! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

The porosity of river barriers and the cumulative impediment to the migration of Atlantic Salmon in the Foyle River Catchment.

Carolyn E. Bryce

Supervisors Prof. Colin Adams Dr. Paddy Boylan

September 2012

Statement of Copyright
The content of the IBIS website (including, but not limited to all text and artwork therein) is protected by copyright. The copyright is owned by IBIS or is otherwise licensed from a third party for use by the partners. You may view or download any content of the Site for private purposes, but you are not permitted, without our permission, to:

*

store the Site, or any content of the Site, for any other purpose; print copies of the Site, or any content of the Site, for any other purpose; reproduce, copy or transmit the Site, or any content of the Site, in any way, for any other purpose or in any other medium.

All other rights which are not specifically granted are reserved. IBIS makes available on its sites materials generated for IBIS by academic work at the University of Glasgow and at Queen's University Belfast, inter alia. Extracts must not be quoted without explicit permission. Permission may be sought by using the contact form www.loughs-agency.org/ibis/contact/
*

Site - www.loughs-agency.org/IBIS

Non-technical Summary

THE POROSITY OF RIVER BARRIERS AND THE CUMULATIVE IMPEDIMENT TO THE MIGRATION OF ATLANTIC SALMON IN THE FOYLE RIVER CATCHMENT

BACKGROUND Historically, rivers have been subject to modification and utilisation for the benefit of society, without regard to the local, regional and long-term consequences to the ecosystem. Rivers have been modified for a range of reasons which include, but is not restricted to, channelization for shipping; construction of dams for hydropower or water retention; water abstraction and also to remove waste products. disrupt fish migrations. The life-history of anadromous Atlantic salmon is relatively plastic and the time split between freshwater and saltwater habitats varies with the individual and the environmental conditions of each life-stage. After a period of time in the marine and estuary environment, the riverine migration follows a distinct pattern made up of two to three phases. The first phase involves a steady progression upstream which alternates between times of swimming and periods of rest. Following this, movements are made in both upstream and downstream directions to search for a position to be held near the spawning grounds which concludes in the final holding phase. As the spawning period approaches, individuals leave their holding pools and progress up to the spawning grounds. With regard to their anadromous nature and extensive use of rivers, Atlantic salmon are particularly sensitive to alterations in the natural flow of rivers typically associated with dam construction and hydropower stations. In recent years it has become apparent that a vast number of small anthropogenic structures may also seriously limit or block the movements of fish. As there is a high number of iii These modifications have resulted in numerous small artificial riverine barriers across river catchments and have the potential to

barriers across the United Kingdom that will need to be assessed in compliance to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive, a standardised technique which allows rapid and cost effective assessments at a national scale needed to be developed. Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER) developed a coarseresolution rapid assessment tool to provide the environmental bodies of the United Kingdom a standardised methodology that allows for the permeability of a barrier to be quickly and efficiently assessed. The assessment tool was used to evaluate the permeability of four barriers on a small tributary of the Camowen River, and a model was constructed to measure how barrier permeability changes under different flow conditions (between 1975 and 2011). Using the data gathered from the model, the number of days that a theoretical Atlantic salmon is delayed under each barrier and the total cumulative delay experienced during its spawning migration each year was calculated. The porosity scores calculated for all four barriers would suggest that under the flow conditions of the assessment, each structure was a complete barrier to the movement of at least one species guild, specifically Atlantic salmon and Cyprinids. Of the remaining species guilds, there were no barriers that did not impede upstream movement to at least a proportion of the population. The total number of days that the theoretical Atlantic salmon was delayed by barriers in the Killyclogher Burn ranged between 3 and 83 days. Refining the model with increased resolution of measurements and the collection of velocity and depth conditions at flow extremes would increase the accuracy of the model. It would also be highly advantageous to obtain presence/absence or abundance data above the set of barriers assessed to provide further indication of the accuracy of the porosity results. Where possible historical fish data, before the installation of the barriers should also be obtained. This would allow a direct count of the reduction in salmon returning to their spawning grounds above a barrier, or quantify the loss in salmon production related to migration barriers. The removal of obstructing barriers is deemed as the most effective method of increasing fish production. As the Killyclogher Burn is a small tributary it is unlikely that substantial funding would be directed towards the removal or mitigation of the barriers, however it is iv

proposed that simple modifications to barriers A2 and A3 would increase passage. The installation of baffles is a common method to dissipate high water velocities and increase the water depth through culverts. !

The porosity of river barriers and the cumulative impediment to the migration of Atlantic Salmon in the Foyle River Catchment.

Picture courtesy of the Loughs Agency.

Carolyn Elaine Bryce 0705562

Supervisors: Prof Colin Adams Dr Patrick Boylan vi

ABSTRACT Small artificial riverine barriers are numerous across river catchments and have the potential to disrupt fish migrations. Recently, a coarse-resolution level assessment tool was developed to provide the environmental bodies of the United Kingdom with a means of classifying river catchments in terms of fish movement to meet the objectives set by the Water Framework Directive. The course-resolution rapid assessment: level A assessment was used to define the porosity of four structures on a small tributary in the Foyle system, Northern Ireland to the movement of four fish species guilds. The results indicated that all four barriers presented a challenge to the movement of all four species guilds. A porosity score of 0.0 for each barrier indicated that the upstream movement of adult Atlantic salmon was completely obstructed however as water depth was the limiting factor it was concluded that permeability was likely to change under fluctuating river flows. A more in-depth of investigation of barrier porosity to the upstream Atlantic salmon spawning migration was conducted by modelling the hydraulic conditions over each barrier and assigning the appropriate porosity score. The relationship between river water flow (recorded at a gauging station on the main river stem) and measurements of water depth and water velocity of each barrier was defined with linear regression analyses and incorporated into the model. Daily river flow data recorded between October and January for each year back to 1975 was incorporated into the model to calculate daily porosity scores of each barrier and the cumulative impediment that the four barriers create to the spawning migration each year. Each barrier formed both a temporal and partial barrier to the spawning population of Atlantic salmon. Delays of up to 60 days were recorded below the bridge footing. The cumulative delay created by the four barriers ranged between 3 to 83 days. Although it was not possible to identify one barrier which was most at fault, as the porosity of a barrier was dependent on river flow, its important to note that this study has shown river barriers having a direct effect on fish spawning migrations and success.

vii

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY 2.1 - Study Area and Barrier Descriptions 2.2 - Level A assessment 2.3 - Development of Barrier Porosity Model 2.4 - Habitat Surveys 2.5 - Additional Information

11 11 12 17 18 19

RESULTS 3.1 - Level A assessment Porosity Scores 3.2 - Linear Regression Analyses 3.3 - Assessment of Cumulative Delay 3.4 - Habitat Surveys

20 20 22 55 62

DISCUSSION

64

RECOMMENDATIONS

73

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

74

REFERENCES

75

viii

LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Porosity scores and the corresponding descriptions for each score given to barriers assessed using a Level A assessment developed. Descriptions provided by SNIFFER (2010a). Measurements of the physical attributes of each barrier recorded on the 21/06/12 for barrier A1 and on the 24/06/12 for barriers A2, A3 and A4. - Transversal section - A section of the structure in question where the hydraulic flow conditions, velocity and depth, are consistent across its width. - Slope - Is the percentage of the slope from the inlet to the outlet of the structure. Slope % = Hydraulic Head/Effective Length x 100. - Vertical Hydraulic Head - Vertical distance from top of water on outlet to the top of the water level in the pool. The final porosity scores of each barrier on the Killyclogher Burn for each species/life-stage assessed using the level A assessment. The output from the linear regression analyses between depth and river flow for each transect point (1-5) across each transect for barrier A1. Figures in bold highlight regression correlations which are insignificant. The output from the linear regression analyses between velocity and river flow for each transect point (1-5) across each transect for barrier A1. Figures in bold highlight regression correlations which are insignificant. The output from the linear regression analyses between depth and river flow for each transect point (1-5) across each transect for barriers A2 and A3. Figures in bold highlight regression correlations which are insignificant. The output from the linear regression analyses between velocity and river flow for each transect point (1-5) across each transect for barriers A2 and A3. Figures in bold highlight regression correlations which are insignificant. The output from the linear regression analyses between depth and river flow for each transect point (1-5) across each transect for barrier A4. Figures in bold highlight the regression correlations which are insignificant. The output from the linear regression analyses between velocity and river flow for each transect point (1-5) across each transect for barrier A4. Figures in bold highlight the regression correlations which are insignificant. The first date where the porosity score achieved is 0.3, the number of days delayed, the range of porosity scores achieved for each year and the percent of viable days of passage from Oct-Jan for the years 1975-2011 for barrier A1. For the raw data see appendix I. The first date where the porosity score achieved is 0.3 during each migration period, the number of days delayed by barrier A2 and overall delay, the range of porosity scores achieved for each year and the percent of viable days of passage from Oct-Jan for the years 1975-2011 for barrier A2. The percent of viable days of passage is independent of passage past barrier A1. For the results from the model see appendix I. * First date of viable passage after successfully passing barrier A1. The first date where the porosity score achieved is 0.3, the number of days delayed, the range of porosity scores achieved for each year and the percent of viable days of passage from Oct-Jan for the years 1975-2011 for barrier A3. For the raw data see appendix I. * First date of viable passage after successful passing barrier A2. ** Cumulative delay caused barriers A1, A2 & A3. 16

2.2 -

16

3.1 3.2 -

21 26

3.3 -

31

3.4 -

36

3.5 -

41

3.6 -

47

3.7 -

55

3.8 -

58

3.9 -

59

3.10 -

60

ix

3.11 -

3.12 -

The first date where the porosity score achieved is 0.3, the number of days delayed, the range of porosity scores achieved for each year and the percent of viable days of passage from Oct-Jan for the years 1975-2011 for barrier A4. The number of days delayed each year by the four barriers is equal to the number of days presented. For the raw data see appendix I. * First date of viable passage after passing barrier A3. ** Cumulative delay caused barriers A1, A2, A3 & A4 Length (m) and Area (m ) of each life-cycle habitat and potential egg production available above the four barriers on the Killyclogher Burn recorded as part of a River habitat survey conducted by the Loughs Agency in 2007.
2

61

63

LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 2.2 Position of the barriers and semi-quantitative electrofishing sites on the Killyclogher Burn. River flow is north to south. The position of the five transect points where each depth and velocity measurement was taken across each of the inlet, midpoint and outlet transects. Diagram taken from WFD 111 (2a) - The course resolution rapid-assessment methodology to assess obstacles to fish migration: Field manual level A assessment (SNIFFER, 2010a). Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the inlet for barrier A1. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the midpoint for barrier A1. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point(a-e) across the midpoint for barrier A1. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the inlet for barrier A1. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the midpoint for barrier A1. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the outlet for barrier A1. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the inlet for barrier A2 & A3. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the midpoint for barrier A2 & A3. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the outlet for barrier A2 & A3. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the inlet for barrier A2 & A3. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the midpoint for barrier A2 & A3. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the outlet for barrier A2 & A3. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the inlet for barrier A4. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the midpoint for barrier A4. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the 3rd transect for barrier A4. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the 4th transect for barrier A4. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the outlet for barrier A4. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the inlet for barrier A4. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the midpoint for barrier A4. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the 3rd transect for barrier A4. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the 4th transect for barrier A4. Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the outlet for barrier A4. 13 14

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22

23 24 25 28 29 30 33 34 35 38 39 40 43 44 45 46 49 50 51 52 53 54

xi

INTRODUCTION

Historically, rivers have been subject to modification and utilisation for the benefit of society, without regard to the local, regional and long-term consequences to the ecosystem (Fryirs & McNab, n.d; Norris et al, 2007). Rivers have been modified for a range of reasons which include, but is not restricted to, channelization for shipping (Milliman & Mei-e, 1995; Surian, 2007); construction of dams for hydropower or water retention (Marmulla, 2001; Jansson et al, 2007); water abstraction and also to remove waste products (Castella et al, 1995; Acreman & Ferguson, 2010). In addition, changes in ecosystems have occurred through the introduction of non-native species for economic gain (Garcia-Berthou et al, 2005) or the exploitation of fish stocks (Hholclk, 1980; Gilvear et al, 2002; Aas et al, 2011). Saunders et al (2002) stated that the high degree of human-activity in rivers has made freshwater habitats and the species associated with them amongst the most threatened in the world. This legacy has created adverse shifts in ecosystem communities and a reduction of biodiversity to rivers worldwide due to restrictions of access to habitats necessary for the completion of life-cycles (Clavero et al, 2004; Fjeldstad et al, 2011). Such fragmentation of habitats and loss of riverine connectivity can be especially damaging to dispersing and migrating fish (Ovidio & Philippart, 2002). Young (1995) noted that even non-migratory species exhibit local and dispersal movements that can cover great distances within river catchments and thus are vulnerable to obstruction (Aas et al, 2011; Jonsson & Jonsson, 2011). However as migrations are adaptive movements to habitats best suited to specific life stages and environmental conditions of an individual as a means to increase fitness, a restriction on movement can be especially damaging to migrating species (Jonsson & Jonsson, 2011). Thus advantages of migrations such as increased feeding opportunities or avoidance of undesirable environmental conditions may not be realised (Jonsson & Jonsson, 2011). Migrations are categorised according to the habitats and localities occupied as part of a life-cycle. The utilisation of both saltwater and freshwater habitats during different life-history stages constitutes the behaviour of a diadromous species, however diadromy can be categorised further into catadromous and anadromous migration patterns (Jonsson & Jonsson, 2011). Catadromous migratory behaviour is the movement from freshwater habitats primarily used for feeding and growth to the ocean for spawning. Whereas anadromous species utilise freshwater habitats for spawning and nursery grounds with migrations to sea for increased growth and feeding (Jonsson & Jonsson, 2011). Despite the number of diadromous species

exceeding the 250 mark (McDowall, 1997), few have been studied as extensively as the members of the sub-family, Salmoninae (Salminidae family) with regards to barriers (Klemensten et al, 2003). A recent literature review conducted by Roscoe and Hinch (2010) on the species and life-stages most frequently studied with regards to river barriers revealed that from 1960, 58% of the studies reviewed involved Salmonids and 45% of studies were solely based on Salmonids. Of the Salmonidae family, the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar, L) is one of the most studied fish species in the world (Katopodis, 1992; Klemetsen et al, 2003). In part, this scientific interest revolves around the variation in population dynamics and the range of life-history strategies they exhibit (Klemetsen et al, 2003) but is also in response to the economic and cultural value of the Atlantic Salmon (Hindar et al, 2006; Thorstad et al, 2008). In 2004, recreational fishing of Atlantic salmon contributed approximately 86 million to the Scottish economy (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2012) with annual contributions of approximately 25.7 million to the Northern Irish economy through game fishing (Pricewatershousecoopers, 2007; Mawle & Peirson, 2009). Along with its value to coastal and riverine fisheries, Atlantic Salmon is an ecologically important species both sides of the North Atlantic ocean, and as such the health of the species is of great concern for management and conservation (Windsor et al, 2012). In Europe, the geographic range of Atlantic salmon historically spanned as far south as Portugal with populations found in the rivers running into the Barents and White sea of Russia, marking the northern edge of their distribution. In the Northeast of the Atlantic, populations also established themselves in Iceland, Ireland and the United Kingdom. In the Northwest Atlantic, salmon runs were once prominent in rivers from New England in the United States to Ungava bay in Canada, with one river in Greenland supporting a selfsustaining population (Kocik & Sheehan, 2006; Aas et al, 2010). As the life-history of anadromous Atlantic salmon is relatively plastic, the time split between freshwater and saltwater habitats varies in accordance to the individual and the environmental conditions of each life-stage (Gibson & Haedrich, 2006). The time spent in freshwater habitats can range between one to eight years before juveniles begin to develop smolt characteristics and migrate to the North Atlantic Ocean (Hendry & Cragg-Hine, 2003; Klemetsen et al, 2003). The time spent feeding in the North Atlantic Ocean before returning to spawn is similarly variable and can range between one and five years (Thorstad et al, 2008). Mature Atlantic salmon which return to rivers to spawn after the first winter at sea are referred to as grilse (Aas et al, 2011) with those individuals spending more than one winter at sea referred to as 2

