L. fluviatilis or P. marinus. Salmon were surveyed for 15 minutesin the most suitable areas of habitat across a varied area at each predetermined site. All fish encounteredwere retained and examined under anaesthesia.

Main findings

● A total of 728 Lampetra spp. ammocoetes and 27 transformers were recorded. Optimal lamprey habitatwas found at nine sites. L. planeri transformers were found at nine sites and one L. fluviatilis transformerwas identified at the Blair Drummond Lade site. No P. marinus ammocoetes or transformers wereencountered.

● A total of 553 Altantic salmon and 512 trout were sampled. Salmon were not present at four sites(Immerion, Greenock, Milton and Drunkie Burns) but where they were present, they were found over awide range of abundance, reaching a maximum of 7.33 per minute sampling at the Leny Burn. Salmonand trout fry were most abundant and trout were encountered at every site surveyed.

● Minnows (Phoxinus phoxinus) were found at six sites and eels (Anguilla anguilla) at one.

Electro-fishing survey in selected tributaries of the

River Teith candidate Special Area of Conservation

Commissioned Report No. 055 (ROAME No. F03LG04)Contractor: Forth Fisheries Foundation

C O M M I S S I O N E D R E P O R T

Summary

For further information on this project contact:Helen Doherty, Scottish Natural Heritage, Ballochyle, Sandbank, Dunoon, Argyll PA23 8RD.

Tel: 01369-705377

For further information on the SNH Research & Technical Support Programme contact:The Advisory Services Co-ordination Group, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2 Anderson Place, Edinburgh EH6 5NP.

Tel: 0131–446 2400 or [email protected]

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to SNH staff, particularly Helen Doherty, Paul Taylor and Colin Castle for their assistanceand advice during this project. Owners of all parts of the system sampled were co-operative and allowedsampling to take place and we wish to extend our thanks to all.

Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 055 (ROAME No. F03LG04)

Contents

Summar y

Acknowledgements

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 METHODS 22.1 Lamprey surveys 22.2 Salmon survey 22.3 Data analysis 3

3 RESULTS 43.1 Lamprey survey 43.2 Salmon survey 7

4 DISCUSSION 114.1 Lamprey survey 114.2 Salmon survey 13

REFERENCES 25

Appendix 1 Site photographs 26

Appendix 2 Field recording sheets for lamprey and 39salmon sur vey sites

Appendix 3 Length frequency distributions for Lampetra 129ammocoetes and transformers from ever y site

Appendix 4 Length frequency distributions for salmon 136and trout from ever y site


List of f iguresFigure 1 Length frequencies for Lampetra ammocoetes and transformers 23

from all sites combinedFigure 2 Length frequencies from salmon and trout for all sites 24

List of tablesTable 1 Watercourses where no suitable lamprey ammocoetes habitat 15

was foundTable 2 Details, location and sampling technique used at lamprey 16

survey sitesTable 3 Habitat characteristics of the lamprey sites sampled 17Table 4 Total numbers, Zippin estimates and minimum density 18

estimates (per m2) for all Lampetra, Lampetra ammocoetes and transformers

Table 5 Zippin density estimates for ammocoetes and transformers 19sampled from each quadrat (Q) at full quantitative sites

Table 6 Catch per unit effort (CPUE) expressed as fish per minute 19sampling for those sites where semi-quantitative sampling was undertaken

Table 7 Summary of fish species encountered at salmon sampling sites 20Table 8 Details and location of salmon survey sites 21Table 9 Total numbers of salmon and trout fry (underyearling) and parr 22

(1+ year and older) encountered


1

1 INTRODUCTION

The River Teith is a candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) for brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri),river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis), sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).Whilst the lamprey populations in the main River Teith have been surveyed previously, no survey informationexists for lampreys in several tributary areas of the cSAC, and only limited data is available for Atlanticsalmon. The purpose of this project was to provide information on the distribution of lampreys and Atlanticsalmon by conducting an electric fishing survey in selected areas where there is no contemporary data.


2 METHODS

Written or verbal permissions were obtained from the relevant owners of the river stretches identified forsurveying. Upon arrival at the predetermined stretch, one surveyor moved upstream and one downstream inorder to locate suitable lamprey and salmon habitat. Normally, suitable habitats were found close thenearest road crossing or access point, but on occasion, isolated areas of suitable lamprey habitat werelocated several hundred metres from the vehicular access point. Where no suitable lamprey habitat wasfound, surveying was not attempted.

2.1 Lamprey sur veys

Lamprey habitat suitability was assessed first visually and then by investigating the depth of the sediment withthe handle of a handnet. Where optimal lamprey habitat was present (defined as stable fine sediment orsand ≥15cm deep, low water velocity and the presence of organic detritus), a 1m2 quadrat frame withmosquito netting sides was assembled and positioned on the most downstream extent of habitat. Full quantitative electric fishing was undertaken using the protocol set out in Harvey & Cowx (2002). Surveyswere conducted using three quadrats and therefore covering 3m2 of optimal habitat, moving in an upstreamdirection. Lampreys from each sampling run were retained in buckets and data recorded separately.

Where sub-optimal lamprey habitat was encountered or the use of the quadrat was prevented, surveyingwas undertaken in a semi-quantitative manner. This was done by determining the locations to be sampledand proceeding in an upstream direction by energising the anode for durations of 20 seconds followed by5 seconds off, over the patches of habitat. A note was taken of the number of minutes of sampling conductedand the area of habitat sampled was accurately measured.

Wherever possible, sampling for lampreys was undertaken using the maximum output of pulsed DC fromElectracatch bankside electric fishing equipment. Where difficult access prevented the use of this equipment,the pulsed DC output was supplied by Electracatch backpack equipment.

Following completion of sampling, all lampreys were transferred to anaesthetic (benzocaine) and examinedwith the aid of a magnifying lens and the identification key (Gardiner, 2003). Identification of theammocoetes was made to genus level and transformer stages were examined for external characteristics thatallow identification to species level. At each site the total number of lamprey ammocoetes and transformersand the total length of each individual lamprey was recorded (to the nearest mm).

In addition to the information on the lampreys, data on the physical characteristics of each site wererecorded.

2.2 Salmon sur veys

Suitable salmon habitat was located and sampling was undertaken at each of the predetermined reachesby conducting electric fishing using pulsed DC from Electracatch backpack equipment. The two operatorsproceeded to sample in suitable salmonid habitat in an upstream direction for a total of 15 minutes. During this time all fish that were encountered were removed with a banner net, retained and transferredevery 5 minutes to streamside buckets from the carrier slung over one operator’s shoulder. This technique

2


maintained sampling effort as near-constant as possible. All fish were identified and fork length measured(to the nearest mm) whilst under anaesthesia (benzocaine).

All fish encountered during the course of this survey were returned alive to the water following examinationand recovery from the anaesthetic.

2.3 Data analysis

Where full quantitative lamprey sampling was undertaken, an estimate of density was calculated using theZippin maximum likelihood method (Zippin, 1958). The results were individually calculated for each quadratand also for a combined sample where each quadrat run was summed with the other two and a Zippinestimate recalculated for this larger sample. Length frequency plots were produced from the data for lampreyammocoetes and transformer and for salmon and trout and used to ascertain age classes where this waspossible.

Each sample site has been recorded with a Unique Identifier (UID). Photographs of each site are presentedin Appendix 1. All survey data was recorded on field recording sheets, presented in Appendix 2.

3


3 RESULTS

3.1 Lamprey sur vey

Surveying was carried out at 25 sites out of the 37 pre-selected stream reaches. Site photographs areprovided in Appendix 1. No suitable lamprey habitat was present in 12 of these reaches, preventingsampling taking place (Table 1). Descriptions of the survey sites and lamprey details are presented in tables2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Length frequency distributions for total ammocoetes and transformers are provided inFigure 1 and for specific sites in Appendix 2.

3.1.1 Blair Drummond Lade UID 2003 L1

Lamprey habitat was abundant in this low gradient man-made channel. The presence of optimal lampreyhabitat allowed full quantitative sampling to be undertaken at this site. The highest density of Lampetraammocoetes and transformers were recorded at this site (67.2 and 2.79 per m2 respectively). The smallconfidence intervals around the Zippin density estimate for ammocoetes (6.0) indicated that it is a suitablevalue to use, although the large confidence intervals around the transformer estimate (6.49) in relation to thedensity figure would suggest that it be treated with caution and that the minimum estimate of 1.67 per m2

is more applicable here. One L. fluviatilis transformer was identified on the basis of body colouration andeye diameter, indicating that river and brook lampreys were present.

3.1.2 Ardoch Burn UID 2003 L2

Only a small patch of sub-optimal lamprey habitat was found to be present in the Ardoch Burn despiteinvestigation of approximately 2kms of the watercourse upstream and downstream from three separateaccess points within the designated reach. No lampreys were encountered during sampling.