multi-sea winter (MSW) salmon (Hendry & Cragg-Hine, 2003). The timing of the river entry differs within and between populations (Thorstad et al, 2008) with river entry occurring all year round to the rivers of the United Kingdom, Ireland and some rivers in Denmark (Klemetsen et al, 2003; Jonsson & Jonsson, 2011). However in Norway, Iceland, and Canada spawning adults typically start entering rivers between May and October (Klemetsen et al, 2003; Thorstad et al, 2008; Otero et al, 2011) with entry beginning as early as February to the rivers of Brittany, France (Fontenelle et al, 1980). In Northern Ireland, entry to the major rivers of the Foyle system ranges from June to August however individuals have also been recorded to enter as late as December (Boylan, 2004). Individuals return to their natal rivers with incredible precision (Harden Jones, 1968; Stasko et al, 1973; Aas et al, 2011) with records of spawners even returning to the same river stretch occupied during their juvenile nursery stages. However a small proportion (1-5%) of the population naturally stray to neighbouring rivers owing to gene flow (Stabell 1984; Kornfield et al, 1995; Thorstad et al, 2008). Such homing to natal rivers is thought to create and maintain local adaptations, so that ecological and genetically distinct sub-populations within rivers are created (Taylor, 1991; Jonsson & Jonsson, 2011). The ability of spawning salmon to return to river stretches with such high precision is not fully understood, however it is thought that distinct olfactory cues imprinted during the downstream migration to the sea by juvenile smolts are used to locate natal rivers (Hasler et al, 1978). After progressing through the river estuary, the riverine migration follows a distinct pattern made up of two to three phases. The first phase involves a steady progression upstream which alternates between times of swimming and periods of rest. Following this, movements are made in both upstream and downstream directions to search for a position to be held near the spawning grounds which concludes in the final holding phase (Hawkins & Smith, 1986; kland et al, 2001; Thorstad et al, 2011). As the spawning period approaches, individuals leave their holding pools and progress up to the spawning grounds, where females excavate shallow indentations into the substrate to create redds (nests) in which the eggs are laid for the adult males and/or mature parr to fertilise (Hendry & Cragg-Hine, 2003). Adult Atlantic salmon are iteroparous in nature and individuals may spawn several times during their life assuming energy reserves are not exhausted during the upstream migration and subsequent spawning (Jonsson et al, 1990; Klemetsen et al, 2003; Aas et al, 2011; Jonsson & Jonsson, 2011). However as Atlantic salmon do not feed during the spawning migration, they rely entirely on the energy reserves acquired during oceanic feeding to fuel the upstream migration, gonad development and internal body functions (Standen et al, 2004). Total energy expenditure during the spawning 3

migration ranges between 50-70% of body reserves held before the upstream migration (Jonsson et al, 1997, Jonsson & Jonsson, 2011). Although the exact amount of energy consumed during the migration depends on the length of the migration and number of barriers that need to be passed (Jonsson et al, 1997). So the use of excessive energy to overcome a number of artificial barriers may result in premature deaths in the spawning population and contribute to the progressively declining stocks (Brown & Geist, 2002; Garcia de Leaniz, 2008). Since the 18th century Atlantic salmon have experienced both a steady reduction to its global distribution and a decrease in the number of individuals returning to spawn each year (Parrish et al, 1998; Thorstad et al, 2008; Baisez et al, 2011). A complete loss of the self-sustaining populations have been recorded from at least 309 European and North American rivers. Of the remaining rivers where the status of the population is known (2,005 rivers), the populations of 403 rivers are endangered and another 236 rivers that are in critical condition and close to extinction (Parrish et al, 1998; WWF, 2001). In some regions the extent of the reduction in stock size is so vast that the residual populations are listed as endangered and protected under federal and state law. In the United Kingdom, 9% of the populations in England and Wales, and 16% of populations in Northern Ireland have become extinct with a limited number of rivers hosting healthy populations (WWF, 2001; Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2007). Although in Scotland which is one of the last strongholds for the species, the population is considered to be stable with 63% of the populations categorised as healthy (WWF, 2001). Despite Atlantic salmon still naturally occurring in 19 countries, it is estimated that approximately 90% of the healthy populations are found in Scotland, Ireland, Norway and Iceland (WWF, 2001; Hendry & Cragg-Hines, 2003). This rapid decline in healthy populations and reduction in range size has been attributed to factors associated with human-activity in both the marine and freshwater life-stages. Excessive marine exploitation has traditionally been held responsible for declining populations (Dulvy et al, 2003), although in recent years efforts to prevent further declines have been made through the closure of commercial fisheries, lowered quotas and compensation pay-outs (Mills,1989; Dempsen et al, 2001; Hendry & Cragg-Hine, 2003). Despite these efforts to relieve the pressure on wild stocks, populations are still being depressed. The various life-history stages associated with freshwater habitation are particularly sensitive to polluting events or modifications to the natural function of rivers (McCormick et al, 1998). 4

As industrial practices, agriculture and urban development have grown, there has been an increase in the level and type of pollution entering rivers through both deliberate and accidental exposure. The native Atlantic salmon populations were famously lost from the River Rhine, the River Clyde and the River Mersey in the 19th century as a result of high levels of pollution associated with rapid urban and industrial development (Webster et al, 2005: Jones, 2006; NASCO, 2008). A number of common pollutants such as untreated sewage and fertilisers from agriculture and forestry practices can adversely shift the nutrient loading of rivers resulting in eutrophication and a subsequent reduction to dissolved oxygen concentrations. Atlantic salmon are sensitive to depletions in dissolved oxygen, with concentrations below 8 mg/l O2 providing harmful to spawning salmon (WWF, 2001). In the 1980s, a number of Norwegian rivers experienced high levels of acidification which induced adverse shifts in spawning behaviour, a reduction in growth and limited the osmoregulatory ability of smolts (Magee et al, 2003). As the smolt development stage is the most sensitive to episodes of acidification, long exposure levels can lead to a high mortality rate in the juvenile population (Magee, 2003; Staurnes et al, 1995; Watt, 1987;). A study conducted by Hesthagen et al, (2011) identified >40 rivers in Norway which had experienced a full or partial loss to the wild population due to acidification. Additionally, fine sedimentation from the runoff of roads, cattle poaching (bank trampling) or forestry acts are known to adversely influence the oxygen available for the incubation of Salmon eggs and in extreme cases cause respiration impairment of adult fish resulting in death (Greig et al, 2005). Despite the impairment of water quality through pollution, the loss of freshwater habitats necessary for the completion of life-stages was cited by Gibson (1993) as a major cause behind the global decline in stocks. Such habitat destruction has been linked with the loss of approximately 18% of the historical populations in Canada (Watt, 1989). Even aquaculture practices which were developed to alleviate marine exploitation have resulted in the reduction of fitness of wild populations from the interaction of escapees with the wild spawning population (McGinnity et al, 2003). The accidental release of farmed fish has also increased the transfer of sea lice and outbreaks of the contagions Gyrodactylus salaris and Saprolegnia has been associated with the reduction in growth rates and rapid declines in populations numbers (Johnsen & Jensen, 1986; Johnsen 1978; Gross, 1998). With the number of deleterious factors adversely acting on populations of Atlantic salmon, it is vital now more than ever that adult salmon reach the spawning grounds without undue delay or injury (Parrish et al, 1998; Thorstad et al, 2008).

With regard to their anadromous nature and extensive use of rivers, Atlantic salmon are particularly sensitive to alterations in the natural flow of rivers typically associated with dam construction and hydropower stations. Worldwide, at least 45,000 dams (>15m in height) have been constructed within the last 100 years with 60% of global river flow regulated as of 2001 (Hu et al, 2009; Rosenberg et al, 2000). In addition, the rate of hydroelectric development is expected to increase in the coming years to meet sustainable energy objectives. The presence of dams is known to interrupt natural exchanges of nutrients, sediment transport, local temperature regimes and the productivity of river ecosystems (Freeman et al, 2003). Furthermore, dams can block access to habitats necessary for the completion of fish life-cycles which can lead to the fragmentation and genetic isolation of populations (Freeman et al, 2003). In New England, access to over 98% of the original habitat utilised by Atlantic salmon has been obstructed due to the presence of dams, rapidly reducing the population size (Deegan & Buchsbaum, 2005). Such is the magnitude of the modification to rivers, that dam construction is often cited as the major cause behind the global declines of Atlantic salmon stocks (Parrish et al, 1998; Roscoe & Hinch, 2010). Rivers such as the River Allier in France have experienced a substantial fall in salmon run size from 100,000 to a mere 400 individuals returning year as a result of the construction of the Pouts dam in 1939 (Tripolszky, 2012), with similarly dramatic reductions due to dam construction having been recorded in the Penobscot River, United States with a drop from 100,000 to 1,000 individuals returning each year (Burrows, 2007). In the worse cases, damming of rivers has extirpated the entire anadromous salmon population (Freeman et al, 2003; Juanes et al, 2005). Romakkaniemi et al (2003) attributed the construction of dams with the loss of approximately 37 out of the 50 rivers that naturally supported Atlantic salmon runs from the Gulf of Bothnia and the loss of the majority of the salmon runs in the Baltic sea. Even when fish passage facilities have been provided, extensive delays have been observed due to poorly designed passage facilities, insufficient attraction flows and poor maintenance (Annon., 1995; Rivinoja, 2005). As a result of inadequate passage, salmon are known to accumulate below a barrier while waiting for the appropriate conditions to pass. Such overcrowding can result in the exposure of lethal temperatures, an increased risk of disease transfer or predation by opportunistic predators (Thorstad et al, 2008). However, in some cases individuals will not wait below a barrier if it was not passed on its first attempt and return down river (Webb, 1990). Croze (2005) observed that between 22-35% of the population would abandon their spawning migration up their natal river and enter a neighbouring river to spawn when movement was seriously impeded and so nullifying the benefits associated with returning to 6

natal rivers (Garcia de Leaniz, 2008). Furthermore, when structures prevent access to high quality spawning habitats, salmon may be forced to use low-grade habitats reducing the likelihood of egg survival and the persistence of already depressed populations (Berg et al, 1986; Sheer & Steel, 2006; Garcia de Leaniz, 2008; Niven et al, 2010). In extreme cases, salmon have even been recorded to return to sea without spawning (Chanseau & Larinier, 1998; Thorstad et al, 2008). Until recently, focus with regards to obstructed fish passage has been biased towards large barriers such as dams or hydropower stations however it is agreed that structure height should not be used to gauge passability, as other structural and hydraulic components of a barrier contribute to the difficulty or ease of ascent (Garcia de Leaniz, 2008). In recent years it has become apparent that a vast number of small anthropogenic structures may also seriously limit or block the movements of fish (Cahoon et al, 2007). A study by Ovidio & Philippart (2002) which assessed the ability of six fish species to pass a variety of small barriers (height <2m) concluded that apparently difficult barriers were passed with relative ease, while those considered to be passable obstructing the movement of a number of species. Ovidio & Philippart (2002) found that structures with a hydraulic head as small as 0.45m would block the movement of salmonids. Similarly, weirs as small as 0.5m in height have been observed to severely delay the movements of Atlantic salmon and trout (Garcia de Leaniz, 2008). The abundance of small barriers (<2m in height) within river catchments far exceeds the presence of large barriers (hydropower stations and large dams) (Lucas & Baras, 2001) as culverts, levees, fords, dikes, bridge footings, assorted weirs, sluices and small-head dams can all challenge the movement of fish (Warren & Pardew, 1998; see the review by Kemp et al, 2008). It is recognised that the cumulative effect of successive small barriers (which are passable to some extent) may be just as damaging as total obstructions (large barriers) (Croze, 2005; Garcia de Leaniz, 2008; Thorstad et al, 2008). Warren & Pardew (1998) concluded that the success of fish movement past small structures was related to the type of structure and observed that a smaller proportion of fish were able to pass concrete slab crossings and culverts compared to other structures. Culverts are especially prevalent within river systems (Tchir et al, 2004) with tens of thousands of culverts having been identified in fish-bearing rivers of the United States (Burford et al, 2009) and United Kingdom. The substantial number of culverts along with the known limitations that they impose onto fish movement (swimming, endurance, leaping and behavioural) has resulted in a bias of the development of assessment techniques towards culverts (Kemp et al, 2008; 7

Burford et al, 2009). Fishxing is a software programme that was developed to predict passage success through a culvert, by comparing modelled hydraulic conditions of a culvert to the swimming and leaping capabilities of a number of fish species (Furniss et al, 2000; Cahoon et al, 2007). However there has been limited validation of Fishxing in the field and this approach also requires detailed hydraulic measurements for every culvert that wishes to be assessed (Kemp et al, 2008; Meixler et al, 2009). Adopting a similar approach, Coffman (2005) developed models that compare swimming capabilities of fish to the common physical characteristics of a culvert as a means to define its permeability. Due to its extensive field validation and inclusion of a number of fish species, Coffmans models have since formed the basis of culvert assessments employed by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service and, the Utah Department of Transportation Research and Innovation Division (Kyger et al, 2004; Beavers et al, 2008; Kemp et al, 2008). Similarly, there is a number of other models such as the Fish Passage Decision Support System and the CriSP modelling programme (Meixler et al, 2009) that have been developed to provide information on the scale of the impact of barriers within a catchment to management. However, a significant proportion of assessments involving barrier passability and quantifying delays revolves around the use of telemetry techniques (Gerlier & Roche, 1998; Croze, 2005; Gowans et al, 2005; Thorstad et al, 2005), mark and recapture methods (Warren & Pardew, 1998; Rakowitz et al, 2009), fish counters (Lnnerholm, 2011) and presence/absence assessments above and below barriers (McLaughlin et al, 2006; Burford et al, 2009; Kemp & OHanley, 2010). While telemetry techniques provide valuable empirical data on fish movements and the success of barrier ascent (Kemp & OHanley, 2010), the cost of telemetry equipment and the laborious nature of tracking individuals makes this procedure redundant for use at a national scale (Kemp & OHanley, 2010). Likewise the use of mark and recapture techniques, fish counters and absent/present approaches while informative, all come with their own drawbacks which limits their use across large river catchments by environmental bodies and fishery boards (Kemp & OHanley, 2010). As there is a high number of barriers across the United Kingdom that will need to be assessed in compliance to the requirements of the WFD, a standardised technique which allows rapid and cost effective assessments at a national scale needed to be developed. The!European!Union!Water!Framework!Directive!(WFD)!is!a!legislation!directive!that! was!adopted by all member states in 2000. The primary objective of the WFD is for each member state to achieve good ecological condition for surface waters or good ecological 8

potential for heavily modified waters by 2015. Central to achieving this objective is the requirement of free river connectivity for both the upstream and downstream movement of a number of fish species (Kemp et al, 2008). With this in mind, members of the European Union are expected to make measures to comply with the objectives set out in the WFD (Kemp et al, 2008). The environmental agencies and fishery boards of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are in the process of instigating the use of assessment methodologies to allow for the impact of barriers on fish movement to be incorporated into the classification of river catchments (SNIFFER, 2010b). The University of Stirling and, subsequently the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER) developed a coarse-resolution rapid assessment tool to provide the environmental bodies of the United Kingdom a standardised methodology that allows for the permeability of a barrier to be quickly and efficiently assessed (Kemp et al, 2008). It was ensured that the impact of a wide variety of natural and anthropogenic barriers to the movement of Atlantic salmon, Trout, Lampreys, Graylings, Cyprinids, Eels and juvenile Salmonids could be measured and scored accordingly (SNIFFER, 2010a). The passability scores were determined by reviewing the literature on the swimming and leaping capabilities of each fish species and relating this to specific physical and hydraulic parameters. During its development, the assessment tool was reviewed several times and incremental improvements were made by field trialling the methodology against the traditionally used expert opinion to examine if there were any inconsistencies between scores. In the later stages of development, members of the environmental bodies of the UK participated in field trialling and were invited to comment on how it may be improved to meet their needs. The end result was a standardised barrier porosity (permeability) assessment methodology that provided the environmental bodies with a consistent means of prioritising the removal or mitigation of significant barriers as to meet the objectives set by the WFD. The Coarse-resolution Rapid assessment incorporates a measure of both physical attributes and hydrological conditions which allows barriers to be scored in accordance to the degree of impediment. Barriers can permanently block the movement to all species, life-stages and directions of passage for the entire time forming a total barrier (Wofford et al, 2005). Waterfalls, perched and steeply sloped culverts are typical examples of total barriers and have been attributed to the formation of genetic isolated populations. However, the 9

impediment may be temporal and block the movement across the barrier for a proportion of the time. Partial barriers, are those that block a proportion of the population, typically weaker swimmers, individuals with smaller bodies sizes and specific life-stages (Kemp et al, 2008). Additionally, passage may partially be restricted to certain species, body sizes or life-stages for a proportion of the time forming a temporal-partial barrier (Kemp et al, 2008). Culverts are also very good examples of partial/temporal barriers as they are known to restrict movement to weak swimmers during times of low and high river flows (Kemp et al, 2008). In each case, the type of barrier and the degree of the limitation results in a delay below a barrier to a proportion of the population. It is important to management that as much information is made available on the impact of barriers and the magnitude of the delay can be quantified, especially if preliminary assessments are to be used in the prioritisation of barrier mitigation or removal works. In compliance to the requirements of the WFD, the Loughs Agency are currently in the process of creating a GIS (geographic information system) based inventory of river barriers to aid in the classification of the Foyle catchments. Using the coarse-resolution rapid assessment developed by SNIFFER, the Loughs Agency are assessing the impact of these barriers on the movement of several species of fish and as such the same procedure will be used to provide a conservative estimate of the permeability of four small barriers on a tributary to the Camowen River. However to test if the permeability of these four barrier will change under different flow conditions, a model will be developed that will allow simple depth and velocity measurements recorded at each barrier to be correlated with historic river flow records as to model the passability of each barrier to Atlantic salmon during the spawning migration period from 1975 to 2011. Using the data gathered from the model, the number of days that a theoretical Atlantic salmon is delayed under each barrier and the total cumulative delay experienced during its spawning migration each year will be calculated. The impact of the cumulative delay to the migration of Atlantic salmon created by the four barriers will be discussed along with the importance of conducting additional permeability assessments if the passability of a barrier is predominately related to hydraulic conditions. Finally the viability of using river flow to model the permeability of a barrier will be discussed.