3.1.3 Coilechat Burn UID 2003 L3

The only small patch of sub-optimal lamprey habitat found to be present was directly downstream from theA84 road bridge. No lampreys were encountered during sampling.

3.1.4 Keltie Water UID 2003 L4

Lamprey habitat was not encountered in the middle and upper reaches of the Keltie Water despiteinvestigation at a number of locations, but sub-optimal habitat was encountered in the lowermost reaches,enabling sampling. Reasonable densities of Lampetra ammocoetes were encountered (11.6 per m2) andthere appeared to be two distinct modal peaks in the length distribution of Lampetra ammocoetes at this site.Two very large ammocoetes were also encountered (176mm and 181mms) that were larger than anytransformers (recorded at a density of 1.2 per m2). All transformers sampled at this site were identified as L. planeri, suggesting that the ammocoete population consisted mostly of this species.

3.1.5 Greenock Burn UID 2003 L5

Small but isolated patches of sub-optimal lamprey habitat were distributed along the length of thiswatercourse. Sampling took place in three of these but no lampreys were encountered.

4


3.1.6 Ardchullarie Burn UID 2003 L6

A small number of isolated patches of sub-optimal lamprey habitat were found in this stream reach and avery low density of small Lampetra ammocoetes (1.33 per m2) and a single L. planeri transformer weresampled.

3.1.7 Calair Burn UID 2003 L7

Suitable lamprey habitat was found in patches in the lower reaches of the Calair Burn. Lampetra ammocoeteswere encountered at a density of 5.78 per m2 and no transformers were found.

3.1.8 Immeroin Burn UID 2003 L8

Two moderately large patches of sub-optimal lamprey habitat were sampled in the lowermost reaches of thisstream. No other habitat patches suitable for sampling were found in the first 500m. No lampreys wereencountered.

3.1.9 Kirkton Burn UID 2003 L9

Two small patches of sub-optimal lamprey habitat were sampled in the lowermost reaches of this stream. Noother habitat patches suitable for sampling were found between the confluence with the River Balvag andthe point where the gradient increases rapidly north of the village of Balquhidder. No lampreys wereencountered.

3.1.10 Monachyle Burn UID 2003 L10

A suitable sampling location was encountered in the lower reaches of this watercourse where gravelextraction had created a back eddy area where sediment had accumulated. There did not appear to beany other suitable lamprey habitat in this watercourse. Lampetra ammocoetes were encountered at lowdensity (2.2 per m2) and no transformers were encountered. The ammocoetes were all of approximately thesame length and therefore may belong to the same year class.

3.1.11 Alt Carnaig UID 2003 L11

The only suitable lamprey habitat was encountered at the very lowermost section of the Alt Carnaig whereriver engineering (probably gravel extraction) upstream appeared to have resulted in the deposition ofadditional sediment in back eddies where the gradient and flow was reduced. Low densities of ammocoetes(4.67 per m2) and just two L. planeri transformers were encountered in this sub-optimal habitat. Unlike thesituation in the neighbouring Monachyle site, the ammocoetes appeared to be from several yearclasses.

3.1.12 River Larig UID 2003 L12

Suitable lamprey habitat was found in the lowermost reaches of this watercourse but was absent throughoutextensive reaches further upstream. Low densities of Lampetra ammocoetes were encountered (6 per m2) andone L. planeri transformer was recorded. Ammocoetes appeared to show a bimodal length distributionsuggesting the existence of at least two year classes.

5


3.1.13 Inverlochlarig Burn UID 2003 L13

Only one suitable patch of lamprey habitat was found on this stream reach between the confluence and the

waterfall. Lampetra ammocoetes were present in low density (4.57 per m2) in this sub-optimal habitat and

no transformers were encountered. Ammocoetes appeared to show a bimodal length distribution suggesting

the existence of at least two year classes.

3.1.14 Eas Gobhain UID 2003 L14

Several patches of optimal lamprey habitat were encountered in this river stretch, enabling full quantitative

sampling to be undertaken. The resulting zippin density estimate of 38.64 per m2 should be treated

with caution on account of the large confidence interval (149.37). The minimum density estimate of

10.33 ammocoetes per m2 represents a moderate population density, of which there appeared to be no

very small individuals. L. planeri transformers were present at low density (1 per m2) suggesting that the

ammocoete population consisted largely of this species.

3.1.15 Loch Venachar UID 2003 L15

Abundant optimal lamprey habitat was identified on the shores of Loch Venachar as a result of the water

level being very low, exposing littoral sediments. However, high winds prevented the use of a quadrat

and the full quantitative sampling technique. High densities of Lampetra ammocoetes were encountered

(57 per m2) and the length frequency distribution would suggest the presence of multiple yearclasses.

L. planeri transformers were found to be present at low density (1.33 per m2) suggesting that the ammocoete

population consisted mostly of this species.

3.1.16 Milton Burn UID 2003 L16

Just one patch of sub-optimal lamprey habitat was encountered from 100m upstream of the road to the

confluence with Loch Venachar. Lampetra ammocoetes were found here in low density (4.67 per m2) and

the length frequency distribution suggested the presence of at least two year classes. No transformers were

encountered.

3.1.17 Drunkie Burn UID 2003 L17

Optimal lamprey habitat was found directly downstream from the road bridge but the slightly increased flows

associated with overnight rain prevented the use of the quadrat and the full quantitative sampling technique.

Low densities of Lampetra ammocoetes were encountered here (5.4 per m2) and the length distribution

suggested the presence of at least two year classes. L. planeri transformers were found to be present in low

density (0.8 per m2).

3.1.18 Loch Drunkie UID 2003 L18

Optimal lamprey habitat was encountered across a large length of the shoreline of the western edge of the

waterbody enabling full quantitative sampling. No lampreys were encountered.

6


3.1.19 Black Water UID 2003 L19

Sub-optimal lamprey habitat was encountered close to the confluence with the Finglas Water. Lampetraammocoetes were encountered at low density (2.6 per m2) and the length distribution suggested thepresence of at least two year classes. No transformers were encountered.

3.1.20 Finglas Water (River Turk) UID 2003 L20

Optimal lamprey habitat was encountered upstream from the roadbridge and full quantitative sampling wasundertaken. The resulting zippin density estimate of 47.76 per m2 should be treated with caution on accountof the large confidence interval of 51.84. The minimum density estimate for ammocoetes at this site was25.67 per m2. The length distribution suggested the presence of at least three year classes. One L. planeritransformer was encountered (density of 0.33 per m2) suggesting that the ammocoete population was madeup largely of this species.

3.1.21 Finglas Water (Glen Finglas Burn) UID 2003 L21

A small number of isolated sub-optimal lamprey habitat patches were found on this watercourse. Samplingat the largest of these failed to produce any lampreys.

3.1.22 Glen Finglas Reser voir UID 2003 L22

Optimal lamprey habitat was abundant as a result of the very low water level of the reservoir exposing littoralsediments. However, as with Loch Venachar, strong winds prevented the use of the quadrat and the fullquantitative sampling technique. Sampling failed to produce any lampreys.

3.1.23 Loch Achray UID 2003 L23

Optimal lamprey habitat was present along the south-western shoreline but strong winds prevented the useof the quadrat and the full quantitative sampling technique. Lampetra ammocoetes were encountered at verylow density (0.25 per m2) and their similarity in length would suggest that they were of the same age class.No transformers were found.

3.1.24 Achray Water UID 2003 L24

A suitable patch of sub-optimal lamprey habitat was encountered downstream from the roadbridge, andsampling revealed a moderate density of small Lampetra ammocoetes (10.5 per m2) whose lengthdistribution suggested that they were all of the same age class.

3.1.25 Glengyle Burn UID 2003 L25

A suitable large patch of optimal lamprey habitat was located downstream from the road crossing, enablinguse of the quadrat and the full quantitative technique. No lampreys were encountered.

3.2 Salmon sur vey

Sampling for Atlantic salmon took place at 17 sites in the Teith catchment. A total of 553 juvenile salmonwere sampled, occurring at 13 sites. Juvenile trout (Salmo trutta) were found to be present at every site,

7


minnows (Phoxinus phoxinus) at five and eel (Anguilla anguilla) at one (Table 7). Length frequencydistributions for all salmon and trout sampled are provided in Figure 2 and for each site in Appendix 3. Sitelocations and total numbers and catch-per-unit-effort data are provided in Tables 8 and 9.

3.2.1 Keltie Water UID 2003 S1

Juvenile salmon habitat was plentiful throughout the stream reach. Two year classes of salmon (fry and

1+ year old parr) were encountered at high densities, with the CPUE for total salmon and salmon fry being

the second highest encountered (6.93 and 5.40 fish per minute sampling respectively). Salmon parr CPUE

was the highest encountered (1.53 fish per minute sampling). Small numbers of trout fry were also present

(0.53 fish per minute sampling) but no older trout were found.