10

METHODOLOGY

2.1 Study Area and Barrier Descriptions River structures which were identified as potential barriers in the Killyclogher Burn were assessed for their impact the spawning migration of Atlantic salmon. As part of this assessment, the permeability of barriers to different species guilds, the delay caused by each barrier to Atlantic salmon and the implications to juvenile salmon production are reviewed. The Killyclogher burn is a small tributary to the River Camowen in County Tyrone, Northern Ireland (Niven et al, 2010). The Killyclogher Burn is approximately 3.185km in channel length from the tributary confluence to the Glenhordial reservoir with the surrounding land having been heavily urbanised or used for pasture. Notably, the River Camowen is a major Atlantic Salmon producing river which is approximately 88km in length and has a catchment area of 277km (Niven et al, 2010).
2

An initial catchment walk of the Killyclogher Burn identified four potential barriers to migration. The tributary confluence with the River Camowen (54 36.7 N; 7 16.36 W. NGR:
o o

H 46745 72833) is taken as a start point when referring to river length. The first barrier (A1) is 124m upstream of the confluence located at 54 36.9 N; 7 16.36 W (NGR: H 46733
o o

72960). This barrier is a sloping concrete bridge footing, with a head height of 0.68m and a gradient of 14.6% posing a swim barrier to upstream migrating fish, total effective length of the barrier is 2.6m (table 2.2). The second barrier (A2) is a road bridge footing and is located at 54 36.27 N; 7 16.22 W
o o

(NGR: H 46985 73492) 864m upstream from the tributary confluence (figure 2.1). Due to poor accessibility, it was not possible to record water depth and velocity at this barrier however as barriers A2 and A3 were structurally and physically similar, the flow conditions and physical parameters recorded at barrier A3 were used for both. The third barrier (A3) is located at 56 36.32 N: 7 16.18 W (NGR: H 47051 73645). Barrier
o o

A2 and A3 is a concrete road bridge footing with a head height of 0.1m and a gradient of 2.3% posing swim barrier upstream migrating fish, total effective length of barriers A2 and 11

A3 is 16m. Barrier A3 is 1.06km upstream of the tributary confluence (figure 2.1). The forth and final barrier (A4) on the Killyclogher tributary is located 1.28km upstream of the tributary confluence at 54 36.35 N; 7 16.20 W (NGR: H 47026 73765). As with
o o

barriers A2 and A3, barrier A4 is a concrete road bridge footing. The head height is 1.07m with a gradient of 6.6%, to effective length of this barrier is 16.2m and presents a swim barrier. The barriers included in this assessment were chosen for assessment as they visibly altered the natural flow of the river and/or presented a challenge to the swimming or leaping capabilities of migrating species of fish. It should be noted that there were no other visible natural barriers within the section assessed. 2.2 Level A assessment The course resolution rapid-assessment methodology to assess obstacles to fish migration: Field manual level A assessment (from now on referred to as the level A assessment) was developed by SNIFFER (2010) in response to the requirements of the WFD and the need to classify the status of water bodies in respect to obstructions to fish migration. The level A assessment was used to assess the permeability of each of the four barriers on the Killyclogher Burn to the upstream movement of four species guilds. The assessments were conducted at low to high summer flow conditions between the 21/06/12 and the 24/06/12. In this study barrier porosity will follow the definition specifically developed by SNIFFER for the course resolution rapid-assessment methodology to assess obstacles to fish migration: Field manual level A assessment (2010, p.13): The proportion of fish that encounter an impediment and then successfully pass it (during either an upstream or downstream migration) with undue delay (i.e. the probability of reaching the final destination, e.g spawning or feeding grounds, is not comprised due to increased energetic expenses or predation risk). (Kemp et al, 2008). The level A assessment also calculates barrier porosity for numerous fish guilds. This study will focus on Atlantic salmon, Trout, Cyprinids and juvenile Salmonids due to their conservation value in the Foyle catchment. The methodology that was used will be briefly described but for a full record of the procedure see the field manual level A assessment guide 12

(SNIFFER, 2010a).

Figure 2.1 - Position of the barriers and semi-quantitative electrofishing sites on the Killyclogher Burn. River flow is North to South.

13

The procedure is made up of seven sections each with their own sub-divisions, however only the sections which are applicable to the study are described. For each barrier, basic details relating to the location of the structure, accessibility, component materials, dimensions of each structure, the flow characteristics and the number of transversal sections was recorded. Section three of the level A assessment involved recording the water depth and the velocity across each barrier transect. For barriers A1, A2 and A3, five water depth and velocity measurements were recorded across the width of the inlet, midpoint and outlet transects following the description in figure 2.2. However, barrier A4 displayed substantial heterogeneity from the inlet to the outlet and it was deemed appropriate to record two additional sets of five transect depth and velocity measurements, to make a total of five sets transect measurements.

Figure 2.2 - The position of the five transect points where each depth and velocity measurement was taken across each of the inlet, midpoint and outlet transects. Diagram taken from WFD 111 (2a) - The course resolution rapid-assessment methodology to assess obstacles to fish migration: Field manual level A assessment (SNIFFER, 2010a).

Porosity scores for each of the five transect points were calculated by comparing the water depth and velocity measured against the swimming capabilities and depth requirements of 14

each species guild. The most limiting of either of these two factors (depth/velocity) with respect to swimming performance determines the porosity score achieved at each transect point. An example is provided for adult Atlantic Salmon; if the velocity was <2.0m/s over transect 1, porosity score would be 1.0 but if the depth (at the same point) was <0.07m, which equates to a porosity score of 0.0, the overall score for transect 1 would be 0.0, as depth was factor limiting passage. Each porosity score (0.0-1) equates to a velocity and depth range specific to each species guild assessed and can be reviewed in the level A assessment manual (SNIFFER, 2010a). The porosity scores range from 0.0, which equates to a completely impassable barrier to a score of 1.0, which indicates free passage and no obstruction however full descriptions and examples are provided for each porosity score in table 2.1. Once each of the five transect points had been scored for each transect, the highest porosity score achieved for any of the transect points was taken as the upstream porosity score for each transect. This produced three upstream porosity scores for barriers A1, A2 and A3 and five upstream porosity scores for barrier A4. From the porosity scores calculated for each transect, the most limiting score from any of the transects was taken as the overall porosity score for each barrier for section three of the assessment. Porosity scores thus represent a conservative measurement of barrier passability. However, the final porosity score assigned to each barrier for each species guild also takes into account physical attributes which may limit or prevent passage. These measurements were recorded as part of section four of the assessment in which some of the relevant measurements are displayed in table 2.2. The type of records taken differed in accordance to whether a barrier presents with a vertical drop, slope or steps. Each physical attribute was then scored for its limitation to movement using appropriate passability assessment guidance tables for each species guild provided in the level A assessment manual (SNIFFER, 2010a). As with section three, the most limiting score recorded for any of the physical attributes for each barrier was taken as the overall score for section four. Using both of the scores calculated from sections three and four, the most limiting score from either section was used to produce the final porosity score for a barrier for each species and life-stage. However, as there were no physical attributes for any of the barriers which limited passage to Atlantic salmon or adult trout, the porosity scores calculated from section three determined the overall score (i.e water depth and velocity were primary limiting factors). 15

Table 2.1 - Porosity scores and the corresponding descriptions for each score given to barriers assessed using a Level A assessment. Descriptions provided by SNIFFER (2010a).

Porosity Score 0.0 0.3

Description Impassable, complete obstacle to fish movement if that the target species/life-stage, or species guild cannot pass the obstacle. A partial high impact obstacle is assigned if the obstacle represents a significant impediment to the target species/life-stage, or species guild, but some of the population (e.g. < one-third) will pass eventually; or the obstacle is impassable for a significant proportion of the time (>two-thirds). A partial low impact obstacle is assigned if that the obstacle represents a significant impediment to the target species/life-stages, or species guild, but most of the population (e.g. >two-thirds) will pass eventually; or the obstacle is impassable for a significant proportion of the time (e.g. < one-third). Culverts represent good examples of partial obstacles if they impede fish during periods of high or low flow. No obstacle, passable if that the obstacle does not represent a significant impediment to the target species/life-stage, or species guild, and the majority of the population should be able to pass during the majority of the period of migration (movement). This does not mean that the obstacle poses no costs in terms of delay, e.g. increased energetics, or that all fish will be able to pass.

0.6

1.0

Table 2.2 - Measurements of the physical attributes of each barrier recorded on the 21/06/12 for barrier A1 and on the 24/06/12 for barriers A2, A3 and A4. - Transversal section - A section of the structure in question where the hydraulic flow conditions, velocity and depth, are consistent across its width. - Vertical Hydraulic Head - Vertical distance from top of water on outlet to the top of the water level in the pool.
Total wetted width at barrier crest (m) 5.1 2.8 Total Hydraulic head (inletoutlet, m) 0.98 0.37 1.075

Barrier Site ID

Type of Barrier Bridge Footing Bridge Footing Bridge Footing Bridge Footing

Number of transversal sections 1 1 1 1

Transversal section descriptions Vertical Drop/Slope Slope Vertical Drop/Slope Vertical Drop/Slope

Gradient (%)

Effective length (m) 2.6 16 16 16.2

Vertical Hydraulic head (m) 0.30 0.08 0.08 0.19

A1 A2 A3 A4

14.6 2.3 2.3 6.6

2.3 Development of Barrier Porosity Model The second part of the project focussed on the number of days that Atlantic salmon may be postponed below each of the four barriers and the total cumulative delay inflicted on the spawning migration. A model was developed in Microsoft excel (2007) which used the same 16

principles applied in the level A assessment to calculate daily porosity scores from October to January, the spawning migration period within the Foyle system, for the years 1975 to 2011 for each barrier. The water depth and velocity was measured over a range of flow conditions at each barrier using the same procedure used during section three of the level A assessment. From 22/06/12 to the 25/07/12, the water depth and velocity over barrier A1 was recorded during ten separate visits with measurements at barriers A2, A3 and A4 recorded during eight visits (due to water height and, health and safety reasons). Depth and velocity measurements were taken along the same transects points used during the level A assessment (a transect point is marked by the x in figure 2.2) to produce comparable results. To investigate the relationship between velocity and depth conditions on porosity over a longterm period, it was necessary to relate barrier conditions to a uniform flow measurement. Flow data used during this study was recorded at the Camowen Terrace gauging station (54
o o

36.12 N; 7 17.13 W - NGR: H 46010 73025) on the River Camowen which is positioned approximately 1124m downstream from barrier A1. Data was requested from and provided by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) Rivers Agency, Northern Ireland. As river flow data is recorded every 15min at the Camowen Terrace gauging station it was possible identify what the river flow on the Camowen River was at the time of each of the depth and velocity measurements taken in June and July of 2012. The relationship between velocity and depth at a barrier and river flow was defined using linear regression analyses. Where necessary, the water depth and velocity data was log+0.5 transformed when data was not normally distributed (Shapiro-Wilks test p<0.05). The depth and velocity regression equations were incorporated into the model and used to calculate daily water depth and velocity over each transect point of the four barriers during the migration periods (1st of October and the 31st of January) of each year from 1975-2011. By substituting in the mean daily river flow values (due to size of data generated from 15min flow information, mean daily flows were used) recorded for the migration period of 1975 to 2011 into the regression equations of the model the depth and velocity over a barrier could be calculated . The ability to calculate the daily porosity score of a barrier by taking the water depth and velocity calculated for each transect point and applying the same approach used in the level A assessment was also integrated into the model. The model produced daily porosity scores of each barrier from October to January for the years 1975 to 2011, thus allowing for the 17

identification of the first date at which a porosity score of 0.3 or above was achieved by each barrier. From this, the number of days that a theoretical salmon (an individual which is capable of passing a barrier as soon as it arrives below it, assuming the porosity of the barrier is 0.3 or above) was delayed below each barrier could be calculated for each migration for any year from 1975 to 2011. Incorporated into the model was the approximate time taken for a salmon to travel to the next barrier upstream. A migration speed of 2.0km per day was chosen after reviewing migration speeds of the spawning migration recorded as part of radio telemetry studies (Heggberget et al, 1996; Aarestrup et al, 2000; Thorstad et al, 2003). This speed was also chosen as it is acknowledged that migration speed decreases as the spawning period approaches (Thorstad et al, 2008). By applying this migration speed, it was calculated that an adult salmon could easily travel between each barrier in under one day. However, as to account for the time that may be needed to recover from an oxygen debt acquired while passing a barrier or the time taken to find the best route to pass a barrier (Jones, 1982; Thorstad et al, 2008) it was deemed that two barriers could not be passed on the same day, regardless of their porosity score. Furthermore, incorporated into the model was the requirement for the theoretical salmon to have passed any and all previous barriers downstream before the passage of any barrier upstream was viable. The final output from the model calculated the first date where a porosity score of 0.3 was achieved at each barrier and thus the cumulative delay created by the four barriers from 1975 to 2011. The model allowed for the percentage of days during the migration period where a porosity score of 0.3 or above to be calculated. Additionally the range of porosity scores achieved by each barrier was identified. 2.4 Habitat Surveys For successful salmon production it is essential that rivers and tributaries have the habitats necessary for phases of the spawning migration, excavation of redds and survival of the juvenile population (Niven et al, 2010). As a means to assess the type, quality and quantity of habitats available to Salmon, the Loughs Agency conducted river habitat surveys across the Foyle system in 2007. The survey was carried out by foot, with members of the Loughs Agency classifying stretches of river to one of the three life-cycle habitat units: holding, spawning or nursery. Once classified into a habitat type, each river stretch was graded 18

according to the quality of that habitat and measured for length (m) and area (m ). Quality
2

grades range from one to four, with a quality grade of one being the best quality habitat. The habitat survey data collected for the Killyclogher Burn by the Loughs Agency was used to calculate the area and length of each life-cycle habitat and potential egg production above the four barriers. The number of eggs deposited depends on the quality and area of the nursery habitat available within each river. Quality grades 1-3 are used, with the following egg deposition levels set for each nursery quality grade: quality grade one equates to 10 eggs per m2; quality grade two equates to 5 eggs per m2 and grade three equates to 2.5 eggs per m2 (Niven et al, 2010). The area (m ) of each nursery quality grade (1-3) above the four barriers
2

was multiplied by the appropriate predefined egg deposition level to give the target number of eggs deposited within the Killyclogher Burn. This information will be referred to when reviewing and discussing the results from the level A assessment and the output from the barrier model. 2.5 Additional Information The Glenhordial Water Treatment plant is located upstream of the four barriers at the top of the Killyclogher Burn as displayed in figure 2.1. The Glenhordial water treatment plant is licensed to abstract up to 8,000 cubic meters of water per day from the Glenhordial reservoir and Killyclogher Burn (Northern Ireland Water, 2012: per. comm). While the impact of the water abstraction could not be assessed due to time limitations, the potential of the water abstraction to influence barrier passability will be discussed in full when considering the results of the output of the model. The Loughs Agency conduct annual semi-quantitative electrofishing surveys across the Foyle system as to monitor juvenile production. The juvenile salmon abundance data from the Killyclogher Burn was requested for use in the project. There were only five years where data was available for all three electrofishing sites above the four barriers and as such the sample size was deemed insufficient to produce useful results from statistical analysis. However the data was used as evidence of whether spawning has occurred in the Killyclogher Burn.

19

3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Level A assessment Porosity Scores All four barriers on the Killyclogher Burn presented a challenge to upstream movement of each species guild, however the degree of the restriction imposed by a barrier to the movement of each species guild was highly variable. As the porosity of each barrier to the upstream movement of Atlantic salmon and adult trout was not limited by any of the barriers physical attributes, either insufficient depths or velocities which exceeds the swimming capabilities demoted the porosity of each barrier (table 3.1). For Cyprinids and juvenile Salmonids, a hydraulic head of 0.3m at barrier A1 and 0.19m at barrier A4 contributed to the reduction in the porosity score. The flow characteristics and the physical parameters of barrier A3 were applied to barrier A2 for the assessment and thus the porosity scores and variables limiting passage for barriers A2 and A3 are the same. The level A assessment of the four barriers suggested that the upstream movement of Atlantic salmon is completely obstructed under the low flow conditions used to determine porosity (table 3.1). While each barrier is structurally different, the porosity of barriers A1, A2 and A3 was restricted due to the shallow water depth over each of the three barriers. However for barrier A4, it was a combination of water depth and velocity which seriously impeded passage to individuals as displayed in table 3.1. As the hydraulic requirements for the passage of adult trout differs from Atlantic salmon, the four structures do not completely impede movement but instead are partial high impact barriers as indicated a porosity score of 0.3 (table 3.1). A score of 0.3 with respect to the definition developed and provided by SNIFFER (2010a), indicates that all four barriers are significant obstacles to either one-third of the adult trout population which may pass in time or these barriers are only passable for one-third of the time. Insufficient water depth accounted for the reduction in the porosity of each barrier as displayed in table 3.1. For cyprinids, each barrier on the Killyclogher burn presented a challenge to passage with porosity scores ranging from 0.0 to 0.3 as shown in table 3.1. The main factor which limited passage at barriers A2 and A3, and completely impeded passage at barrier A4 was water depth. At barrier A4, a hydraulic head of 0.19m limited passage to a proportion of the population however the water depth was so shallow that passage was completely blocked and 20

as such the porosity for barrier A4 was 0.0. For barriers A2 and A3 the porosity for cyprinids was 0.3, indicating that the water depth over the three barriers obstructed passage to twothirds of the population or passage is restricted for two-thirds of the time. A hydraulic head of 0.3m at barrier A1 physically prevented Cyprinids from reaching upstream habitat. Barriers A1 and A4 are high impact impediments to the progression of juvenile salmonids Howe as indicated by a porosity score of 0.3. As previously described, a score of 0.3 indicates that barriers A1 and A4 limits passage to only one-third of the population which may pass in time or the two barriers completely block passage to two-thirds of the population. However at barrier A1 a vertical drop of 0.3m also reduces passability. The shallow water depth over barrier A1 and A4 is the limiting variable to barrier porosity at both structures. The degree of limitation that shallow water depth inflicts on juvenile salmonid passage varies as illustrated by the porosity score of 0.6 calculated for barriers A2 and A3 (table 3.1). However, the water velocity over barriers A2 and A3 also limited passage and as such a combination of inadequate depths and high velocities restricted passage.
Table 3.1 - The porosity scores of each barrier on the Killyclogher Burn for each species/life-stage assessed using the level A assessment.