3.2.2 Sruth Geal UID 2003 S2

Two year classes of salmon (fry and 1+ year old parr) were encountered. The CPUE for total salmon was

the fourth highest at 3.67 fish per minute. Salmon fry were moderately abundant and parr were present in

good numbers (2.40 and 1.27 fish per minute sampling respectively). Two year classes of trout were also

present in good numbers (2.67 and 0.73 fish per minute sampling respectively).

3.2.3 Greenock Burn UID 2003 S3

Salmon habitat was abundant but no salmon were encountered. Juvenile trout were encountered at the

highest CPUE (8.8 fish per minute) of any sampling location. These were mostly fry (7.93 fish per minute

sampling) and the length distribution would suggest the presence of two year classes of trout.

3.2.4 Leny Burn UID 2003 S4

Suitable salmon habitat was abundant throughout this stream reach despite the obviously straightened

channel. Two year classes of salmon were encountered (fry and 1+ year old parr) at the highest total CPUE

of 7.33 fish per minute sampling. Salmon fry dominated the fish population (6.4 fish per minute sampling)

although good numbers of salmon parr were present (0.93 fish per minute sampling). Trout were also

encountered but were less abundant than salmon with a total CPUE of 1.80 fish per minute sampling.

Minnows were also present.

3.2.5 Ardchullarie Burn UID 2003 S5

Suitable salmon habitat was abundant in the stream reach between the A84 road crossing and the

confluence with Loch Lubnaig. Salmon fry and 1+ year old parr were encountered in low numbers

(0.20 and 0.40 fish per minute sampling respectively). The higher incidence of older salmon parr than fry

is not a normal situation and suggests that either egg deposition or fry survival from the 2002 winter was

reduced. The presence of a concrete weir and bridge apron at the road crossing was cause for concern as

this structure would present an impassable barrier to migrating salmon. A more typical population structure

was displayed by the trout in this stream, with fry numbers higher than older 1+ and 2+ year old fish,

suggesting that the factor affecting the salmon 2002 year class did not similarly influence trout. Minnows

were also present.

8


3.2.6 Allt Mor UID 2003 S6

Suitable salmon habitat was abundant in this channel but engineering works had degraded habitat quality

and will have reduced the overall carrying capacity for salmonids. Juvenile salmon fry and parr were

encountered in equally low numbers (both 0.73 fish per minute sampling) but were more abundant than trout.

The effects of the channel engineering appear to be greatest in the trout population, with overall low density

(1.13 fish per minute sampling) and only a single older trout parr present. Minnows were also present.

3.2.7 Immeroin Burn UID 2003 S7

Abundant salmon habitat was encountered in this stream section although some engineering work 100m

upstream from the confluence with the Calair Burn has reduced depth and reduced habitat quality over

a 50m section. No salmon were encountered during sampling, but low numbers of trout (0.93 fish per

minute sampling) were found with both fry and 1+ year old parr present.

3.2.8 Allt Fathan Ghlinne UID 2003 S8

Abundant salmon habitat was present throughout this stream reach with large areas of suitable spawning

gravels and shallow water that would favour salmon fry. Despite this, no salmon fry were encountered and

only low numbers of 1+ year old salmon were found (0.27 fish per minute sampling). Trout were present in

moderate densities (2.8 fish per minute sampling) and fry were abundant. Older 1+ and 2+ year old trout

were also present in lower density and a number of these were mature.

3.2.9 Allt a Ghlinne Dhuibh UID 2003 S9

As with the neighbouring Allt Fathan Ghlinne site, abundant salmon habitat was present throughout this

stream reach with large areas of suitable spawning gravels and shallow water that would favour salmon fry.

Despite this, no salmon fry were encountered and only low numbers of 1+ year old salmon were found

(0.33 fish per minute sampling). Trout were present in moderate densities (1.87 fish per minute sampling)

and fry were abundant. Older 1+ and 2+ trout were also present at lower densities and many of these were

mature.

3.2.10 Kirkton Burn UID 2003 S10

Salmon habitat was abundant throughout the stream reach. Good numbers of salmon fry and 1+ year old

parr were encountered (3.4 and 1.47 fish per minute sampling respectively). Trout fry and parr were present

but in greatly reduced numbers (0.33 and 0.20 fish per minute sampling) when compared to salmon.

3.2.11 Alt Carnaig UID 2003 S11

Abundant high quality salmon habitat was present in this stream reach. Salmon fry and 1+ year old parr

were encountered at low density (1.93 and 0.27 fish per minute sampling respectively). Trout fry and

1+ year old parr were present at approximately the same density (1.80 and 0.20 fish per minute sampling

respectively). Minnows were also present at this site.

9


3.2.12 Invernenty Burn UID 2003 S12

Abundant habitat for salmon was present in this stream reach although areas of suitable water depth toprovide appropriate parr habitat were limited. The channel appeared to have been straightened to flowalong an existing field boundary. Only salmon fry were present at this site at moderate density (3.0 fish perminute sampling). Trout fry were present at low density and just two 1+ year old parr were encountered(0.93 and 0.13 fish per minute sampling respectively). Minnows were also present at this site.

3.2.13 Alt Sgoinie UID 2003 S13

Abundant suitable salmon habitat was present in this stream reach. Salmon fry and 1+ year old parr werefound to be present in low numbers (1.33 and 0.60 fish per minute sampling respectively). A number of themale 1+ parr were fully mature. Trout were also present, but less abundant than salmon. Trout fry and 1+ year old parr were encountered at 0.27 and 0.13 fish per minute sampling respectively.

3.2.14 Ishag Burn UID 2003 S14

Abundant suitable habitat for salmon was present in this stream reach. Low numbers of salmon fry wereencountered and good numbers of 1+ year old parr, of which many males were mature (0.67 and 1.33fish per minute sampling respectively). More 1+ year old salmon parr were encountered than fry, despiteplentiful fry habitat. This suggests that there may have been poor spawning or survival from the 2002 yearclass of salmon in this area, or that recruitment from the 2001 year class to parr was extremely high. Troutfry were more plentiful than salmon of the same age and a small number of older 1+ and 2+ year old troutwere encountered (1.0 and 0.33 fish per minute sampling respectively).

3.2.15 Alt a Chuil inn UID 2003 S15

Suitable salmon habitat was abundant throughout this stream reach. Low numbers of salmon fry but moderatenumbers of salmon parr were encountered (1.40 and 0.87 fish per minute sampling respectively) differingfrom the situation on the Ishag Burn, and suggesting normal spawning or rates of survival for both the 2001and 2002 salmon year classes. Trout fry and parr were present in low and moderate densities (0.20 and0.60 fish per minute sampling respectively) suggesting that there may have been poor spawning or survivalfrom the 2002 year class of trout in this area, or that recruitment from the 2001 year class to parr wasextremely high.

3.2.16 Milton Burn UID 2003 S16

Suitable salmon habitat was present throughout this stream reach. No salmon were encountered butmoderate numbers of trout fry and 1+ year old parr were present (1.87 and 0.60 fish per minute samplingrespectively).

3.2.17 Drunkie Burn UID 2003 S17

Suitable salmon habitat was present throughout this stream reach. No salmon were encountered but lownumbers of trout fry and 1+ year old parr were present (0.53 and 0.07 fish per minute samplingrespectively). Minnows and a single eel were also present here.

10


4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Lamprey sur vey

Lampetra ammocoetes were present at 16 of the 25 sites where suitable habitat was encountered. The density of Lampetra ammocoetes varied widely and ranged from 0–67.2 per m2 (Blair Drummond ladeUID 2003 L1). Gardiner et al (1995) reported densities of Lampetra ammocoetes from optimal sites in themain River Teith during September, ranging from 38.9–195.7 per m2. This study used smooth DC currentwith a voltage of about 400v. Maitland & Lyle (2000) reported a maximum Lampetra density of 46 per m2,whilst surveying using pulsed DC current of 300v. The maximum voltage output from the bankside electricfishing equipment used for lamprey surveying in the current study was 220v pulsed DC. This may havelimited the effectiveness of capturing all the lamprey ammocoetes present.

The largest Lampetra ammocoete of 181mm was recorded at the Keltie Water site UID 2003 L4 (Figure 1).This was 35mm larger than the largest Lampetra ammocoete recorded by Maitland & Lyle (2000) duringtheir survey in July. Very small ammocoetes were not common and may have been due to a lack of the 0+ year class lampreys, or that capture efficiency for these small specimens was reduced. It was not possibleto determine age classes on the basis of a length frequency distribution of all Lampetra ammocoetes (Figure 1) but breakpoints between age classes were more distinct at some sites compared to others (see Appendix 2).