Species/Life-stage
Adult Atlantic Salmon

Barrier
A1 A2 A3 A4 A1

Porosity Score
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.3

Primary Factor Limiting Porosity

Depth Depth Depth Depth/Velocity Depth Depth Depth Depth Vertical Drop Depth Depth Vertical Drop/Depth Vertical Drop/Depth Depth/Velocity Depth/Velocity Depth

Adult Trout

A2 A3 A4 A1

Cyprinids

A2 A3 A4 A1

Juvenile Salmonids

A2 A3 A4

The porosity of all four barriers ranged from 0.0 for Atlantic salmon to 0.6 for juvenile salmonids, indicating that while these four barriers may form a total obstacle to Atlantic salmon, these barriers do not completely truncate the passage of all species moving upstream on the Killyclogher burn.

21

3.2 Linear Regression Analyses The purpose of the linear regression analyses was to define the relationship between depth and velocity over a barrier (these were considered primary limiting variables as physical structure of the barrier was deemed to be passable by SNIFFER, 2010a) to river flow (as determined by flow gauging station on the Camowen river, and hereafter referred to as River flow) and to produce regression equations to be incorporated into the barrier porosity model. The linear regression analyses for each transect point across the inlet of barrier A1 indicated that depth variability was significantly correlated with changes in river flow (R = 0.592 to
2

0.694) of as displayed in figure 3.1 and table 3.2. While the relationship of depth to river flow is significant for each transect point (P-value= 0.001 - 0.006), the prediction power of each regression is weakened by the presence of three outliers. The strength of the correlation between depth and river flow at each transect point across midpoint transect of barrier A1 was strong but varied (R = 0.60 to 0.761) (figure 3.2 and table
2

3.2). Transect point 1 of the midpoint transect figure 3.2 (a) presented with the weakest correlation (R =0.617) as depth variability was not accounted for by changes associated with
2

river flow. Despite this, the relationship between depth and river flow for each transect point is significant. The relationship between the depth at each of the 5 transect points across the outlet of barrier A1 to river flow was also significant (figure 3.3 and table 3.2). The amount of depth variability correlated with river flow and thus the prediction power of each regression ranged from 51% to 78%. The weakest correlation was recorded at transect point 1. The regression coefficient and intercept produced as part of the regression analyses of barrier A1 are displayed in table 3.2.

22

Depth vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Inlet transect - Barrier A1
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow
0

Transect Point 2 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.350 -0.525 -0.700

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.175

y = 0.0411x - 0.7849 R = 0.6357

-0.175 -0.350 -0.525 -0.700

y = 0.0413x - 0.7885 R = 0.6448

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 for the inlet (P-value = 0.006; n=10). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 for the inlet (P-value = 0.005; n=10).

Transect Point 3 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

Transect Point 4 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.350 -0.525 -0.700

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.175

y = 0.0433x - 0.8028 R = 0.6935

-0.175 -0.350 -0.525 -0.700

y = 0.0467x - 0.8373 R = 0.6949

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 for the inlet. (P-value = 0.003; n=10).

(d) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 4 for the inlet (P-value = 0.003; n=10).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.175 -0.350 -0.525 -0.700

y = 0.0433x - 0.8078 R = 0.592

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 for the inlet (P-value = 0.011; n=10). Left hand bank. Figure 3.1 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the inlet for barrier A1.

23

Depth vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Midpoint transect - Barrier A1
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow
0

Transect Point 2 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0 -0.140 -0.280 -0.420 -0.560 -0.700

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.248 -0.372 -0.496 -0.620 0 2.5 5.0 Flow 7.5 10.0

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.124

y = 0.011x - 0.6468 R = 0.6017

y = 0.0123x - 0.6569 R = 0.7195

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 for the midpoint (P-value = 0.008; n=10). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 for the midpoint (P-value = 0.002; n=10).

Transect Point 3 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

Transect Point 4 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.280 -0.420 -0.560 -0.700 0

R = 0.7613

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.140

y = 0.0154x - 0.7094

-0.140 -0.280 -0.420 -0.560 -0.700

y = 0.0159x - 0.7151 R = 0.698

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 for the midpoint (P-value = 0.001; n=10).

(d) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 4 for the midpoint (P-value = 0.003; n=10).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.140 -0.280 -0.420 -0.560 -0.700 0

y = 0.0169x - 0.711 R = 0.7493

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow for

transect point 5 for the midpoint (P-value = 0.001; n=10). Left hand bank. Figure 3.2 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the midpoint for barrier A1.

24

Depth vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Outlet Transect - Barrier A1
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow Transect Point 2 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow
0

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.175 -0.350 -0.525 -0.700 0

log(depth + 0.5)

y = 0.0129x - 0.6558 R = 0.5109

0 -0.175 -0.350 -0.525 -0.700

y = 0.0154x - 0.6938 R = 0.6437

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 of the outlet (P-value = 0.02; n=10). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 of the outlet (P-value = 0.005; n=10).

Transect Point 3 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

Transect Point 4 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.175 -0.350 -0.525 -0.700 0

log(depth + 0.5)

y = 0.0187x - 0.743 R = 0.6753

-0.175 -0.350 -0.525 -0.700

y = 0.0197x - 0.7365 R = 0.7851

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 of the outlet (P-value = 0.004; n=10).

(d) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 4 of the outlet (P-value = 0.001; n=10).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.175 -0.350 -0.525 -0.700 0

y = 0.0177x - 0.727 R = 0.7146

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 4 of the outlet (P-value = 0.002; n=10). Left hand bank. Figure 3.3 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the midpoint for barrier A1.

25

Table 3.2 - The output from the linear regression analyses between depth and river flow for each transect point (1-5) across each transect for barrier A1. Transect point 1 is on the right hand bank (RB). Transect point 5 is on the left hand bank (LB). The regression coefficient and intercept of each transect point is incorporated into the porosity model. Figures in bold highlight regression correlations which are insignificant.

Results from the regression analysis of the transformed depth data versus flow for each transect point of barrier A1
Barrier Inlet/ mid/ outlet Transect Significance (P-value) R-Sq (%) R-Sq (adjusted %) Regression coefficient Intercept

Inlet

A1 Midpoint

Outlet

1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB) 1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB) 1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB)

0.006 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.011 0.008 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.020 0.005 0.004 0.001 0.002

63.5 64.48 69.35 69.49 59.2 60.17 71.9 76.13 69.8 74.9 51.09 64.37 67.53 78.51 71.46

59 60 65.5 65.7 54.1 55.1 68.4 73.1 66 71.8 44.9 59.9 63.5 75.8 67.9

0.0411 0.0413 0.0433 0.0467 0.0433 0.011 0.0123 0.0154 0.0159 0.0169 0.0129 0.0154 0.0183 0.0197 0.0177

-0.785 -0.7885 -0.8028 -0.8373 -0.808 -0.6468 -0.6569 -0.7094 -0.7151 -0.711 -0.6558 -0.6938 -0.739 -0.7365 -0.727

For all five transect points across the inlet, midpoint and outlet of barrier A1, there is at least one velocity data point which is visibly outside the expected range for a given river flow and as such the correlations were weaker than expected (highest R =0.798 transect point 5 of the
2

midpoint - see figure 3.5 - e). Across the inlet of barrier A1, transect point 1 is the only transect point where the relationship between velocity and river flow is insignificant (P-value=0.056) as displayed in figure 3.4 and table 3.2. As a result of the number of outlying data points at transect point 1 (R =0.389), a low amount of velocity variability is accounted for by river flow. The strength
2

of the correlation at the remaining four transect points (R =0.5125 - 0.729) meant that the
2

prediction power of the regression equations is relatively strong. At all transect points across the midpoint of barrier A1, the relationship between velocity and river flow is significant (P-value <0.05) (figure 3.5 and table 3.3). However, at transect point 3 less than half of the variability in velocity is associated with fluctuations in river flow 26

(R =0.4305). For the other four transect points the fit of the regression model exceeds 58.3%
2

and as such the river flow proves to be a moderately strong predictor of velocity over each transect point. In contrast to the midpoint, velocity against river flow for transect points 2 to 5 were the only significant relationships recorded across the outlet of barrier A1 (figure 3.6 and table 3.3). However, the level of variability correlated to river flow for transect point 3 (P-value= 0.049; R =0.4006), transect point 4 (P-value= 0.041; R =0.4246) and transect point 5 (P-value=
2 2

0.026; R =0.4803) was less than 50% despite the significant relationship. A low proportion of
2

the variability in velocity over transect point 1 (P-value= 0.265; R =0.1523) is explained by
2

river flow as the data does not fit well to the regression line. As a result of the weak correlation at transect point 1, the predictive power the regression equation is rather limited and thus the velocity can not be predicted with a great degree of certainty.

27

Velocity vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Inlet transect - Barrier A1
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow
0.90
log(velocity + 0.5)

Transect Point 2 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.90
log(velocity + 0.5)

0.75 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0 0

y = 0.0683x - 0.1033 R = 0.3839

0.72 0.54 0.36 0.18 0 -0.18 0

y = 0.0755x - 0.1057 R = 0.5125

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 for the inlet (P-value = 0.056; n=10). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 for the inlet (P-value = 0.02; n=10).

Transect Point 3 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.90
log(velocity + 0.5) log(velocity + 0.5)

Transect Point 4 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.90 0.72 0.54 0.36 0.18 0 -0.18 -0.36 0 2.5 5.0 Flow 7.5 10.0

0.72 0.54 0.36 0.18 0 -0.18 0

y = 0.1072x - 0.4538 R = 0.7291

y = 0.1114x - 0.5581 R = 0.6312

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 for the inlet (P-value = 0.002; n=10).

(d) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 4 for the inlet (P-value = 0.006; n=10).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.90 0.72 0.54 0.36 0.18 0 -0.18 -0.36 -0.54 0
log(velocity + 0.5)

y = 0.1138x - 0.6592 R = 0.5405

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 for the inlet (P-value = 0.015; n=10). Left hand bank. Figure 3.4- Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (ae) across the inlet for barrier A1.

28

Velocity vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Midpoint transect - Barrier A1
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow
1.20

Transect Point 2 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.20

log(velocity + 0.5)

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.90 0.60 0.30 0 0

y = 0.0514x + 0.5445 R = 0.5839

0.90 0.60 0.30 0

y = 0.0685x + 0.3679 R = 0.6903

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 of the midpoint (Pvalue = 0.010; n=10). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.003; n=10).

Transect Point 3 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.50

Transect Point 4 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.50

log(velocity + 0.5)

log(velocity + 0.5)

1.20 0.90 0.60 0.30 0 -0.30 0

y = 0.1021x - 0.1256 R = 0.4305

1.20 0.90 0.60 0.30 0

y = 0.0963x + 0.0108 R = 0.597

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.04; n=10).

(d) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 4 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.009; n=10).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.20

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.90 0.60 0.30 0 0

y = 0.1193x - 0.2228 R = 0.7983

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 5 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.001; n=10). Left hand bank. Figure 3.5 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (ae) across the midpoint for barrier A1.

29

Velocity vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Outlet Transect - Barrier A1
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow Transect Point 2 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow
1.40

log(velocity + 0.5)

log(velocity + 0.5)

1.12 0.84 0.56 0.28 0 0

y = 0.0409x + 0.6225 R = 0.1523

1.40 1.12 0.84 0.56 0.28 0

y = 0.0835x + 0.3927 R = 0.5367

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 of the outlet (P-value = 0.265; n=10). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 of the outlet (P-value = 0.016; n=10).

Transect Point 3 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.50

Transect Point 4 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.50

log(velocity + 0.5)

log(velocity + 0.5)

1.20 0.90 0.60 0.30 0 0

y = 0.1033x + 0.008 R = 0.4006

1.20 0.90 0.60 0.30 0 -0.30 -0.60 0

y = 0.1346x - 0.1643 R = 0.4246

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 of the outlet (P-value = 0.049; n=10).

(d) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 4 of the outlet (P-value = 0.041; n=10).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.50

log(velocity + 0.5)

1.20 0.90 0.60 0.30 0 0

y = 0.1204x - 0.1352 R = 0.4803

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the outlet (P-value = 0.026; n=10). Left hand bank. Figure 3.6 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the outlet for barrier A1.

30

Table 3.3 - The output from the linear regression analyses between velocity and river flow for each transect point (1-5) across each transect for barrier A1. Transect point 1 is on the right hand bank (RB). Transect point 5 is on the left hand bank (LB). Figures in bold highlight regression correlations which are insignificant.

Results from the regression analysis of the transformed velocity data versus flow for each transect point of barrier A1
Barrier Transect Transect Point Significance (P-value) R-Sq (%) R-Sq(adjusted %) Regression coefficient Intercept

Inlet

A1

Midpoint

Outlet

1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB) 1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB) 1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB)

0.053 0.02 0.002 0.006 0.015 0.010 0.003 0.039 0.009 0.001 0.265 0.016 0.049 0.041 0.026

38.39 51.2 72.91 63.12 54.05 58.39 69.03 43.05 59.7 79.8 15.2 53.67 40.06 42.46 48.03

30.6 45.1 69.5 58.4 48.3 53.2 65.1 35.9 54.7 77.3 4.6 47.9 32.6 35.4 41.6

0.0683 0.0755 0.1072 0.114 0.1138 0.0514 0.0685 0.1021 0.0963 0.1193 0.0409 0.0835 0.1033 0.1346 0.1204

-0.1033 -0.1057 -0.4538 -0.5581 -0.6592 0.5445 0.3679 -0.1255 0.0108 -0.2228 0.6225 0.3927 0.008 -0.164 -0.1352

From the regression analyses it was revealed that the variability in water depth over each transect point of barrier A2 associated with changes in river flow is highly variable. At all five transect points across the inlet barrier A2, it was found that there was a positive correlation between depth and river flow despite the insignificant relationships recorded at transect points 1 and 2 as displayed in figure 3.7 and table 3.4. River flow is however a significant predictor of water depth at transect point 5 (P-value= <0.001; R =0.9251). This is
2

the strongest correlation of any regression equation produced. Unlike transect point 5 of the inlet, a high proportion of variability in water depth over the transect points of the midpoint of barriers A2 and A3 could not be accounted for by river flow as shown in figure 3.8. In fact, the water depth over transect points 4 and 5 had the weakest correlations with river flow (R =0.1687; 0.1901, respectively) for any transect point
2

of barrier A2 and A3 (see table 3.4). Nevertheless, the fit of the correlation between depth and river flow observed at transect point 1 (R =0.6737), transect point 2 (R =0.6281) and
2 2

transect point 3 (R =0.5534) is moderately strong.

2

31

Across the outlet of barriers A2 and A3, the relationship between water over transect point 1 and river flow that was found to be insignificant (P-value= 0.104; R =0.3749) as displayed in
2

figure 3.9 (a) and table 3.4. Despite the significance of the relationship at transect point 2 (Pvalue= 0.032; R =0.561), just under half of the variability in water depth is not associated
2

with river flow.

32

Depth vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Inlet - Barrier A2 & A3
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow
-0.48
log(depth + 0.5) log(depth + 0.5)

Transect Point 2 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0 -0.11 -0.22 -0.33 -0.44 -0.55

-0.50 -0.52 -0.53 -0.55 -0.57 0

y = 0.0033x - 0.5484 R = 0.0565

y = 0.0093x - 0.5785 R = 0.4196

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 1 of the inlet (P-value = 0.594; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 2 of the inlet (P-value = 0.067; n=8).

Transect Point 3 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0
log(depth + 0.5) log(depth + 0.5)

Transect Point 4 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0 -0.14 -0.28 -0.42 -0.56 -0.70

-0.14 -0.28 -0.42 -0.56 -0.70 0

y = 0.0265x - 0.6941 R = 0.697

y = 0.0225x - 0.7225 R = 0.6949

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 3 of the inlet (P-value = 0.013; n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 4 of the inlet (P-value = 0.01; n=8).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0
log(depth + 0.5)

-0.14 -0.28 -0.42 -0.56 -0.70 0

y = 0.0338x - 0.7723 R = 0.9251

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the inlet (P-value = <0.005; n=8). Left hand bank. Figure 3.7 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the inlet for barrier A2 & A3.

33

Depth vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Midpoint - Barrier A2 & A3
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow
0

Transect Point 2 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.28 -0.42 -0.56 -0.70 0 2.5 5.0 Flow 7.5 10.0

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.14

y = 0.0202x - 0.6923 R = 0.6737

-0.14 -0.28 -0.42 -0.56 -0.70 0

y = 0.016x - 0.67 R = 0.6281

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 1 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.013; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 2 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.019; n=8).

Transect Point 3 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

Transect Point 4 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

log(depth + 0.5)

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.14 -0.28 -0.42 -0.56 -0.70 0

y = 0.0164x - 0.666 R = 0.5534

-0.14 -0.28 -0.42 -0.56 -0.70

y = 0.0101x - 0.6067 R = 0.1687

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 3 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.034; n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 4 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.0311; n=8).

Transect Point 5 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.12 -0.24 -0.36 -0.48 -0.60 0

y = 0.0103x - 0.6006 R = 0.1901

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.279; n=8). Left hand bank. Figure 3.8 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the midpoint for barrier A2 & A3.

34

Depth vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Outlet - Barrier A2 & A3
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow
0
log(depth + 0.5) log(depth + 0.5)

Transect Point 2 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

-0.165 -0.330 -0.495 -0.660 0

y = 0.0104x - 0.6609 R = 0.3749

-0.175 -0.350 -0.525 -0.700

y = 0.0128x - 0.6662 R = 0.561

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 1 of the outlet (P-value = 0.104; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 2 of the outlet (P-value = 0.032; n=8).

Transect Point 3 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0
log(depth + 0.5) log(depth + 0.5)

Transect Point 4 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

-0.560

-0.160 -0.320 -0.480 -0.640 0

y = 0.0139x - 0.6748 R = 0.7671

-0.580 -0.600 -0.620 -0.640

y = 0.0078x - 0.652 R = 0.6268

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 3 of the outlet (P-value = 0.004; n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 4 of the outlet (P-value = 0.019; n=8).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

-0.560
log(depth + 0.5)

-0.585 -0.610 -0.635 -0.660 0

y = 0.0124x - 0.697 R = 0.6686

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the outlet (P-value = 0.013; n=8). Left hand bank. Figure 3.9 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the outlet for barrier A2 & A3.

35

Table 3.4 - The output from the linear regression analyses between depth and river flow for each transect point (1-5) across each transect for barriers A2 and A3. Transect point 1 is on the right hand bank (RB). Transect point 5 is on the left hand bank (LB). Figures in bold highlight regression correlations which are insignificant.

Results from the regression analysis of the transformed depth data versus flow for each transect point of barrier A2/A3
Barrier Inlet/ mid/ outlet Transect Significance (P-value) R-Sq (%) R-Sq (adjusted %) Regression coefficient Intercept

Inlet

A2/A3 Midpoint

Outlet

1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB) 1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB) 1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB)

0.571 0.083 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.013 0.019 0.034 0.311 0.279 0.104 0.032 0.004 0.019 0.013

5.65 41.9 69.7 69.49 92.5 67.3 62.8 55.34 16.9 19.01 37.49 56.1 76.71 62.68 66.86

0 32.2 64.6 64.5 91.3 61.9 56.6 48 3.1 5.6 27.2 48.9 72.9 56.4 61.2

0.033 0.0093 0.0265 0.0225 0.0338 0.0202 0.0160 0.0164 0.101 0.0103 0.0104 0.0128 0.0139 0.00782 0.0124

-0.5484 -0.5785 -0.6941 -0.7225 -0.7723 0.6923 -0.670 -0.666 -0.6067 -0.6006 -0.6609 -0.666 -0.6748 -0.652 -0.697

The association of velocity over barriers A2 and A3 against river flow was assessed with varying results. The velocity over transect points 3, 4 and 5 across the inlet of barrier A2 and A3 is not significantly correlated to the river flow (figure 3.10 and table 3.5). At transect points 4 and 5, there are several data points which do not agree with the regression, greatly reducing the strength of the regression equation. Whereas the relationship between velocity at transect point 1 (P-value= 0.048; R =0.5053) and transect point 2 (P-value= 0.021;
2

R =0.6157) and river flow was found to be significant however, the fit of the regression
2

correlation was also reduced as a consequence outlying data points. The linear regression of the velocity against river flow revealed that the correlation of 3 out of 5 the transect points across the midpoint was insignificant. Furthermore, a low proportion of the variation in velocity was accounted for by river flow at these transect points (figure 3.10). Subsequently, the predictive power of the regression equations calculated for transect points 1, 2 and 5 is limited. At transect point 3 (P-value= 0.011; R =0.6903) and transect
2

point 4 (P-value= 0.029; R =0.5726) the relationship is significant although the predictive
2

power reduced due to a number of data points both above and below the fitted regression.

36

Similarly the strength of the correlation of velocity at all five transect points cross the outlet against river flow, despite being of significant value, is lowered due to outlying data points (figure 3.12 and table 3.5). As previously mentioned, all regression equations produced from the linear regression analyses were incorporated into the barrier porosity model regardless of correlation strength between depth and velocity and river flow.

37

Velocity vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Inlet - Barrier A2 & A3
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow
0.300 0.225 0.150 0.075 0 -0.075 -0.150 -0.225 -0.300 0
log(velocity + 0.5) log(velocity + 0.5)

Transect Point 2 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.600 0.480 0.360 0.240 0.120 0

y = 0.0503x - 0.3437 R = 0.5053

y = 0.0729x - 0.1526 R = 0.6157

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 of the inlet (P-value = 0.048; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 of the inlet (P-value = 0.021; n=8).

Transect Point 3 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.700
log(velocity + 0.5)

Transect Point 4 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.700
log(velocity + 0.5)

y = 0.0449x + 0.162 R = 0.3447

0.560 0.420 0.280 0.140 0 0

0.560 0.420 0.280 0.140 0

y = 0.0108x + 0.3822 R = 0.0232

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 of the inlet (P-value = 0.131; n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 4 of the inlet (P-value = 0.730; n=8).

Transect Point 5 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0 -0.100 -0.200 -0.300 -0.400 0
log(velocity + 0.5)

y = 0.0159x - 0.1329 R = 0.0193

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow for

transect point 5 of the inlet. P-value = 0.742. Left hand bank. Figure 3.10 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the inlet for barrier A2 & A3.

38

Velocity vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Midpoint - Barrier A2 & A3
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow
0.500

Transect Point 2 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.700

log(velocity + 0.5)

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.375 0.250 0.125 0 -0.125 -0.250 0

y = 0.0647x - 0.1937 R = 0.4236

0.467 0.233 0 -0.233 -0.467 -0.700 0

y = 0.1008x - 0.401 R = 0.262

2.5 5.0 Flow 7.5 10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.083; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.195; n=8).

Transect Point 3 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.000

Transect Point 4 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.700

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.800 0.600 0.400 0.200 0 0

log(velocity + 0.5)

y = 0.1161x - 0.2644 R = 0.6903

0.525 0.350 0.175 0 -0.175 0

y = 0.1058x - 0.3832 R = 0.5765

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.011; n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.029; n=8).

Transect Point 5 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.600

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.450 0.300 0.150 0 -0.150 0

y = 0.0691x - 0.218 R = 0.4536

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.067; n=8). Left hand bank.

Figure 3.11 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the midpoint for barrier A2 & A3.

39

Velocity vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Outlet - Barrier A2 & A3
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow
0.800
log(velocity + 0.5)

Transect Point 2 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.700
log(velocity + 0.5)

0.600 0.400 0.200 0 -0.200 -0.400 0

y = 0.1143x - 0.3398 R = 0.5767

0.525 0.350 0.175 0

y = 0.0904x - 0.1626 R = 0.6135

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 of the outlet (P-value = 0.029; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 of the outlet (P-value = 0.021; n=8).

Transect Point 3 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.800
log(velocity + 0.5) log(velocity + 0.5)

Transect Point 4 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.900 0.720 0.540 0.360 0.180 0

0.600 0.400 0.200 0 0

y = 0.1028x - 0.1969 R = 0.7487

y = 0.0886x - 0.0259 R = 0.7503

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 of the outlet (P-value = 0.006; n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 4 of the outlet (P-value = 0.005; n=8).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.900
log(velocity + 0.5)

0.720 0.540 0.360 0.180 0 -0.180 0

y = 0.1148x - 0.3507 R = 0.5702

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the outlet (P-value = 0.031; n=8). Left hand bank. Figure 3.12 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the outlet for barrier A2 & A3.

40

Table 3.5 - The output from the linear regression analyses between velocity and river flow for each transect point (1-5) across each transect for barriers A2 and A3. Transect point 1 is on the right hand bank (RB). Transect point 5 is on the left hand bank (LB). Figures in bold highlight regression correlations which are insignificant.

Results from the regression analysis of the transformed velocity data versus flow for each transect point of barrier A2/A3
Barrier Inlet/ mid/ outlet Inlet Transect Significance (P-value) R-Sq (%) R-Sq (adjusted %) Regression coefficient Intercept

A2/A3 Midpoint

Outlet

1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB) 1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB) 1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB)

0.048 0.021 0.126 0.719 0.742 0.080 0.195 0.011 0.029 0.067 0.029 0.021 0.006 0.005 0.031

50.53 61.57 34.47 2.32 1.93 42.6 26.2 69.03 57.65 45.36 57.67 61.4 74.87 75.03 57.01

42.3 55.2 23.6 0 0 32.8 13.9 63.8 50.5 36.2 50.7 55 70.7 71.2 49.7

0.0503 0.0729 0.0449 0.0108 0.0159 0.0647 0.101 0.116 0.1058 0.0691 0.1143 0.0904 0.1028 0.0886 0.1148

-0.3437 -0.1526 0.162 0.3822 -0.1329 -0.1937 -0.401 -0.2644 -0.3832 -0.218 -0.3398 -0.1626 -0.1969 -0.0259 -0.3507

There were large differences in the significance of the relationship between the depth over the five transect points at the inlet of barrier A4 and river flow (figure 3.13 and table 3.6), with only the relationship for transect point 3 (P-value= 0.045; R = 0.05147) being of
2

significant value. While this was the only significant relationship across the inlet of barrier A4, the strength of the correlation was limited. At transect points 1 and 5 weak associations was observed with only 9.8% for the former and 3.7% for the latter between depth and river flow, resulting in an invariable prediction power of both transects to the porosity model. The correlation between depth and river flow over across the midpoint of barrier A4 did not fair any better as the correlations were exceedingly weak as displayed in figure 3.14 and table 3.6. Transect point 5 presented the strongest correlation (33.6%) however only one-third of the variability in depth was related to changes in river flow and as such the ability to predict water depth over this transect point using this regression equation is limited. Following on from the midpoint, the significance between depth and river flow varied across the 3rd transect of barrier A4 (figure 3.15 & table 3.6). River flow was significantly

41

correlated with water depth over transect point 2 (P-value= 0.012; R =0.678) and transect
2

point 3 (P-value= 0.043; R =0.5229). However, for transect points 1, 4 and 5 the relationship
2

was not significant with particularly weak correlations described for transect point 1 (Pvalue= 0.928; R = 0.0015) and transect point 5 (P-value= 0.662; R = 0.0341). The weaken
2 2

correlations were a result of numerous recorded water depths which did not conform to the fitted regression line. At the 4th transect of barrier A4, the significance of the relationship between depth and river flow across the transect was inconsistent (figure 3.16 and table 3.6). The correlation between water depth and river flow was only significant at transect points 1 (P-value= 0.002; R =
2

0.8067) and transect point 3 (P-value= 0.004; R = 0.07746) (figure 3.16 and table 3.6). The
2

correlation at transect points 4 (P-value= 0.54; R = 0.0658) and transect point 5 (P-value=
2

0.496; R = 0.0805) was incredibly low, and as such the prediction power of their regression
2

equations for use in the porosity model is low. Only transect point 5 displayed a strong significant correlation (P-value= 0.03; R = 0.5703)
2

between water depth and river flow at the outlet of barrier A4. The relationships between depth of the remaining transect points (1-4) of the outlet and river flow was insignificant, with the predictive power of the regression equations of these transects restricted as a number of depth measurements taken over transect points 1 to 4 did not fit the linear regression line as shown in figure 3.17 and table 3.6.

42

Depth vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Inlet Transect - Barrier A4
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow
0
log(depth + 0.5)

Transect Point 2 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

-0.155 -0.310 -0.465 -0.620 0

log(depth + 0.5)

y = 0.0065x - 0.6213 R = 0.0984

-0.175 -0.350 -0.525 -0.700

y = 0.0194x - 0.6695 R = 0.4391

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 of the inlet (P-value = 0.449; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 of the inlet (P-value = 0.073; n=8).

Transect Point 3 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0
log(depth + 0.5)

Transect Point 4 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0
log(depth + 0.5)

-0.175 -0.350 -0.525 -0.700 0

y = 0.0257x - 0.6975 R = 0.5147

-0.150 -0.300 -0.450 -0.600

y = 0.0121x - 0.6095 R = 0.4474

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 of the inlet (P-value = 0.045; n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 4 of the inlet (P-value = 0.07; n=8).

Transect Point 5 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0
log(depth + 0.5)

-0.175 -0.350 -0.525 -0.700 0

y = -0.001x - 0.5612 R = 0.0037

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the inlet (P-value = 0.886; n=8). Right hand bank. Figure 3.13 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the inlet for barrier A4.

43

Depth vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Midpoint transect - Barrier A4
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow
0
log(depth + 0.5) log(depth + 0.5)

Transect Point 2 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

-0.560 -0.585 -0.610 -0.635 -0.660

-0.170 -0.340 -0.510 -0.680 0

y = 0.01x - 0.6847 R = 0.3185

y = 0.0053x - 0.6519 R = 0.1478

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.145; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.347; n=8).

Transect Point 3 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

-0.550
log(depth + 0.5) log(depth + 0.5)

Transect Point 4 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

-0.560

-0.568 -0.586 -0.604 -0.622 -0.640 0

y = 0.0044x - 0.617 R = 0.1377

-0.585 -0.610 -0.635 -0.660

y = 0.0064x - 0.6375 R = 0.2381

0 2.5 5.0 Flow 7.5 10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.366; n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 4 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.220; n=8).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0
log(depth + 0.5)

-0.160 -0.320 -0.480 -0.640 0

y = 0.0082x - 0.6304 R = 0.3369

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.131; n=8). Right hand bank. Figure 3.14 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the midpoint for barrier A4.

44

Depth vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the 3rd Transect - Barrier A4
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow
-0.56
log(depth + 0.5) log(depth + 0.5)

Transect Point 2 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

-0.54

-0.59 -0.61 -0.64 -0.66 0

y = 0.0006x - 0.617 R = 0.0015

-0.57 -0.59 -0.62 -0.64

y = 0.0118x - 0.6719 R = 0.678

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 1 of the 3rd transect (P-value = 0.928; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 2 of the 3rd transect (P-value = 0.012; n=8).

Transect Point 3 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0
log(depth + 0.5) log(depth + 0.5)

Transect Point 4 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

-0.55 -0.57 -0.59 -0.60 -0.62

-0.16 -0.32 -0.48 -0.64 0

y = 0.01x - 0.6601 R = 0.5229

y = 0.0065x - 0.636 R = 0.4119

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 3 of the 3rd transect (P-value = 0.043; n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 4 of the 3rd transect (P-value = 0.086; n=8).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

-0.56
log(depth + 0.5)

-0.59 -0.61 -0.64 -0.66 0

y = 0.002x - 0.6255 R = 0.0341

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the 3rd transect (P-value = 0.662; n=8). Right hand bank. Figure 3.15 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the 3rd transect for barrier A4.

45

Depth vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the 4th Transect - Barrier A4
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow
0

Transect Point 2 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.155 -0.310 -0.465 -0.620 0

log(depth + 0.5)

y = 0.0137x - 0.6639 R = 0.8067

-0.18 -0.35 -0.53 -0.70

y = 0.0102x - 0.6057 R = 0.3278

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 1 of the 4th transect (P-value = 0.002; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 2 of the 4th transect (P-value = 0.138; n=8).

Transect Point 3 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

Transect Point 4 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

log(depth + 0.5)

log(depth + 0.5)

y = 0.0215x - 0.7043
-0.175 -0.350 -0.525 -0.700 0 2.5 5.0 Flow 7.5 10.0

R = 0.7746

-0.175 -0.350 -0.525 -0.700 0

y = 0.0044x - 0.6159 R = 0.0658

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 3 of the 4th transect (P-value = 0.004; n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 4 of the 4th transect (P-value = 0.54; n=8).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.18 -0.35 -0.53 -0.70 0

y = -0.0055x - 0.5714 R = 0.0805

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the 4th transect (P-value = 0.496; n=8). Left hand bank. Figure 3.16 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the 4th transect for barrier A4.