Lampetra spp. transformers were tentatively identified as L. planeri or L. fluviatilis on the basis of the patternof pigmentation and the eye diameter in relation to total body length (Gardiner, 2003). However, prior toNovember, the two species cannot always be distinguished from external appearance as brook lampreytransformers often show a transient silvering of the flanks and body proportions overlap (Gardiner, 2003).It is possible therefore that some transformers were misidentified and that river lampreys were actually presentin the sample of ammocoetes at some locations.

Maitland & Lyle (2000) recorded P. marinus ammocoetes in the mainstem of the River Teith as far upstreamas Callander, suggesting that the Deanston Weir was passable. The densities of P. marinus compared toLampetra spp. were very low, indicating that they were uncommon (Maitland & Lyle, 2000). No P. marinusammocoetes or transformers were encountered at any site during the current survey. This was despitesampling at several locations that would appear to have no restricted access from the main river within thepreviously proposed species distribution range (Blair Drummond Lade UID 2003 L1, Ardoch UID 2003 L2,Keltie UID 2003 L4, Greenock UID 2003 L5, Eas Gobhain UID 2003 L14).

Maitland & Lyle (2000) also suggested that all the Lampetra ammocoetes present upstream of the Leny Fallswere likely to be L. planeri. The results from the current survey are in agreement with this, as the only L. fluviatilis transformer that was tentatively identified was found at the lowermost site, Blair Drummond (UID 2003 L1), downstream from the Leny Falls.

Despite being present in reasonable numbers in the lowermost reaches of the Calair system (Calair UID2003 L7) no lampreys were found in suitable habitat patch on the Immeroin Burn (UID 2003 L8) and theupper stream reaches (Allt Fathan Ghlinne and Allt a Ghlinne Dhuibh) were not found to hold any suitablelamprey habitat. A set of waterfalls and a weir located in the lower reaches of the Calair might limit lampreydistribution in this system.

11


Results from the current survey are in agreement with that of Maitland & Lyle (2000) who reported Lampetraammocoetes in the lowermost reaches of the River Larig and suggested that the upper limit for lamprey inthis system lay at the junction with the Allt Sgionie Burn. Lamprey habitat is non-existent in many tributariesand the upper reaches of the Larig system (Allt a Chuilinn, Ishag, Alt Sgoinie, Invernenty) as gradients arehigh and the predominant substrate is boulder. Lamprey habitat and distribution appears to be limited to thelowermost reaches of the River Larig, and to isolated patches on the Inverlochlarig Burn, Alt Carnaig andMonachyle Burns. Recent river engineering works in both the Monachyle and Alt Carnaig Burns (UID 2003L10 and 11 respectively) appeared to have provided (at least temporarily) some habitat for Lampetraammocoetes in tributaries where available suitable habitat is very limited. Maitland & Lyle (2000) recordedthe presence of Lampetra ammocoetes at the mouth of the Monachyle Burn where it meets Loch Voil. The size (and therefore probable age) of many of the lampreys present at these sites would indicate that theengineering work was originally carried out several years ago, although there was evidence of recentmachinery use at both sites.

As with the upper River Larig, lamprey distribution in the Leny, Annet, Coillechat and Ardoch Burns appearsto be naturally prevented by a lack of suitable habitat. Substrates are predominantly of large cobble andbedrock and the gradient is increased, preventing the accumulation of sediment to create suitable habitatpatches for ammocoetes. The Ardchullarie Burn (UID 2003 L6) supported a small population of Lampetraammocoetes where isolated patches of habitat had been created. Presumably this tributary is used as aspawning location for lampreys already established as being present in Loch Lubnaig (Maitland & Lyle, 2000).

A similar situation as found in the Ardchullarie Burn was recorded for the Milton Burn, a tributary of LochVenachar (Milton UID 2003 L16). Here only small patches of habitat were present, but Lampetraammocoetes were found. The high density of ammocoetes recorded at the Loch Venachar site (UID 2003L15) suggests that there is a large lamprey population in this waterbody, and presumably the Milton Burnprovides some spawning grounds. Although no L. fluviatilis transformers were found, it is still possible thatthe ammocoetes of both Lampetra species are present in Loch Venachar and its immediate surroundings asaccess to the main River Teith system is afforded by way of a fish ladder at the Venachar Dam. Once inLoch Venachar, passage through the Black water into Loch Achray, the lower reaches of the Finglas Waterand the Achray Water are all unimpeded. Although not inspected specifically for lamprey access in thisstudy, previous site visits would suggest that the fish ladder on the Venachar Dam presents no more of abarrier to lamprey movement than that at the Deanston weir lower down the system.

Lamprey distribution in the Keltie Water would be limited by the presence of the impassable Bracklinn Falls,but there appeared to be no suitable habitat for lamprey anmmoceates in the stretch upstream. Below thewaterfall, no suitable lamprey habitat was found in the Keltie water for several kilometres or in the Bracklandor Sruth Geal tributaries, suggesting that habitat availability is naturally limiting lamprey distribution in this system.

The distribution of lampreys appears to be limited by man-made obstructions on the Finglas Reservoir andLoch Katrine. Lampreys were present in the outflows from both waterbodies (Achray water UID 2003 L24and Finglas Water (Turk) UID 2003 L20) but not upstream. Isolated patches of suitable habitat were foundin tributaries of the lochs (Finglas Water UID 2003 L21 and Glengyle Burn UID 2003 L25) and abundanthabitat was present along the margins of the Finglas Reservoir (UID 2003 L22). However no lampreys wererecorded from these three survey sites. The absence of lampreys from Loch Drunkie (UID 2003 L18) may

12


also have been due to a man-made obstruction as they were present in the lower reaches of the outflow(Drunkie Burn UID 2003 L17), but it was not possible to inspect the outflow from the dam into the Drunkie Burn.

Although every effort was made to standardise the sampling effort amongst quantitative and semi-quantitativesites, it was clear that there was some variation as a result of factors influencing the ease of specimencapture. These included:

1 The escape of specimens at the edge of the electric field.

2 Unavoidable disturbance of silt, limiting the capture of multiple specimens when densities were high.

3 The effect of strong winds creating a rippled water surface at the moment of capture.

4.2 Salmon sur vey

Salmon habitat was abundant at every stream reach surveyed. Salmon fry and older parr were encounteredat 13 of the 17 sites surveyed. Trout were present at all 17 survey sites. The abundance of salmon variedwidely from zero to a maximum of 7.33 per minute sampling (Leny Burn UID 2003 S4).

Water temperatures during the course of this survey for salmon were recorded in the range of 7–12°C andwere therefore above the 5°C threshold for the technique proposed on the basis of reduced fish activity(CEN, 2002). However, juvenile salmon and trout use temperature as a cue to alter behaviour and switchfrom diurnal to nocturnal activity as water temperatures approach 7°C (Fraser et al, 1993; Heggenes et al,1993). As a result, the capture efficiency of conventional electric fishing surveying at these lower watertemperatures is likely to be reduced, as fish are seeking daytime refuge in the streambed gravels.

Whilst it was beyond the scope of this project to determine the ages of all salmonids older than 0+ years,it was possible to distinguish fry from older parr on the basis of length for each site. Unsurprisingly, salmonand trout fry were found to be more abundant than parr (Figure 2) although some interesting local patternsin population structuring were found.

Salmon were absent from the surveyed stretches of the Greenock, Milton, Immeroin and Drunkie Burns (UID 2003 S3, S7, 16 and 17 respectively). Three of these watercourses appeared not to have any obviousobstruction downstream of the surveyed reach that would have prevented adult salmon access (Greenock,Milton and Drunkie Burns). The reasons for the absence of salmon in these burns can only be postulated, butit is of interest to note that electric fishing surveys by the Forth District Salmon Fishery Board (FDSFB) atneighbouring sites on the Drunkie (in 1996) and the Milton Burns (in 1997) failed to record the presence ofsalmon. In 1991, a FDSFB electric fishing survey at a neighbouring site in the Greenock Burn recordedsalmon fry density of approximately 0.65 fish per m2. The current absence of salmon from the GreenockBurn and the very low numbers of trout encountered in the Drunkie Burn are certainly cause for concern asthere would appear to be abundant spawning and rearing habitat in both these areas with good accessfrom the main River Teith and Loch Venachar respectively.

Survey results from sites on the upper Calair Burn give cause for concern. No salmon were found at theImmeroin Burn (UID 2003 S7) and low densities of just one year class (1+ year old) were found at both AlltFathan Ghlinne and Allt a Ghlinne Duibh (UID 2003 S8 and S9 respectively). Considering the presence of

13


moderate trout populations and the abundance of suitable salmon habitat, such a result would indicate thatthere is some problem with access for salmon that is preventing full utilisation of the available headwaterhabitat in every year. A presence/absence survey at two sites the upper Calair Burn close to UID 2003 S8,carried out in June 1998 by the FDSFB, reported similarly low numbers of juvenile salmon with fry absentfrom one site. Monitoring by the Forth Fisheries Foundation in 2002 and 2003 also recorded poor fryrecruitment from the 2001 year class. Such consistent results indicate that the local salmon populations in theCalair system have not been achieving the maximum potential smolt recruitment for at least the last 5 years.

Habitat degradation in the form of channel straightening and deepening appeared to be reducing thecarrying capacity of the Alt Mor for juvenile salmonids (UID 2003 S6). Engineering was carried out to re-route the watercourse following a large landslide in 2001. The resulting stream channel provides adequatehabitat for salmon fry, but has limited deeper water for the retention of older fish (both salmon and trout).

An obstacle to salmon migration was identified just upstream from the survey site on the Ardchullarie Burn(UID 2003 S5) at the crossing of the A84. Investigation of the habitat upstream revealed that suitablespawning gravels are patchy but present in small quantities prior to the stream gradient increasing to createa naturally challenging ascent for adult fish.

14


TABLES

Table 1 Watercourses where no suitable lamprey ammocoetes habitat was found

Name of watercourse Corresponding salmon site UID

Leny Burn 2003 S4

Alt Sgionie 2003 S13

Alt a Chuillin 2003 S15

Ishag Burn 2003 S14

Invernenty Burn 2003 S12

Allt a Ghlinne Duibh 2003 S9

Allt Fathan Ghlinne 2003 S8

Allt Mor 2003 S6

Sruth Geal 2003 S2

Keltie US falls None

Brackland Burn None

Annet Burn None

15


16


Tab

le 2

Det

ail

s, l

oca

tio

n a

nd s

am

pli

ng t

echn

ique

use

d a

t la

mp

rey

surv

ey s

ites

. A

ltit

ude

is g

iven

in

met

res

and

the

sa

mp

ling

tec

hniq

ueis

rec

ord

ed a

s ei

ther

ful

ly q

uant

ita

tive

or

sem

i-q

uant

ita

tive

Dat

eSi

teU

IDsi

te l

ocat

ion

100k

m2

East

ing

Nor

thin

gA

ltitu

deSa

mpl

ing

tech

niqu

e

13/

10/

2003

Blai

r D

rum

mon

d La

de20

03 L

110

0m d

owns

tream

from

out

take

from

riv

er,

at a

poi

nt w

here

trib

utar

y en

ters

lade

NN

2735

069

990

15Fu

ll Q

13/

10/

2003

Ard

och

Burn

2003

L2

Dire

ctly

dow

nstre

am o

f roa

dbrid

ge,

isola

ted

smal

l pat

ches

NN

2754

070

270

75Se

mi-Q

13/

10/

2003

Coi

lech

at B

urn

2003

L3

Dire

ctly

und

erne

ath

and

dow

nstre

am fr

om r

oadb

ridge

NN

2687

070

345

40Se

mi-Q

13/

10/

2003

Kelti

e W

ater

2003

L4

60m

dow

nstre

am fr

om b

ridge

lead

ing

to q

uarry

at s

ite o

f for

dN

N26

510

7052

065

Sem

i-Q

07/

10/

2003

Gre

enoc

k bu

rn20

03 L

5sa

mpl

ed 3

pat

ches

loca

ted

50m

dow

nstre

am o

f roa

dbrid

geN

N26

370

7052

075

Sem

i-Q

17/

10/

2003

Ard

chul

larie

2003

L6

site

loca

ted

100m

dow

nstre

am fr

om r

oad

brid

ge w

here

two

brai

ds m

eet

NN

2582

571

365

130

Sem

i-Q

20/

10/

2003

Cal

air

Burn

2003

L7

100

dow

nstre

am fr

om h

ouse

, ac

cess

from

Mr

Stro

ng,

Gar

tfaur

an F

arm

NN

2538

072

050

130

Sem

i-Q

20/

10/

2003

Imm

eroi

n Bu

rn20

03 L

810

m u

pstre

am fr

om c

onflu

ence

with

Cal

air

Burn

NN

2534

071

775

190

Sem

i-Q

17/

10/

2003

Kirk

ton

Burn

2003

L9

250m

dow

nstre

am fr

om r

oadb

ridge

, pa

rk in

layb

y an

d sit

e on

far

side

by s

edim

ent b

ank

NN

2535

072

070

130

Sem

i-Q

20/

10/

2003

Mon

achy

le B

urn

2003

L10

200m

dow

nstre

am fr

om r

oadb

ridge

at s

ite o

f rec

ent g

rave

l ext

ract

ion

NN

2477

571

955

130

Sem

i-Q

23/

10/

2003

Alt

Car

naig

2003

L11

30m

from

loch

side

whe

re g

rave

l has

bee

n ex

tract

edN

N24

625

7188

513

0Se

mi-Q

22/

10/

2003

Rive

r La

rig20

03 L

12D

irect

ly b

elow

brid

ge d

own

to 7

m d

owns

tream

on

the

right

ban

kN

N24

430

7182

013

0Se

mi-Q

22/

10/

2003

Inve

rloch

larig

Bur

n20

03 L

1320

m u

pstre

am fr

om fo

rd.

A c

orro

ding

met

al c

onta

iner

lies

on

the

left

bank

NN

2442

571

825

130

Sem

i-Q

07/

10/

2003

Eas

Gob

hain

2003

L14

Path

ent

ranc

e by

layb

y in

roa

d, fo

llow

dow

n to

riv

er a

nd s

ite 2

0m d

s on

the

right

ban

kN

N26

130

7074

070

Full

Q

08/

10/

2003

Loch

Ven

acha

r20

03 L

1530

m w

est o

f con

fluen

ce w

ith M

ilton

Bur

nN

N25

750

7058

590

Sem

i-Q

08/

10/

2003

Milt

on B

urn

2003

L16

30m

dow

nstre

am fr

om r

oadb

ridge

NN

2574

070

595

90Se

mi-Q

08/

10/

2003

Dru

nkie

Bur

n20

03 L

17Im

med

iate

ly d

owns

tream

from

roa

dbrid

ge in

poo

l abo

ve w

eir

NN

2564

070

498

90Se

mi-Q

08/

10/

2003

Loch

Dru

nkie

2003

L18

on s

outh

sho

re o

f mos

t wes

tern

bay

in L

och

NN

2531

570

425

130

Full

Q

08/

10/

2003

Blac

k W

ater

2003

L19

20m

ups

tream

from

con

fluen

ce w

ith th

e Ri

ver

Turk

on

left

bank

NN

2566

570

645

90Se

mi-Q

10/

10/

2003

Fing

las

Wat

er (T

urk)

2003

L20

60m

ups

tream

from

roa

dbrid

geN

N25

315

7066

511

0Fu

ll Q

10/

10/

2003

Fing

las

Wat

er20

03 L

21W

here

trac

k re

turn

s to

the

path

of t

he s

tream

- la

rge

corn

er p

ool r

ight

alo

ngsid

e tra

ckN

N25

012

7112

018

0Se

mi-Q

10/

10/

2003

Fing

las

Rese

rvoi

r20

03 L

2210

0m w

est o

f isla

nd T

om a

n Fh

aile

, la

rge

area

of s

edim

ent e

xpos

edN

N25

210

7103

517

0Se

mi-Q

10/

10/

2003

Loch

Ach

ray

2003

L23

40m

sou

th o

f inf

low

from

Ach

ray

wat

erN

N25

070

7064

090

Sem

i-Q

10/

10/

2003

Ach

ray

Wat

er20

03 L

2450

m d

owns

tream

from

roa

dbrid

ge o

n be

nd a

t bra

ided

sec

tion

NN

2505

070

650

90Se

mi-Q

07/

10/

2003

Gle

ngyl

e Bu

rn20

03 L

2550

m d

owns

tream

from

brid

ge o

n in

side

of b

end.

Acc

ess

by w

oode

n ga

te a

t roa

dN

N23

810

7135

014

0Fu

ll Q

Tab

le 3

Ha

bit

at

cha

ract

eris

tics

of

the

lam

pre

y si

tes

sam

ple

d.

Wet

wid

th i

s es

tim

ate

d i

n m

etre

s. T

ota

l a

rea

of

lam

pre

y ha

bit

at

is r

eco

rded

as

eith

er l

ess

tha

n 1

0m

2,

10

–50

m2

or

gre

ate

r th

an

50

m2.

Mic

roha

bit

at

dep

th i

s re

cord

ed a

s a

vera

ge

dep

th a

t sa

mp

ling

lo

cati

on

(in

cms)

. M

icro

hab

ita

t ca

nop

y co

ver

is g

iven

as

a %

ass

umin

g f

ull

sum

mer

fo

lia

ge.