46

Table 3.6 - The output from the linear regression analyses between depth and river flow for each transect point (1-5) across each transect for barrier A4. Transect point 1 is on the right hand bank (RB). Transect point 5 is on the left hand bank (LB). Figures in bold highlight the regression correlations which are insignificant.

Results from the regression analysis of the transformed depth data versus flow for each transect point of barrier A4
Barrier Inlet/mid/ outlet Transect Significance (P-value) R-Sq (%) R-Sq (adjusted %) Regression coefficient Intercept

Inlet

Midpoint

A4 3rd Transect

4th Transect

Outlet

1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB) 1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB) 1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB) 1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB) 1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB)

0.449 0.073 0.045 0.07 0.886 0.145 0.347 0.366 0.220 0.131 0.928 0.012 0.043 0.086 0.662 0.002 0.138 0.004 0.540 0.496 0.187 0.376 0.216 0.588 0.03

9.84 43.9 51.4 44.74 0.0037 31.85 14.78 13.77 23.81 33.69 0.1 67.8 52.9 41.19 3.41 80.67 32.78 77.46 6.58 8.15 27.79 13.21 24.19 5.19 57.03

0 34.6 43.4 35.5 0 20.5 0.6 0 11.1 22.6 0 62.4 44.3 31.4 0 77.4 21.6 73.7 0 0 14.8 0 11.6 0 49.9

0.0065 0.0194 0.0257 0.0121 -0.001 0.01 0.00531 0.0044 0.006375 0.0082 0.0006 0.0118 0.01 0.0065 0.002 0.0137 0.0102 0.0215 0.0044 -0.0055 0.0097 0.0062 0.0047 0.0023 0.0104

-0.6213 -0.6695 -0.6975 -0.6095 -0.5612 -0.6847 -0.6519 -0.617 -0.6375 -0.6304 -0.617 -0.6719 -0.6601 -0.636 -0.6255 -0.663 -0.6057 -0.7043 -0.6159 -0.5714 -0.6429 -0.6201 -0.6116 -0.6434 -0.7142

The significance of the relationship and strength of the correlation between velocity and river flow varied across the inlet of barrier A4 as displayed in figure 3.18 and table 3.7. The correlation between the velocity over transect point 2 (P-value= 0.001; R =0.8391), transect
2

point 3 (P-value=0.024; R = 0.6059) and transect point 4 (P-value= 0.045; R = 0.516) to river
2 2

flow were the only significant relationships observed. For each transect point across the midpoint of barrier A4 the relationship between velocity against river flow was significant as displayed in figure 3.19 and table 3.7. The predictive power of the regression equations of each transect point is relatively strong as the strength of the correlation between velocity and river flow ranged from 52% to 76%.

47

Velocity over transect points 1-4 across the 3rd transect are also significantly correlated to river flow, with the fluctuations in river flow explaining 56% to 83% of the variability of velocity (figure 3.20 and table 3.7). River flow explains only 46% of the variability experienced in the velocity over transect point 5 (P-value= 0.085). A high proportion of the variability in the velocity over transect point 2 (P-value= 0.018; R =
2

0.6265), transect point 3 (P-value= 0.003; R = 0.7895) and transect point 4 (P-value= 0.034;
2

R = 0.5616) across the width of the 4th transect of barrier A4 is accounted for by changes in
2

river flow as illustrated in figure 3.21. The relationship of the velocities over these three transect points to river flow are also significant. Transect points 1 and 5 had velocities much lower than expected for river flow and as a result a weakened correlation between river flow and velocity was observed. The velocity over transect points 1 (P-value=0.531; R =0.0686) and transect point 5 (P2

value=0.606; R = 0.0471) at the outlet of barrier A4, similarly did not significantly correlate
2

with river flow as a number of velocity measurements did not conform to the fitted regression (figure 3.22 and table 3.7). Transect point 2 was the only point across the outlet that had a significant relationship between water velocity and river flow.

48

Depth vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Outlet - Barrier A4

Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow
0

Transect Point 2 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

0 -0.140 -0.280 -0.420 -0.560 -0.700

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.175 -0.350 -0.525 -0.700 0 2.5 5.0 Flow 7.5 10.0

y = 0.0097x - 0.6429 R = 0.2701

log(depth + 0.5)

y = 0.0062x - 0.6201 R = 0.1321

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 of the outlet (P-value = 0.187; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 of the outlet (P-value = 0.376; n=8).

Transect Point 3 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

-0.550

Transect Point 4 - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

-0.590

y = 0.0047x - 0.6116
log(depth + 0.5)

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.564 -0.578 -0.592 -0.606 -0.620 0

R = 0.2419

-0.604 -0.618 -0.632 -0.646 -0.660

y = 0.0023x - 0.6434 R = 0.0519

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 of the outlet (P-value = 0.216; n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 4 of the outlet (P-value = 0.588; n=8).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(depth + 0.5) vs flow

-0.590

log(depth + 0.5)

-0.608 -0.626 -0.644 -0.662 -0.680 0

y = 0.0104x - 0.7142 R = 0.5703

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(depth + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the outlet (P-value = 0.03; n=8). Left hand bank. Figure 3.17 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(depth +0.5) for each transect point (ae) across the outlet for barrier A4.

49

Velocity vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Inlet transect - Barrier A4
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow
log(velocity + 0.5) log(velocity + 0.5)
0.40 0.20 0 -0.20 -0.40 0 2.5 5.0 Flow 7.5 10.0

Transect Point 2 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0 -0.10 -0.20 -0.30 -0.40 0

y = 0.0779x - 0.3294 R = 0.4889

y = 0.0855x - 0.398 R = 0.8391

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 of the inlet (P-value = 0.053; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 of the inlet (P-value = 0.001; n=8)

Transect Point 3 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.50

Transect Point 4 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0 0

log(velocity + 0.5)

y = 0.0516x - 0.0835 R = 0.6059

y = 0.0525x - 0.0872 R = 0.516

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 of the inlet (P-value = 0.023; n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 4 of the inlet (P-value = 0.045; n=8).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.40

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.30 0.20 0.10 0 0

y = 0.036x + 0.0167 R = 0.313

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the inlet (P-value = 0.149; n=8). Left hand bank. Figure 3.18 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the inlet for barrier A4.

50

Velocity vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Midpoint transect - Barrier A4
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow
0.9

Transect Point 2 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.9

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.5 0.4 0.2 0 0 2.5 5.0 Flow 7.5 10.0

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.7

y = 0.101x - 0.1414 R = 0.7647

0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0 0

y = 0.082x + 0.0073 R = 0.5193

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.005; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.044; n=8).

Transect Point 3 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.9

Transect Point 4 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.0

log(velocity + 0.5)

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0 0

y = 0.0713x + 0.2016 R = 0.7522

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

y = 0.0833x + 0.1576 R = 0.7592

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.005; n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 4 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.005; n=8).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.00

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.83 0.67 0.50 0.33 0.17 0 0

y = 0.0664x + 0.2832 R = 0.6879

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the midpoint (P-value = 0.011; n=8). Left hand bank. Figure 3.19 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the midpoint for barrier A4.

51

Velocity vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the 3rd transect - Barrier A4
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow
1.10

Transect Point 2 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.20

log(velocity + 0.5)

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.83 0.55 0.28 0 0

y = 0.0865x + 0.1714 R = 0.6997

0.90 0.60 0.30 0

y = 0.0734x + 0.392 R = 0.685

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 of the 3rd transect (P-value = 0.010; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 of the 3rd transect (P-value = 0.011; n=8).

Transect Point 3 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.20

Transect Point 4 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.30

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.90 0.60 0.30 0 0

log(velocity + 0.5)

y = 0.0718x + 0.446 R = 0.7966

0.98 0.65 0.33 0

y = 0.0733x + 0.4542 R = 0.5118

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 of the 3rd transect (P-value = 0.003;n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 4 of the 3rd transect (P-value = 0.046; n=8).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.10

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.83 0.55 0.28 0 0

y = 0.049x + 0.4917 R = 0.4134

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the 3rd transect (P-value = 0.085; n=8). Left hand bank. Figure 3.20 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the 3rd transect for barrier A4.

52

Velocity vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the 4th transect - Barrier A4
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow
0.9
log(velocity + 0.5)

Transect Point 2 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.3
log(velocity + 0.5)

0.7 0.5 0.2 0 -0.2 0 2.5 5.0 Flow 7.5 10.0

1.0 0.7 0.3 0 0

y = 0.0929x + 0.3359 R = 0.6265

y = 0.0835x + 0.0584 R = 0.3872

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 of the 4th transect (P-value = 0.099; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 of the 4th transect (P-value = 0.019; n=8).

Transect Point 3 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.30
log(velocity + 0.5) log(velocity + 0.5)

Transect Point 4 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.100 0.825 0.550 0.275 0

0.98 0.65 0.33 0 0

y = 0.0807x + 0.4464 R = 0.7895

y = 0.0577x + 0.5486 R = 0.5616

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 of the 4th transect (P-value = 0.003; n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 4 of the 4th transect (P-value = 0.032; n=8).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.00
log(velocity + 0.5)

0.75 0.50 0.25 0 0

y = 0.0813x + 0.2251 R = 0.4225

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the 4th transect (P-value = 0.081; n=8). Left hand bank. Figure 3.21 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (ae) across the 4th transect for barrier A4.

53

Velocity vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the 4th transect - Barrier A4
Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow
0.9
log(velocity + 0.5)

Transect Point 2 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.3
log(velocity + 0.5)

0.7 0.5 0.2 0 -0.2 0 2.5 5.0 Flow 7.5 10.0

1.0 0.7 0.3 0 0

y = 0.0929x + 0.3359 R = 0.6265

y = 0.0835x + 0.0584 R = 0.3872

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 1 of the 4th transect (P-value = 0.099; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 2 of the 4th transect (P-value = 0.019; n=8).

Transect Point 3 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.30
log(velocity + 0.5) log(velocity + 0.5)

Transect Point 4 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.100 0.825 0.550 0.275 0

0.98 0.65 0.33 0 0

y = 0.0807x + 0.4464 R = 0.7895

y = 0.0577x + 0.5486 R = 0.5616

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 3 of the 4th transect (P-value = 0.003; n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and

flow for transect point 4 of the 4th transect (P-value = 0.032; n=8).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.00
log(velocity + 0.5)

0.75 0.50 0.25 0 0

y = 0.0813x + 0.2251 R = 0.4225

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(e) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the 4th transect (P-value = 0.081; n=8). Left hand bank. Figure 3.21 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (ae) across the 4th transect for barrier A4.

54

Velocity vs Flow Linear Regression Analyses for the Outlet - Barrier A4

Transect Point 1 (RB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow
1.10

Transect Point 2 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.40

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.83 0.55 0.28 0 0 2.5 5.0 Flow 7.5 10.0

log(velocity + 0.5)

1.05 0.70 0.35 0 0

y = 0.0682x + 0.677 R = 0.5712

y = -0.0459x + 0.9639 R = 0.0686

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(a) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 1 of the outlet. P-value = 0.531; n=8). Right hand bank.

(b) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 2 of the outlet. P-value = 0.03; n=8)

Transect Point 3 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.20

Transect Point 4 - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

1.20

log(velocity + 0.5)

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.90 0.60 0.30 0 0 2.5 5.0 Flow 7.5 10.0

0.90 0.60 0.30 0 0

y = 0.0716x + 0.408 R = 0.2856

y = 0.0455x + 0.7722 R = 0.3018

2.5

5.0 Flow

7.5

10.0

(c) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 3 of the outlet. P-value = 0.158; n=8).

(d) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow

for transect point 4 of the outlet. P-value = 0.172; n=8).

Transect Point 5 (LB) - log(velocity + 0.5) vs flow

0.60

log(velocity + 0.5)

0.45 0.30 0.15 0 -0.15 -0.30 0 2.5 5.0 Flow 7.5 10.0

y = 0.0339x - 0.0111 R = 0.0471

(e) - Correlation between log(velocity + 0.5) and flow for transect

point 5 of the outlet. P-value = 0.606; n=8). Left hand bank. Figure 3.22 - Linear regression analyses of flow versus log(velocity +0.5) for each transect point (a-e) across the outlet for barrier A4.

55

Table 3.7 - The output from the linear regression analyses between velocity and river flow for each transect point (1-5) across each transect for barrier A4. Transect point 1 is on the right hand bank (RB). Transect point 5 is on the left hand bank (LB). Figures in bold highlight the regression correlations which are insignificant.

Results from the regression analysis of the transformed velocity data versus flow for each transect point of barrier A4
Barrier Inlet/ mid/ outlet Inlet Transect Significance (P-value) R-Sq (%) R-Sq (adjusted %) Regression coefficient Intercept

Midpoint

A4 3RD Transect

4TH Transect

Outlet

1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB) 1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB) 1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 (LB) 1 (RB) 2 3 4 5 (LB)

0.053 0.001 0.023 0.045 0.149 0.005 0.044 0.005 0.005 0.011 0.010 0.011 0.003 0.046 0.085 0.099 0.019 0.003 0.032 0.081 0.531 0.030 0.158 0.172 0.606

48.89 8391 60.5 51.6 31.3 76.47 51.93 75.27 75.9 68.79 69.97 68.5 79.6 51.18 41.34 38.72 62.65 78.95 56.12 42.25 6.86 57.12 30.18 28.56 4.71

40.4 81.3 53.9 43.5 19.9 72.5 43.9 71 71.9 63.5 65 63.2 76.3 43 31.6 28.5 56.4 75.4 48.9 33.6 0 50 18.5 16.6 0

0.0779 0.0855 0.0516 0.0525 0.0361 0.101 0.0820 0.0713 0.0833 0.0664 0.0865 0.0734 0.0718 0.0733 0.049 0.0835 0.0929 0.0807 0.0577 0.0813 -0.0459 0.0682 0.0455 0.0716 0.0339

-0.3294 -0.398 -0.0835 -0.0872 0.0167 -0.1414 0.0073 0.2016 0.1576 0.2832 0.1714 0.392 0.446 0.4542 0.4917 0.0584 0.3359 0.4464 0.5482 0.2251 0.9639 0.677 0.7722 0.408 -0.011

Irrespective of their significance or strength of correlation, the regression equation of each transect point was incorporated into the barrier porosity model to calculate the daily water depths and velocities over each barrier during the migration period of 1975 to 2011.

3.3 Assessment of cumulative delay The model assumes that the upstream migration starts on the 1st of October every year and as such the cumulative delay caused by the four barriers, is the total number of days it would take the theoretical salmon individual to pass each barrier. The number of days that fish were

56

delayed under each barrier and the cumulative delay is highly variable and fluctuates from year to year. Barrier A1 is the first barrier to be encountered and must be passed before the theoretical salmon can reach barriers A2, A3 and A4. The number of the days that the salmon individual was delayed below barrier A1 ranged from 0-41 days. For the years 1977-78; 1978-79; 198283; 1985-86; 2000-01; 2005-06; 2008-09 and 2011-2012, salmon were not delayed by barrier A1 as the flow conditions on the 1st of October allowed passage on the first day of the migration period as displayed in table 3.8. The longest duration that the theoretical salmon was delayed was 41 days which occurred during the 2003-04 migration period. For the years 1975 to 2011, the mean number of days that Atlantic salmon was postponed during the migration period below barrier A1 was 7.9 days. Despite barrier A1 allowing passage on the first day of the migration period for eight years and the mean delay is relatively low, the proportion of the migration period where barrier A1 had a porosity score 0.3 was incredibly low. The 2011-2012 migration period had the lowest percentage of days (17.1%) where the flow conditions allowed passage to at least one-third of the Atlantic salmon population. In contrast, nearly half of the days (49.6%) of the migration period of 1982-83, barrier A1 was passable to at least a proportion of the Atlantic salmon population. On average, passage to Atlantic salmon was completely obstructed for two-thirds (67.8%) of the migration period and subsequently barrier A1 is a substantial partial and temporal barrier. It must also be noted that the daily porosity score modelled for barrier A1 attained a score no higher than 0.6 for any year (table 3.8) and as a result of this passage was always restricted to a proportion of the population. For each year the first date where progression past barrier A2 was feasible and thus number of days that fish are delayed is dependent on the delay experienced by Atlantic salmon at barrier A1. The cumulative delay imposed onto the migration of the theoretical individual varies considerably across the years, with barrier A2 only inflicting a delay of 1 day during the migration periods for 10 years between 1975 and 2011 (1975-76; 1983-84; 1984-85; 1985-86; 1986-87; 1994-95; 1996-97; 2003-04; 2004-05; 2009-10 and 2011-12) as shown in table 3.9. The longest cumulative delay caused by barriers A1 and A2 was 62 days which occurred during the 1993-94 migration period. However the majority of the delay (60days) experienced during the 1993-94 migration period was caused by barrier A2 which was incidentally was also the longest delay experienced by Atlantic salmon below barrier A2 for 57

any year. There were only eight years where the delay caused by barrier A2 was equal to or exceeded 10 days with an average delay of 15 days experienced during the migration periods of 1975 to 2011. The percentage of days where the flow conditions over barrier A2 allowed passage fluctuated from year to year (table 3.9) with the greatest impediment to migration modelled for the 1991-1992 migration period. For 50.4% of the 1979-80 migration period, flow conditions over barrier A2 allowed passage to at least one-third of the Atlantic salmon population. A porosity score of 1 was modelled for at least one day during the migration period of each year indicating that barrier A2 could be passed by any individual within the Atlantic salmon population. The percentage of days during the migration period where the flow conditions over barrier A3 provides an opportunity of passage and the range of porosity scores achieved each year for barrier A3 is the same as barrier A2 (see methodology section 3.1 for reasoning). Therefore, this component of the delay assessment of barrier A3 will not be described and it recommended that the description provided for barrier A2 is reviewed. A cumulative delay of 2 to 63 days was modelled during the migration periods of 1975 to 2011 as displayed in table 3.10. The shortest cumulative delay modelled for any year occurred during the migration period of 1985-86 and 2000-01, whereas a cumulative delay of 63 days during the 1993-94 migration period was the longest delay observed for any year. A delay of 1 day below barrier A3 after the successful passage of barrier A2 was the shortest period of time that salmon were postponed for any year from 1975-2011. There were 17 years where the delay below barrier A3 was equivalent to 1 day. Furthermore, the average time that the spawning population were postponed as a result of inadequate flow conditions over barrier A3 was relatively low (4.02 days). Furthermore, the time delayed below barrier A3 was accountable for 66% of the total cumulative delay inflicted onto the spawning population by the four barriers during the 2011-12 migration period however the theoretical salmon was only delayed for 4 days. With regards to the overall outcome of the model, a relatively low proportion of the total cumulative delay is associated with barrier A3.