Sub

stra

te i

s g

iven

as

% o

f H

igh

Org

ani

c (H

O),

Silt

and

Sa

nd (

SI+

SA),

Peb

ble

and

Gra

vel

(PE+

GR

) a

nd C

ob

ble

and

Bo

uld

er (

CO

+B

O).

Ap

pro

xim

ate

dep

th o

f se

dim

ent

is g

iven

in c

ms.

Wo

od

y d

ebri

s is

rec

ord

ed a

s p

rese

nt o

r a

bse

nt

UID

bank

wet

Down

strea

m o

bstru

ction

sLo

catio

nto

tal a

rea

Micr

ohab

itat

Micr

ohab

itat

Micr

ohab

itat

Subs

trate

su

bstra

te

Subs

trate

su

bstra

te

appr

ox d

epth

wood

y fis

hed

widt

hof

hab

itat

of h

abita

tde

pth

flow

cano

py co

ver

HOSI

+SA

PE+G

RCO

+BO

of se

dim

ent

debr

is

2003

L1le

ft3

none

mar

gin

10–5

030

slow

3010

900

020

pres

ent

2003

L2bo

th6

none

mar

gin

<10

40slo

w40

080

1010

10ab

sent

2003

L3bo

th5

none

mar

gin

<10

20slo

w0

1070

1010

10pr

esen

t

2003

L4rig

ht7

none

mar

gin

<10

20sta

tic20

1080

100

10pr

esen

t

2003

L5fu

ll w

idth

1.5

none

eddy

<10

15sta

tic50

1050

400

5pr

esen

t

2003

L6rig

ht2

Leny

Fal

lsed

dy<1

015

static

100

590

50

10pr

esen

t

2003

L7rig

ht10

Leny

Fal

lsch

anne

l10

–50

40slo

w10

00

7030

010

pres

ent

2003

L8rig

ht4

Cal

air

wei

r an

d fa

llsm

argi

n<1

030

slow

8010

7020

010

pres

ent

2003

L9le

ft4.

9Le

ny F

alls

mar

gin

<10

10slo

w50

080

200

5pr

esen

t

2003

L10

right

7Le

ny F

alls

mar

gin

<10

30slo

w30

080

200

10pr

esen

t

2003

L11

right

7Le

ny F

alls

mar

gin

10–5

020

slow

500

9010

010

pres

ent

2003

L12

right

9Le

ny F

alls

mar

gin

<10

40sta

tic40

1070

200

10pr

esen

t

2003

L13

left

5Le

ny F

alls

eddy

<10

40slo

w20

090

100

10ab

sent

2003

L14

right

15no

nem

argi

n<1

045

slow

2020

800

015

pres

ent

2003

L15

left

naVe

nach

ar D

amm

argi

n>5

030

static

010

900

040

abse

nt

2003

L16

left

5Ve

nach

ar D

amed

dy<1

020

slow

7020

6020

010

pres

ent

2003

L17

left

7Ve

nach

ar D

amm

argi

n<1

040

mod

erat

e60

3060

100

20pr

esen

t

2003

L18

left

naVe

nach

ar D

amm

argi

n>5

040

static

1010

900

015

pres

ent

2003

L19

left

10Ve

nach

ar D

amed

dy<1

040

static

5010

7020

010

pres

ent

2003

L20

left

10Ve

nnac

her

Dam

mar

gin

10–5

020

slow

100

1090

00

30pr

esen

t

2003

L21

right

7Ve

nach

ar a

nd F

ingl

as d

ams

mar

gin

<10

20slo

w50

1060

2010

10pr

esen

t

2003

L22

left

naVe

nach

ar a

nd F

ingl

as d

ams

mar

gin

>50

20sta

tic0

2080

00

30ab

sent

2003

L23

right

naVe

nach

ar D

amm

argi

n10

–50

30sta

tic0

1090

00

20pr

esen

t

2003

L24

right

5Ve

nach

ar D

ambr

aid

<10

20slo

w0

1070

200

10pr

esen

t

2003

L25

right

5Ve

nnac

her

and

Katri

ne d

ams

mar

gin

10–5

030

slow

00

9010

015

pres

ent

17


18


Tab

le 4

Tota

l nu

mb

ers,

Z

ipp

in

esti

ma

tes

and

m

inim

um

den

sity

es

tim

ate

s (p

er

m2)

for

all

La

mp

etra

, La

mp

etra

am

mo

coet

es

and

tra

nsfo

rmer

s. S

pec

ies

pre

sent

wa

s re

cord

ed o

n th

e b

asi

s o

f id

enti

fica

tio

n o

f L.

flu

via

tilu

so

r L.

pla

neri

tra

nsfo

rmer

s. W

here

neit

her

tra

nsfo

rmer

s w

ere

pre

sent

, B

roo

k o

r ri

ver

wa

s re

cord

ed a

s th

e sp

ecie

s a

re i

ndis

ting

uish

ab

le a

t th

e a

mm

oco

etes

sta

ge.

The

min

imum

est

ima

tes

are

ca

lcul

ate

d a

s N

umb

er o

f in

div

idua

ls/A

rea

sa

mp

led

. Z

ipp

in d

ensi

ty e

stim

ate

s a

re c

alc

ula

ted

by

firs

tp

oo

ling

the

res

ults

fro

m t

he i

ndiv

idua

l ru

ns a

cro

ss t

he t

hree

qua

dra

ts a

t ea

ch s

ite

and

95

% c

onf

iden

ce l

imit

s (C

L) a

re p

rovi

ded

for

tho

se Z

ipp

in e

stim

ate

s w

here

ca

lcul

ati

on

wa

s p

oss

ible

UID

Spec

ies

Tota

l To

tal

Tota

l ar

ea m

2M

in e

st

Am

m m

in

Tran

s m

in

Zip

pin

est

95%

CL

Zip

pin

est

95%

CL

Sam

plin

g vo

ltspr

esen

tla

mp

amm

tran

sla

mp

est

est

amm

tran

sge

ar

2003

L1

Rive

r &

Bro

ok18

718

25

362

.33

60.6

71.

6767

.26

2.79

6.49

Gen

erat

or22

0

2003

L2

Non

e0

00

30

00

NA

NA

NA

NA

Gen

erat

or22

0

2003

L3

Non

e0

00

40

00

NA

NA

NA

NA

Gen

erat

or22

0

2003

L4

Broo

k64

586

512

.811

.61.

2N

AN

AN

AN

AG

ener

ator

200

2003

L5

Non

e0

00

40

00

NA

NA

NA

NA

Back

pack

300

2003

L6

Broo

k7

61

4.5

1.55

1.33

0.22

NA

NA

NA

NA

Gen

erat

or24

0

2003

L7

Broo

k or

riv

er26

260

4.5

5.78

5.78

0N

AN

AN

AN

AG

ener

ator

200

2003

L8

Non

e0

00

50

00

NA

NA

NA

NA

Gen

erat

or22

0

2003

L9

Non

e0

00

2.5

00

0N

AN

AN

AN

AG

ener

ator

220

2003

L10

Broo

k or

riv

er11

110

52.

22.

20

NA

NA

NA

NA

Gen

erat

or20

0

2003

L11

Broo

k30

282

65

4.67

0.33

NA

NA

NA

NA

Back

pack

350

2003

L12

Broo

k25

241

46.

256

0.25

NA

NA

NA

NA

Gen

erat

or20

0

2003

L13

Broo

k or

riv

er16

160

3.5

4.57

4.57

0N

AN

AN

AN

AG

ener

ator

200

2003

L14

Broo

k34

313

311

.33

10.3

31

38.6

414

9.37

1.02

50.

24G

ener

ator

210

2003

L15

Broo

k17

517

14

358

.33

571.

33N

AN

AN

AN

AG

ener

ator

210

2003

L16

Broo

k or

riv

er14

140

34.

674.

670

NA

NA

NA

NA

Gen

erat

or21

0

2003

L17

Broo

k31

274

56.

25.

40.

8N

AN

AN

AN

AG

ener

ator

210

2003

L18

Non

e0

00

30

00

00

00

Gen

erat

or22

0

2003

L19

Broo

k or

riv

er13

130

52.

62.

60

NA

NA

NA

NA

Gen

erat

or22

0

2003

L20

Broo

k78

771

326

25.6

70.

3347

.76

51.8

4N

AN

AG

ener

ator

220

2003

L21

Non

e0

00

40

00

NA

NA

NA

NA

Gen

erat

or22

0

2003

L22

Non

e0

00

50

00

NA

NA

NA

NA

Back

pack

300

2003

L23

Broo

k or

riv

er2

20

80.

250.

250

NA

NA

NA

NA

Gen

erat

or22

0

2003

L24

Broo

k or

riv

er42

420

410

.510

.50

NA

NA

NA

NA

Gen

erat

or20

0

2003

L25

Non

e0

00

30

00

00

00

Gen

erat

or

220

All

site

s7

55

72

82

71

03

19


Tab

le 5

Zip

pin

d

ensi

ty

esti

ma

tes

for

am

mo

coet

es

and

tr

ans

form

ers

sam

ple

d

fro

m

each

q

uad

rat

(Q)

at

full

q

uant

ita

tive

si

tes.

9

5%

co

nfid

ence

lim

its

(CL)

are

pro

vid

ed f

or

tho

se Z

ipp

in e

stim

ate

s w

here

ca

lcul

ati

on

wa

s p

oss

ible

UID

Q1

Zipp

in

95%

CL

Q1

Zipp

in

95%

CL

Q2

Zipp

in

95%

CL

Q2

Zipp

in

95%

CL

Q3

Zipp

in

95%

CL

Q3

Zipp

in

95%

CL

Zipp

in e

st

95%

CL

Zipp

in e

st95

% C

Les

t am

mes

t tra

nses

t am

mes

t tra

nses

t am

mes

t tra

nsTo

tal a

mm

Tota

l am

m

2003

L136

.69

2.11

NA

NA

105.

2110

.87

00

70.9

331

.61

NA

NA

67.2

62.

796.

49

2003

L14

NA

NA

NA

NA

14.6

946

.08

NA

NA

27.6

411

4.84

NA

NA

38.6

414

9.37

1.02

50.

24

2003

L18

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

2003

L20

NA

NA

NA

NA

108.

9641

2.59

00

50.3

714

2.29

00

47.7

651

.84

NA

NA

2003

L25

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Tab

le 6

Ca

tch

per

uni

t ef

fort

(C

PUE)

exp

ress

ed a

s fi

sh p

er m

inut

e sa

mp

ling

for

thos

e si

tes

whe

re s

emi-

qua

ntit

ati

ve s

am

plin

g w

as

und

erta

ken

site

UID

area

sam

pled

m2

Tim

e fi

shed

CPU

E la

mp

CPU

E am

mC

PUE

tran

sSa

mpl

ing

gear

volts

habi

tat

qual

ity

Ard

och

Burn

2003

L2

310

00

0G

ener

ator

220

subo

ptim

alC

oile

chat

Bur

n20

03 L

34

100

00

Gen

erat

or22

0su

bopt

imal

Kelti

e W

ater

2003

L4

515

4.27

3.87

0.4

Gen

erat

or20

0su

bopt

imal

Gre

enoc

k bu

rn20

03 L

54

120

00

Back

pack

300

subo

ptim

alA

rdch

ulla

rie20

03 L

64.

510

0.7

0.6

0.1

Gen

erat

or24

0su

bopt

imal

Cal

air

Burn

2003

L7

4.5

151.

731.

730

Gen

erat

or20

0su

bopt

imal

Imm

eroi

n Bu

rn20

03 L

85

100

00

Gen

erat

or22

0su

bopt

imal

Kirk

ton

Burn

2003

L9

2.5

100

00

Gen

erat

or22

0su

bopt

imal

Mon

achy

le B

urn

2003

L10

515

0.73

0.73

0G

ener

ator

200

subo

ptim

alA

lt C

arna

ig20

03 L

116

152

1.87

0.13

Back

pack

350

sub-

optim

alRi

ver

Larig

2003

L12

415

1.67

1.6

0.07

Gen

erat

or20

0su

b-op

timal

Inve

rloch

larig

Bur

n20

03 L

133.

515

1.07

1.07

0G

ener

ator

200

sub-

optim

alLo

ch V

enac

har

2003

L15

315

11.6

711

.40.

27G

ener

ator

210

optim

alM

ilton

Bur

n20

03 L

163

101.

41.

40

Gen

erat

or21

0su

b-op

timal

Dru

nkie

Bur

n20

03 L

175

152.

071.

80.

27G

ener

ator

210

optim

alBl

ack

Wat

er20

03 L

195

150.

860.

860

Gen

erat

or22

0su

b-op

timal

Fing

las

Wat

er20

03 L

214

100

00

Gen

erat

or22

0su

b-op

timal

Fing

las

Rese

rvoi

r20

03 L

225

150

00

Back

pack

300

optim

alLo

ch A

chra

y20

03 L

238

150.

130.

130

Gen

erat

or22

0op

timal

Ach

ray

Wat

er20

03 L

244

152.

82.

80

Gen

erat

or20

0su

b-op

timal

Table 7 Summar y of f ish species encountered at salmon sampling sites

site UID Salmon Trout Minnow Eel

Keltie Water 2003 S1 yes yes no no

Sruth Geal 2003 S2 yes yes no no

Greenock Burn 2003 S3 no yes no no

Leny Burn 2003 S4 yes yes yes no

Ardchullarie 2003 S5 yes yes yes no

Allt Mor 2003 S6 yes yes yes no

Immeroin Burn 2003 S7 no yes no no

Allt Fathan Ghlinne 2003 S8 yes yes no no

Allt a Ghlinne Dhuibh 2003 S9 yes yes no no

Kirkton Burn 2003 S10 yes yes no no

Alt Carnaig 2003 S11 yes yes yes no

Invernenty Burn 2003 S12 yes yes yes no

Alt Sgoinie 2003 S13 yes yes no no

Ishag Burn 2003 S14 yes yes no no

Alt a Chuilinn 2003 S15 yes yes no no

Milton Burn 2003 S16 no yes no no

Drunkie Burn 2003 S17 no yes yes yes

20


Tab

le 8

Det

ail

s a

nd l

oca

tio

n o

f sa

lmo

n su

rvey

sit

es

Dat

esi

teU

IDsi

te l

ocat

ion

100k

m2

East

ing

Nor

thin

gA

ltitu

detim

e

fish

ed

13/

10/

2003

Kelti

e W

ater

2003

S1

50m

dow

nstre

am fr

om b

ridge

lead

ing

to q

uarry

just

upstr

eam

from

ford

NN

2651

070

520

6515

13/

10/

2003

Srut

h G

eal

2003

S2

from

dire

ctly

und

erne

ath

road

brid

ge u

p to

poo

l bel

ow la

rge

wat

erfa

llN

N26

550

7076

590

15

07/

10/

2003

Gre

enoc

k Bu

rn20

03 S

3do

wns

tream

from

roa

dbrid

ge,

fishe

d 10

0m s

ectio

n up

to w

ithin

20m

of b

ridge

NN

2637

070

520

7515

07/

10/

2003

Leny

Bur

n20

03 S

4do

wns

tream

from

roa

dbrid

ge,

fishe

d to

with

in 5

0m o

f brid

geN

N26

150

7081

570

15

17/

10/

2003

Ard

chul

larie

2003

S5

site

loca

ted

dow

nstre

am fr

om r

oad

brid

ge:

fishe

d up

to w

ithin

30m

of b

ridge

NN

2582

571

365

130

15

17/

10/

2003

Allt

Mor

2003

S6

sam

pled

are

a di

rect

ly u

pstre

am fr

om b

ridge

with

cyc

le tr

ack

NN

2564

071

440

230

15

20/

10/

2003

Imm

eroi

n Bu

rn20

03 S

7sta

rted

sam

plin

g 15

m u

pstre

am fr

om c

onflu

ence

with

Cal

air

Burn

and

con

tinue

d up

strea

mN

N25

340

7177

519

015

26/

10/

2003

Allt

Fath

an G

hlin

ne20

03 S

8sta

rted

sam

plin

g 50

m u

pstre

am fr

om c

onflu

ence

with

Ghl

inne

Dhu

ibh

NN

2510

571

695

270

15

26/

10/

2003

Allt

a G

hlin

ne D

huib

h20

03 S

9sta

rted

sam

plin

g 50

m u

pstre

am w

ith c

onflu

ence

with

Allt

Fath

an G

hlin

neN

N25

110

7168

527

015

17/

10/

2003

Kirk

ton

Burn

2003

S10

starte

d sa

mpl

ing

15m

ups

tream

from

con

fluen

ce w

ith R

iver

Bal

vag

NN

2535

572

070

130

15

23/

10/

2003

Alt

Car

naig

2003

S11

30m

from

loch

side

and

sam

pled

up

from

the

area

whe

re g

rave

l has

bee

n ex

tract

edN

N24

625

7188

513

015

22/

10/

2003

Inve

rnen

ty B

urn

2003

S12

starte

d 50

m u

pstre

am fr

om fe

ncel

ine

in s

traig

hten

ed s

ectio

n an

d co

ntin

ued

for

30m

NN

2455

071

830

140

15

23/

10/

2003

Alt

Sgoi

nie

2003

S13

fishe

d 20

m d

own

and

upstr

eam

from

foot

brid

geN

N24

380

7179

014

015

22/

10/

2003

Ishag

Bur

n20

03 S

14fis

hed

sect

ion

50m

dow

nstre

am fr

om s

heep

fold

up

to w

here

cha

nnel

spl

itsN

N24

150

7176

017

015

22/

10/

2003

Alt

a C

huili

nn20

03 S

15fis

hed

from

50m

ups

tream

of c

onflu

ence

with

Riv

er L

arig

NN

2384

071

640

280

15

08/

10/

2003

Milt

on B

urn

2003

S16

fishe

d fro

m a

ppro

x 10

0m d

owns

tream

from

roa

dbrid

ge to

with

in 3

0m o

f roa

dbrid

geN

N25

740

7059

590

15

08/

10/

2003

Dru

nkie

Bur

n20

03 S

17fis

hed

from

app

rox

50m

dow

nstre

am o

f wei

r, up

to w

eir

struc

ture

NN

2564

070

501

9015

21


22


Tab

le 9

Tota

l nu

mb

ers

of

salm

on

and

tro

ut f

ry (

und

erye

arl

ing

) a

nd p

arr

(1

+ y

ear

and

old

er)