58

Table 3.8 - The first date where the porosity score achieved is 0.3, the number of days delayed, the range of porosity scores achieved for each year and the percent of viable days of passage from OctJan for the years 1975-2011 for barrier A1. For the raw data see appendix I.

Barrier A1
Year 1975 - 76 1976 - 77 1977 - 78 1978 - 79 1979 - 80 1980 - 81 1981 - 82 1982 - 83 1983 - 84 1984 - 85 1985 - 86 1986 - 87 1987 - 88 1988 - 89 1989 - 90 1990 - 91 1991 - 92 1992 - 93 1993 - 94 1994 - 95 1995 - 96 1996 - 97 1997 - 98 1998 - 99 1999 - 2000 2000 - 01 2001 - 02 2002 - 03 2003 - 04 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 First Date of Viable Passage Barrier 1 3/10/75 05/10/76 1/10/77 01/10/78 07/10/79 03/10/80 04/10/81 01/10/82 04/10/83 19/10/84 01/10/85 20/10/86 08/10/87 05/10/88 18/10/89 02/10/90 30/10/91 02/10/92 03/10/93 02/11/94 06/10/95 03/10/96 10/10/97 13/10/98 04/10/99 01/10/00 06/10/01 11/10/02 11/11/03 03/10/04 01/10/05 02/10/06 09/10/07 01/10/08 21/10/09 27/10/10 01/10/11 Number of days delayed 2 4 0 0 6 2 3 0 3 18 0 19 7 4 17 1 29 1 2 32 5 2 9 12 3 0 5 10 41 2 0 1 8 0 20 26 0 Days of viable passage (%) 18.7 27.6 36.6 30.9 43 41.5 44.7 49.6 33.3 32.5 33.3 35.8 28.5 29.3 21.1 32.5 22.8 45.5 26.8 34.1 25.2 21.9 21.1 47.1 28.45 44.7 30.1 34.1 26.8 25.2 39.8 39 23.6 32.5 24.4 17.1 46.3 Porosity score range 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 -0.6

59

Table 3.9 - The first date where the porosity score achieved is 0.3 during each migration period, the number of days delayed by barrier A2 and cumulative delay, the range of porosity scores achieved for each year and the percent of viable days of passage from Oct-Jan for the years 1975-2011 for barrier A2. The percent of viable days of passage is independent of passage past barrier A1. For the results from the model see appendix I. * First date of viable passage after successfully passing barrier A1. ** Cumulative delay caused barriers A1 & A2.

Barrier A2
Year 1975 - 76 1976 - 77 1977 - 78 1978 - 79 1979 - 80 1980 - 81 1981 - 82 1982 - 83 1983 - 84 1984 - 85 1985 - 86 1986 - 87 1987 - 88 1988 - 89 1989 - 90 1990 - 91 1991 - 92 1992 - 93 1993 - 94 1994 - 95 1995 - 96 1996 - 97 1997 - 98 1998 - 99 1999 2000 2000 - 01 2001 - 02 2002 - 03 2003 - 04 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 First Date of Viable Passage Barrier A2 * 04/10/75 11/10/76 03/10/77 15/10/78 17/10/79 06/10/80 09/10/81 03/10/82 05/10/83 20/10/84 02/10/85 21/10/86 23/10/87 07/10/88 20/10/89 05/10/90 03/11/91 23/10/92 02/12/93 03/11/94 17/10/95 04/10/96 14/10/97 16/10/98 06/11/99 02/10/00 08/10/01 20/10/02 12/11/03 04/10/04 10/10/05 05/10/06 28/10/07 05/10/08 22/10/09 30/10/10 02/10/11 Number of days delayed by Barrier A2 1 6 2 14 10 3 5 2 1 1 1 1 15 2 2 3 4 21 60 1 11 1 4 3 33 1 2 9 1 1 9 3 19 4 1 3 1 Cumulative number of days delayed ** 3 10 2 14 16 5 8 2 4 19 1 20 22 6 19 4 33 22 62 33 16 3 13 15 36 1 7 19 42 3 9 4 27 4 21 29 1 Days of viable passage (%) 17 21.9 45.5 24.4 50.4 39 34.1 46.3 41.5 31.7 34.9 43.1 22 21.1 18.7 30.1 16.3 48.8 34.9 33.3 27.6 24.4 30.1 45.5 26 47.1 24.4 35 21.9 30.9 30.1 43.9 30.9 38.2 28.5 17.9 48 Porosity score range 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1

60

Table 3.10 - The first date where the porosity score achieved is 0.3, the number of days delayed, the range of porosity scores achieved for each year and the percent of viable days of passage from OctJan for the years 1975-2011 for barrier A3. For the raw data see appendix I. * First date of viable passage after successful passing barrier A2. ** Cumulative delay caused barriers A1, A2 & A3.

Barrier A3
Year 1975 - 76 1976 - 77 1977 - 78 1978 - 79 1979 - 80 1980 - 81 1981 - 82 1982 - 83 1983 - 84 1984 - 85 1985 - 86 1986 - 87 1987 - 88 1988 - 89 1989 - 90 1990 - 91 1991 - 92 1992 - 93 1993 - 94 1994 - 95 1995 - 96 1996 - 97 1997 - 98 1998 - 99 1999 - 2000 2000 - 01 2001 - 02 2002 - 03 2003 - 04 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 First Date of Viable Passage Barrier A3 * 23/10/75 14/10/76 04/10/77 18/11/78 19/10/79 07/10/80 10/10/81 04/10/82 08/10/83 22/10/84 03/10/85 22/10/86 26/10/87 08/10/88 21/10/89 07/10/90 04/11/91 24/10/92 03/12/93 08/11/94 22/10/95 05/10/96 15/10/97 17/10/98 17/11/99 03/10/00 09/10/01 23/10/02 13/11/03 05/10/04 11/10/05 06/10/06 19/11/07 07/10/08 25/10/09 01/11/10 06/10/11 Number of days delayed by Barrier A3 21 3 1 34 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 11 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 22 2 3 2 4 Cumulative number of days delayed ** 24 13 3 48 18 6 9 4 7 21 2 21 25 7 20 6 34 23 63 38 21 4 14 16 47 2 8 22 43 4 10 5 49 6 24 31 5 Days of viable passage (%) 17 21.9 45.5 24.4 50.4 39 34.1 46.3 41.5 31.7 34.9 43.1 22 21.1 18.7 30.1 16.3 48.8 34.9 33.3 27.6 24.4 30.1 45.5 26 47.1 24.4 35 21.9 30.9 30.1 43.9 30.9 38.2 28.5 17.9 48 Porosity score range 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1 0.3 - 1

61

Table 3.11 -The first date where the porosity score achieved is 0.3, the number of days delayed, the range of porosity scores achieved for each year and the percent of viable days of passage from OctJan for the years 1975-2011 for barrier A4. The number of days delayed each year by the four barriers is equal to the number of days presented. For the raw data see appendix I. * First date of viable passage after passing barrier A3. ** Cumulative delay caused barriers A1, A2, A3 & A4

Barrier A4
Year
1975 - 76 1976 - 77 1977 - 78 1978 - 79 1979 - 80 1980 - 81 1981 - 82 1982 - 83 1983 - 84 1984 - 85 1985 - 86 1986 - 87 1987 - 88 1988 - 89 1989 - 90 1990 - 91 1991 - 92 1992 - 93 1993 - 94 1994 - 95 1995 - 96 1996 - 97 1997 - 98 1998 - 99 1999 - 2000 2000 - 01 2001 - 02 2002 - 03 2003 - 04 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12

First Date of Viable Passage Barrier A4 *

23/11/76 15/10/76 05/11/77 21/11/78 22/10/79 26/10/80 27/10/81 12/10/82 11/10/83 26/10/84 04/10/85 24/10/86 14/11/87 12/10/88 30/10/89 01/11/90 08/11/91 26/10/92 05/12/93 09/11/94 28/10/95 23/10/96 16/10/97 1/11/98 29/11/99 04/10/00 15/10/01 01/11/02 23/12/03 06/10/04 19/10/05 28/10/06 03/12/07 11/10/08 10/11/09 05/11/10 07/10/11

Number of days delayed by Barrier A4

28 1 32 3 3 19 19 7 3 4 1 2 19 4 9 25 4 2 2 1 6 18 1 15 12 1 6 9 40 1 8 6 14 4 16 4 1

Total Cumulative delay (days) **

52 14 35 51 21 25 28 11 10 26 3 23 44 11 29 31 38 25 65 39 11 22 15 31 59 3 14 31 83 5 18 27 63 10 40 35 6

Days of viable passage (%)

4 8.9 12.2 9.7 20.3 17.1 15.4 25.2 19.5 11.4 14.6 13.8 4.1 11.4 8.9 11.4 4.1 17.9 13 13 12.2 11.4 10.6 20.32 10.6 16.3 12.2 9.8 8.9 11.4 17.1 11.4 10.6 14.6 8.13 8.9 16.2

Porosity score range

0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0. 6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0. 6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0. 6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.6

62

Barrier A4 is the last barrier that spawning Atlantic salmon must pass if they are to access habitats essential for reproduction, therefore barrier A4 is the last point where salmon may be unnaturally postponed. The total cumulative delay modelled for each year is presented in table 3.11 and incorporates the delay caused by the four barriers. Barrier A4 was responsible for a comparatively high proportion of the total cumulative delay modelled for the years 1977-78 (91%), 1990-91 (81%) and 1996-97 (82%). Despite this, it was the migration period of 2003-04 where barrier A4 was modelled to postpone salmon for up to 40 days, presenting the largest delay caused by barrier A4. In contrast to this, salmon were only delayed by 1 day during the migration periods of the years 1976-77; 1985-86; 1994-95; 1997-98; 2000-01; 2004-05 and 2011-12. Furthermore, there were 25 years where the delay caused by barrier A4 was equal to or less than 10 days. However for a number of these years, the cumulative delay created by barriers A1, A2 and A3 was quite extensive and as such the value of the short delay experienced below barrier A4 was lost. For an extremely high proportion of the 1975-76 migration period (96%) passage past barrier A4 was obstructed. It was also modelled that when barrier A4 does allow passage, it is restricted to one-third to two-thirds of the populations (porosity score 0.3 -0.6) with regards to the definitions provided in the field manual level A assessment guide (SNIFFER, 2010a). The overall cumulative delay caused by the four barriers is highly dependent on the flow conditions during the migration period which causes fluctuations in cumulative delay from year to year. The shortest delay experienced for any year was 3 days (1985-86 and 2000-01). The mean number of days that salmon were postponed by the four barriers was 28.8 days, which equates to the theoretical salmon passing the fourth barrier on the 29/10/2012. Despite on average a salmon being able to pass all four barriers within a month, the total cumulative delay did exceed 50 days on 6 occasions. The greatest number of days that a salmon was postponed was 83 days which occurred during the 2003-04 migration period in which barrier A1 (41 days) and barrier A4 (40 days) were responsible for the majority of the delay. Across 1975 to 2011 there was no barrier which could be singled out as the definitive barrier causing the majority of the cumulative delay. 3.4 Habitat Survey All three life-cycle habitats required for Atlantic salmon spawning are present above the four barriers (table 3.12). The quality of the holding habitat ranges from grade quality 2 and 3. 63

Similarly, the quality of the available spawning habitats above the four barriers were graded as quality grades 2 and 3. Only 26.04m of the total spawning habitat was identified as being
2

of quality grade 2, with the remaining 218.87m graded as being as the 4rd best quality. The
2

potential number of eggs that the river stretch above the four barriers is capable of producing is 15621 eggs. However, for this number to be realised, spawning salmon need to physically be able to access spawning grounds during the optimum spawning period.
Table 3.12 - Length (m) and Area (m ) of each life-cycle habitat and potential egg production available above the four barriers on the Killyclogher Burn recorded as part of a River habitat survey conducted by the Loughs Agency in 2007.
2

Available habitat for each life-cycle unit and potential egg production on the Killyclogher Burn above all four barriers Area (m ) Potential Egg Life-cycle Quality Length Production habitat Grade (m) 1 2 139.27 479.8 Holding 3 318.82 852.15 4 1 2 8.68 26.04 Spawning 3 98.29 218.87 4 1 23.75 108.32 1083 2 818.34 1966.78 9833 Nursery 3 621.16 1738.32 4345 4 92.72 322.05 total egg production= 15261
2

64

4.0 DISCUSSION By using the level A assessment methodology it was possible to identify the degree of impediment created by each barrier and which were of greatest concern to each species guild. However the porosity scores calculated are particular to the time at which the measurements were made and as such the results should be taken with caution especially if they are to used to inform management. The porosity scores calculated for all four barriers would suggest that under the flow conditions of the assessment, each structure was a complete barrier to the movement of at least one species guild, specifically Atlantic salmon and Cyprinids. Of the remaining species guilds, there were no barriers that did not impede upstream movement to at least a proportion of the population. As each barrier is the footing of a bridge, the limited passage across each barrier coincides with the work of Warren & Pardew (1998) who concluded that concrete road crossings can create serious impediments to a number of fish species. Physical parameters of each barrier such as pool depth, hydraulic head (inlet-outlet, m), vertical hydraulic head (vertical drop), gradient and effective length did not present a swimming or leaping barrier to the movement of Atlantic salmon and adult trout. However, a hydraulic head of 0.3m at barrier A1 and 0.19m at barrier A4 will result in a restricted movement of Cyprinids and juvenile Salmonids past these barriers. The upstream movement of Cyprinids was completely blocked by the hydraulic head at barrier A1. Cyprinids were the only group to be completely obstructed by a physical component of a barrier as opposed to hydraulic conditions. The leaping abilities of Cyprinids is not as established as salmonids however, Winter & Van Densen (2001) presumed that Cyprinids have limited leaping abilities thus it could be assumed that a hydraulic head of 0.3m would block Cyprinids all year round. The hydraulic head at barrier A1 also suggests that juvenile Salmonids would struggle to reach upstream habitats. So each physical parameter needs to be considered when approaching the assessment of barrier passability as they can physically obstruct movement, irrespective of the hydraulic conditions (SNIFFER, 2010b). Under elevated flows, the importance of a physical parameter to fish passage may change (SNIFFER, 2010b). At all four barriers the height of the vertical drop between the pool and the outlet was reduced during elevated river levels (personal observation), which may provide improved passage for Cyprinids and juvenile salmonids. However increases in river flow were matched with increases to water