enco

unte

red

dur

ing

15

min

utes

of

elec

tric

fish

ing

in

typ

ica

l ju

veni

le s

alm

on

hab

ita

ts a

t ea

ch s

ite,

and

a m

easu

re o

f re

lati

ve a

bun

da

nce

of

each

as

CPU

E (c

atc

h p

er m

inut

esa

mp

ling

)

Site

UID

Tota

lSa

lmon

Sa

lmon

C

PUE

tota

l C

PUE

CPU

E To

tal

trou

tTr

out

fry

Trou

t pa

rrC

PUE

tota

l C

PUE

CPU

E sa

lmon

fry

parr

salm

onSa

lmon

Sa

lmon

tr

out

Trou

t fr

yTr

out

parr

fry

parr

Kelti

e W

ater

2003

S1

104

8123

6.93

5.40

1.53

88

00.

530.

530.

00

Srut

h G

eal

2003

S2

5536

193.

672.

401.

2751

4011

3.40

2.67

0.73

Gre

enoc

k Bu

rn20

03 S

30

00

0.00

0.00

0.00

132

119

138.

807.

930.

87

Leny

Bur

n20

03 S

411

096

147.

336.

400.

9327

243

1.80

1.60

0.20

Ard

chul

larie

2003

S5

93

60.

600.

200.

4055

523

3.67

3.47

0.20

Allt

Mor

2003

S6

2211

111.

470.

730.

7317

161

1.13

1.07

0.07

Imm

eroi

n Bu

rn20

03 S

70

00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1410

40.

930.

670.

27

Allt

Fath

an G

hlin

ne20

03 S

84

04

0.27

0.00

0.27

4232

102.

802.

130.

67

Allt

a G

hlin

ne D

huib

h20

03 S

95

05

0.33

0.00

0.33

2824

41.

871.

600.

27

Kirk

ton

Burn

2003

S10

7351

224.

873.

401.

478

53

0.53

0.33

0.20

Alt

Car

naig

2003

S11

3329

42.

201.

930.

2730

273

2.00

1.80

0.20

Inve

rnen

ty B

urn

2003

S12

4545

03.

003.

000.

0016

142

1.07

0.93

0.13

Alt

Sgoi

nie

2003

S13

2920

91.

931.

330.

606

42

0.40

0.27

0.13

Ishag

Bur

n20

03 S

1430

1020

2.00

0.67

1.33

2015

51.

331.

000.

33

Alt

a C

huili

nn20

03 S

1534

2113

2.27

1.40

0.87

123

90.

800.

200.

60

Milt

on B

urn

2003

S16

00

00.

000.

000.

0037

289

2.47

1.87

0.60

Dru

nkie

Bur

n20

03 S

170

00

0.00

0.00

0.00

98

10.

600.

530.

07

All

site

s5

53

40

31

50

51

24

32

80

Figure 1 Length frequencies for Lampetra ammocoetes (top) and transformers (bottom)from all sites combined

23


Figure 2 Length frequencies for salmon and trout from all sites combined

24


REFERENCES

European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2002). Water Quality – Sampling Fish with ElectricityDocument 02/568019.

Fraser, N.H.C., Metcalfe, N.B. & Thorpe, J.E. (1993). Temperature-dependent switch between diurnaland nocturnal foraging in salmon. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. BiologicalSciences, 252, 135–139.

Gardiner, R. (2003). Identifying Lamprey. A Field Key for Sea, River and Brook Lamprey. ConservingNatura 2000 Rivers Conservation Techniques Series No. 4. English Nature, Peterborough.

Gardiner, R., Taylor, R. & Armstrong, J. (1995). Habitat assessment and survey of lamprey populationsoccurring in areas of conservation interest. FRS Report 4/95 to Scottish Natural Heritage, April 1995.

Harvey, J. & Cowx, I. (2003). Monitoring the River, Brook and Sea Lamprey, Lampetra fluviatilis, L. planeriand Petromyzon marinus. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No. 5. English Nature,Peterborough.

Heggenes, J. et al (1993). Homeostatic behavioural responses in a changing environment: brown trout(Salmo trutta) become nocturnal during winter. Journal of Animal Ecology, 62, 295–308.

Maitland, P. S. & Lyle, A. A. (2000). Distribution of lampreys in the River Teith. Report to Scottish NaturalHeritage. Scottish Natural Heritage.

Zippin, C. (1958). The removal method of population estimation. Journal of Wildlife Management, 22,82–90.

25


APPENDIX 1 – Site photographs

26


Site UID 2003 L1 Blairdrummond lade.

Site UID 2003 L2 Ardoch Burn.

Site UID 2003 L3 Coilechat.

27


Site UID 2003 L4 Keltie Water. Site UID 2003 S1 is located immediately upstream in faster water.

Site UID 2003 S2 Sruth Geal. No lamprey habitat present.

28


Site UID 2003 L5 Greenock Burn and site UID S3. Two discrete patches of sediment and leaf litter were located and surveyed forlampreys. Salmon sampling took place in a number of riffle and run areas throughout a 50m section.

Site UID 2003 L6 Ardchullarie Burn. Site UID 2003 S5: Salmon sampling took place in the riffles and runs either side of this area of sediment.

Site 2003 S4 Leny Burn. No lamprey habitat present.

29


Site UID 2003 S6 Allt Mor. No lamprey habitat present.

Site UID 2003 L8 Immeroin Burn. Site UID 2003 S7 salmon sampling took place immediately upstream of this sediment patch in thefaster water.

Site UID 2003 L7 Calair Burn.

30


Site UID 2003 S9 Ghlinne Dhuibh. No lamprey habitat present.

Site UID 2003 S8 Allt Fathan Ghlinne. No lamprey habitat present.

31


Site UID 2003 L9 Kirkton Burn. Site UID 2003 S10 salmon sampling was carried out in faster water surrounding this site.

Site UID 2003 L11Allt Carnaig. Site UID 2003 S11 salmon sampling took place immediately upstream in faster water.

Site UID 2003 L10 Monachyle Burn.

32


Site UID 2003 S12 Invernenty Burn. No lamprey habitat present.

Site UID 2003 L12 River Larig.

33


Site 2003 S13 Allt Sgionie. No lamprey habitat was present.

Site UID 2003 S14 Ishag Burn. No lamprey habitat was present.

Site UID 2003 L13 Inverlochlarig Burn.

34


Site UID 2003 S15 Alt a Chuilinn. No lamprey habitat was present.

Site UID 2003 L14 Eas Gobhain.

Site UID L15 Loch Venachar.

35


Site UID L16 Milton Burn. Site UID 2003 S16 salmon sampling was carried out in the sections of fast water immediatelydownstream of this site.

Site UID 2003 L17 Drunkie Burn. Site UID 2003 S17 salmon sampling was carried out in faster water immediately downstreamfrom this site.

Site UID 2003 L18 Loch Drunkie.

36


Site UID 2003 L20 Finglas Water (River Turk).

Site UID 2003 L21 Glen Finglas Water.

Site UID 2003 L19 Black Water.

37


Site UID 2003 L24 Achray Water.

Site UID 2003 L22 Glen Finglas Reservoir.

Site UID 2003 L23 Loch Achray.

38


Site UID 2003 L25 Glengyle Burn.

APPENDIX 2 – Field recording sheets for lamprey and salmon sur vey sites

39


40


41


42


43


44


45


46


47


48


49


50


51


52


53


54


55


56


57


58


59


60


61


62


63


64


65


66


67


68


69


70


71


72


73


74


Documents

SNH Commissioned Report 55: Electro-fishing survey in ... survey in selected tributaries of the River Teith candidate ... Ammocoetes were examined and identified as either Lampetra