65

velocity in which is limiting to both groups. At the time of the assessment the only factors that determined the porosity of a barrier to the upstream movement of Atlantic salmon and adult Trout was water depth and velocity. The four barriers were scored with a porosity of 0.3 to adult Trout, indicating that upstream movement to a large proportion of the population was blocked or that passage was blocked for a significant proportion of time. The limiting factor to the passage of adult Trout was insufficient water depth. A reduced movement of Cyprinids and juvenile salmonids as a result of the physical parameters and hydraulic conditions of the four barriers, will limit their distribution in the Killyclogher Burn. The four barriers will disrupt movement into the upstream habitats of Killyclogher Burn from the Camowen river for spawning purposes and dramatically reduces local distribution. Similarly for the adult Trout, the porosity scores indicate that the distribution up the Killyclogher Burn may be restricted. However due to their ability to surmount the hydraulic heads of barrier A1 and A4, and ability to traverse barriers under lower water depths than Atlantic salmon, adult Trout are probably the most capable of distributing their self up the Killyclogher Burn. The porosity scores would indicate that few to no individuals of Atlantic salmon are able to reach the spawning grounds upstream of the four barriers providing little competition for resources to adult Trout that may have established themselves. The initial assessment also suggested that inadequate water depth over all four barriers would completely obstruct the upstream movement of Atlantic salmon. At barriers A1, A2 and A3, inadequate water depth was the principle factor that blocked passage whereas at barrier A4 it was a combination of both water depth and velocity. Shallow water depths over a barrier present insufficient depth for fluid body undulations and the generation of thrust to pass each barrier. Additionally, inadequate water depths will result in body contact against the ground of the barrier which can reduce body condition or inflict injury (Dane, 1978). With each of the species guilds, the larger individuals of the population may be more sensitive to a reduction in water depth and struggle to traverse a barrier. However there have been instances where Atlantic salmon have been observed to flex their body so that movement passed an obstacle was not achieved by swimming but through active climbing when faced with shallow water depths (Webb & Hawks, 1986). Such is the problem of shallow depths to fish 66

movement that in some states in the USA, water depth criteria over structures is related to fish body thickness (1.5 times thickness) or height of caudal fin (2.5 times caudal fin height) (Hotchkiss & Frei, 2007). It may be possible for spawning Atlantic salmon to leap over the relatively short sloping face of barrier A1 (2.6m) if water depth is insufficient or water velocity exceeds swimming capabilities, as the pool below barrier A1 was >1m in depth providing space to gain momentum. Atlantic salmon have been recorded to clear waterfalls as high as 3.65m when pool depth was deep enough (Thorstad et al, 2008). However, while it may be possible for individuals with strong swimming or leaping capabilities to pass any of the barriers, the initial level A assessment suggests that in general Atlantic salmon populations would be obstructed as a result of insufficient water depth. Near the top of the Killyclogher Burn is the Glenhordial Water Treatment plant which is licensed to abstract up to 8,000 cubic meters of water per day. While abstraction volumes are normally well below this quantity, the abstraction of water may lower the water depth over each barrier contributing to the limited passage of fish species up the tributary. Water abstraction is frequently tied to interruptions in fish migration, with Thorstad et al (2008) concluding that fish delayed their migration when they were met with a reduced river flow. The impact of the water abstraction from the Killyclogher Burn could not be quantified as there were no records of river flow through the Killyclogher Burn previous to the development of the Glenhordial Water Treatment plant. Water velocity was only limiting over barrier A4 to Atlantic salmon and barriers A2 and A3 to juvenile salmonids. However, the water velocity thresholds for each porosity score used in the level A assessment are conservative values of swimming capabilities representing the range of abilities within a population. Thus, these purposely lowered capabilities will under estimate the ability of the individual especially as it is acknowledged that swimming capabilities are likely to exceed those reported from laboratory exercises (Thorstad et al, 2008). In accordance to the thresholds provided, a water velocity of 3m over a barrier
2

would totally obstruct the passage of Atlantic salmon. However a number of studies have indicated that Atlantic salmon are capable of swimming anywhere between 4-6ms for short
-1

distances (~20m) (Beamish, 1978; Thorstad et al, 2008). So Atlantic salmon may be capable to ascend a barrier despite being scored as a complete velocity barrier. A review of juvenile abundance data of 0+ salmon indicated that juveniles were present above all four barriers for a number of years, albeit in low numbers, indicating that spawning adults had reached 67

spawning grounds. The level A assessment has several limitations on its use, to inform management and aid the prioritisation of barrier remediation or removal. As the assessment tool does not accommodate measurements in relation to fish behaviour it relies heavily on expert opinion which is often not available. Yet behaviour is important to understanding the ability of fish to pass a barrier as individuals may not pass a barrier despite conditions allowing passage (Coffman, 2005). A sudden reduction in light within a barrier or a change in substrate can result in the refusal of fish passage and lead to inconsistencies to predicted passage (Baker, 2004). Barrier A4 was the only barrier that may of induced a behavioural response so that individuals did not attempt to traverse the barrier as a result of reduction in light. In light of the drawbacks associated with the level A assessment and the importance of Atlantic salmon production in the Foyle system, a model was developed that would allow the cumulative delay imposed onto a migration by the four barriers to be calculated. As with the level A assessment, the porosity scores and delay calculated is a conservative estimation of barrier passability and should be taken with caution. The number of days that the theoretical Atlantic salmon was delayed under barrier A1 changed each year and ranged between 0-41 days. There were eight years where the salmon was not delayed and could pass barrier A1 on the first day of arrival below the barrier. Thus the only impact that barrier A1 had during these years was excess energy depletion from surmounting the barrier. The average number of days that the theoretical salmon was delayed was 7.9 days indicating that each year the salmon was not generally not held up for long by barrier A1. However, the theoretical salmon was delayed by 41 days during the 2003-04 migration period. This was deemed to be excessive and damaging to the individuals internal condition (energy depletion) and spawning opportunities especially as this is the first of four barriers that still needed to be passed. With respect to the ability of the population to pass barrier A1, there were no days where the porosity score was 1 indicating that a proportion of the population will always be obstructed. Inadequate water depth over barrier A1 was predominantly the factor that induced the delay throughout each migration period. The modelled delays of barrier A2 fluctuated each year, with a delay of one day recorded for 10 of the assessed years. The longest delay below barrier A2 was during the 1993-94 68

migration period, where the individual was delayed for 60 days. This constituted 92% of the cumulative delay caused by the four barriers. However this was an isolated case with barrier A2 typically causing only small delays between 1-3 days. Similarly, the delay created by barrier A3 was relatively low with delays typically lasting between 1-5 days, however in the years 1975-77; 1978-79 and 2007-08 long delays exceeding 20 days were calculated. Such delays heavily contributed to the total cumulative delay inflicted onto a spawning migration. However from year to year the number of days of delay created varied considerably. The proportion of the migration period where a porosity score of 0.3 or more was the same for barrier A2 and A3. The number of days that barriers A2 and A3 had a porosity score of at least 0.3 changed from year to year. However, for the most part passage was blocked to Atlantic salmon for 68% of the migration period. The limiting factor to the theoretical salmon was primarily water depth over barriers A2 and A3. Barrier A4 was the last barrier that needed to be passed if Atlantic salmon were to spawn in the Killyclogher Burn. However this barrier also created a delay to spawning salmon with delays ranging from 1 to 40 days. Furthermore, barrier A4 had the lowest proportion of viable days of passage during a migration period. From the delay caused by each barrier it was possible to calculate the cumulative delay that the theoretical salmon endured during the upstream migration to the spawning grounds. The shortest delay experienced for any year was 3 days (1985-86 and 2000-01) however this was not a count of days delayed below a barrier but the time taken for salmon to physically swim from barrier A1 to A4 following the assumptions integrated into the model. For these years, delay would not have encroached into the spawning grounds but there would of been excess energy expenditure compared to unhindered passage. At the other end of the spectrum the longest cumulative day experienced was 83 days, which barrier A1 and A4 were responsible. However, at each barrier the delay modelled showed considerable range, making it difficult to isolate which barrier was responsible for total cumulative delay. It is clear that each barrier has specific river flows which allow passage to spawning salmon thus making it difficult to define river flow of the Killyclogher Burn that would allow unhindered movement. Each barrier was a temporal/partial barrier to Atlantic salmon as no barrier had a porosity score of 1 throughout the entire migration period. The cumulative delay caused by the four barriers averaged at 28.8 days, shifting back the arrival of Atlantic salmon by nearly a month. However follows the assumption that spawning salmon stay below a barrier until conditions allow passage and 69

do not leave the tributary. Croze (2005) found that the cumulative effect of a number of small weirs resulted in only 4% of the spawning population reaching the spawning grounds. It is likely that an equally small percentage of the population aiming for the spawning grounds in the Killclogher Burn actually make it there. A delay below a barrier can result in a variety of responses, with individuals leaving the system to spawn else where or being forced to spawn in low quality habitats. Although observations of salmon remaining below a waterfall for up to 31days would suggest that individuals are willing to wait for conditions which allow passage. With regards to spawning success in the Killyclogher Burn, the cumulative delay on the arrival to the spawning grounds can have several implications. The late arrival of individuals to the spawning grounds can shift the timing of fry emergence from the redds (nests) out-with the preferred environmental conditions resulting in lost feeding opportunities (Warren et al, 2012). Furthermore, if males arrive late to spawning grounds their opportunities may be limited, as females tend to leave shortly after spawning therefore reducing the number of females to pair with (Tay District Salmon Fisheries Board, 2007; Kemp et al, 2008). The overripening of the gonads as a result of postponed spawning can reduce the viability of eggs and thus the success of egg survival (Thorstad et al, 2008). Thus an artificial delay to the migration can negatively impact the salmon production in a river. A study by Warren et al, (2012) indicated that the construction of redds reduced by as much of 65 redds, when brown trout were delayed by one week and so substantial delays in the timing of arrival to the spawning grounds by Atlantic salmon may reduce the number of eggs produced. The Killyclogher Burn is capable of supporting 15,261 eggs assuming maximum spawning is achieved. However with large cumulative delays the likelihood of the maximum egg production potential being met is reduced. With the large delays a large proportion of salmon may also give up on the upstream migration of the Killyclogher Burn and spawn else where. Assuming passage past the four barriers is viable, and adult Atlantic salmon reach spawning grounds, the depletion of energy during barrier ascents may be so vast that high rates of mortality after spawning are observed (Garcia de Leaniz, 2008). Thus the four barriers may adversely impact the salmon production in the Killyclogher Burn through a number of factors. The model makes certain assumptions regarding the movement of Atlantic salmon, and as such the results are only indicative of potential delays. The model assumes that the theoretical individual can pass any barrier with a porosity score of 0.3 or above within a day of arriving 70

below a barrier, however it is not always that an individual would be possible of passing a porosity score of 0.3 every time as the limiting factor may be water depth or water velocity. Furthermore, within a spawning population migration patterns may differ and the pattern used for the model only represents one of many patterns (Thorstad et al, 2008). The model assumes that the theoretical salmon will not give up the migration and try spawning else where when faced with a delay which has been recorded in several instances (Webb, 1990). The model also assumes that the migration always starts on the same day each year, however it is recognised that spawners tend to enter small tributaries during times of elevated discharges which cannot not be predicted (Webb & Hawkins, 1986). The strength of the correlations and predictive power of each regression analyses ranged from 0% variability explained by river flow to 92.5% of the variation explained by river flow and as such the results obtained from weak regression correlations should be taken with caution. The position of the five depth and velocity transect point measurements across each transect differed between dates for the inlet and outlet of barrier A4. At the edges of the inlet there is an step up of approximately 8cm which under high flows is covered by the river flow. The 1st and 5th depth and velocity transect points across the inlet during high flow were taken on the step up as this provided a potential avenue for passage. However because of this the 1st and 5th transect point were not measured in the same position across all dates. The change in transect position is therefore responsible for the poor correlation of water depth and velocity between transect points 1 and 5 across the inlet to river flow. The change in transect points also affected the velocity and water depth correlations on other barriers There were a number of other relationships between water depth and velocity to river flow at each barrier which were not significant. This was for a number of reasons, such as insufficient water depth to accurately measure water velocity, the sheltering of water velocity by rocks so that elevated river flow was not matched by changes in velocity and areas of high depth due to a standing wave created by a lip on the outlet of barriers A2 and A3. It is clear that linear regression analyses may not provide valuable information on the relationship between water depth or velocity to river flow if under high or low flows complex hydraulic features appear such as standing waves. Another drawback of the model is use of river flow data recorded on the main stem of the River Camowen as opposed to river flow recorded on the Killyclogher Burn. The River Camowen has a large upstream catchment size and flow recorded at the gauging station is 71

influenced by rainfall else where in the catchment. Furthermore, river flow may not respond to heavy precipitation very quickly with a lag time before elevated waters are observed whereas changes in river flow in the Killyclogher Burn is likely to be observed fairly quickly. On several occasions, the difference in lag time weakened the correlations between water depth and/or velocity to river flow. Thus river flow recorded from the Camowen River is not the best representative of flow conditions in the Killyclogher Burn. In relation to barriers, water temperature influences the ability of individuals to pass obstacles. Temperatures outside of the optimal range reduces the intensity of aerobic activity and impairs the swimming performance of Atlantic salmon (Baisez et al, 2011). Jensen et al (1986) observed that when temperatures were below 8C, individuals were not able to successfully pass a 3m waterfall. Similarly, Gowans et al (1999) did not record any tagged individuals passing a fish ladder until the water temperature had reached 9C. With Salmon of the River Tay and Spey requiring temperatures above 5.5C to scale obstacles. This interaction of water temperature and barrier passage success further complicates the issue of assessing the passage of barriers, as delays experienced earlier in the migration may result in the arrival of fish at barriers at temperatures to low that permits passage. Despite the importance of temperature, there were no records of daily water temperature available and thus the impact of temperature on movement could not be modelled. However it would be possible to include temperature thresholds into the model that could indicate where passage was not possible. While the data from the model is informative and can indicate the proportion of the time that passage is viable past a barrier, the model needs to be extensively validated in the field and used on a number of different barriers if the model is to allow estimations of the number of fish that can pass. There are a number of techniques that can be used for validations although those most commonly used is the measurement of juvenile abundance through electrofishing surveys (Kemp & OHanley, 2010). The juvenile data available above the four barriers was deemed inadequate to produce any viable results. Quantitative electrofishing techniques to provide a more precise number of young fish upstream of rivers as apposed to semiquantitative electrofishing surveys. It may also be informative to calculate the juvenile production of an unhindered river/tributary with similar physical and water quality parameters and compare the juvenile production between the two tributaries to measure any reductions. The use of mark and recapture techniques may be another viable option to 72

validate the results as it would provide the number of fish that have ascended barriers, with the provision of a rough estimate of the date of ascent which could be compared to predicted dates of passage. However the most informative method currently available is the use of telemetry to physically track individuals. The time taken for a fish to pass a barrier and the date of successful passage may then be compared against the modelled daily porosity score to see if the two are in agreement. As previously discussed the use of telemetry equipment is expensive, thus it is recommended that juvenile abundance data is used as a validation technique. However any data available from previous telemetry studies on the same river stretch should be used. When a structure has been identified as forming a barrier to the movement of ecologically or commercially important fish species such as the four barriers on the Killyclogher Burn, remediation work or the removal of the barriers needs to be prioritised. While the level A assessment methodology scores the porosity of a barrier, it does not take into account its spatial position in relation to the quantity and quality of habitat above the barrier or its position in relation to other barriers. These factors are important to consider as funding is often lacking and environmental bodies want biggest bang for buck when investing time and money (Kemp et al, 2008). The removal of obstructing barriers is deemed as the most effective method of increasing fish production with increases in production observed within a year of removal (Roni et al, 2002; Kemp et al, 2010). As the Killyclogher Burn is a small tributary it is unlikely that substantial funding would be directed towards the removal or mitigation of the barriers, however it is proposed that simple modifications to barriers A2 and A3 would increase passage. The installation of baffles is a common method to dissipate high water velocities and increase the water depth through culverts (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1999) and has also improved passage through other types of barriers. Natural materials, such as logs or large rocks are relatively inexpensive and can be attached to the surface of the barrier, increasing water depth and providing areas of reduced velocity to allow fish to rest. For remediation work, both biologists and engineers should be consulted before any work is conducted. However as it was not possible to single out which barrier was causing the majority of the delay, all four barriers would require modifications to their structures to provide connectivity from the River Camowen to the spawning grounds in the Killyclogher Burn.

73

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It should be ensured that all level A assessments are conducted at low summer flows, to comply with the recommendations of the methodology and to allow comparisons between barriers and between surveys (if surveyed more than once). In the future application of the model, the position of the water depth and velocity measurements (transect points) across each transect need to remain consistent between dates. Even if transect points are dry under low flows, as to improve the correlation between measurements to river flow. It is also recommended that more water depth and velocity measurements are taken to define the relationship between each hydraulic parameter to river flow, especially at very low and very high flows as to encompass the entire range of conditions. Recordings of river flow data should ideally be collected on the same river stretch as the barriers. It would be preferable for river flow to be recorded just downstream of a barrier. However as this is often unfeasible, a larger number of water depth and velocity measurements over a barrier would prove useful. With regards to functionality, the inclusion of additional components would allow the model to be used on a number of different barriers and not just those that show homogeneity across their width. The inclusion of the hydraulic conditions of a number of horizontal transverse sections would be useful as a great number of barriers provide various routes of passage which may open up under specific river flows. Another addition would be to include water temperature with defined thresholds for when a barrier can or cannot be passed. While water temperature can be extrapolated from atmospheric temperature, daily water temperature measurements recorded with river flow would be best. For other species present within a river and where their swimming capabilities are relatively well established, the model can be tailored to assess the porosity of barriers to the movement of other species, especially those incorporated into the level A assessment. For both assessment techniques it is highly advantageous to obtain presence/absence data above the set of barriers assessed to provide further indication the accuracy of the porosity

74

results. Where possible historical salmon data before the installation of the barriers assuming they are man-made should also be obtained. This would allow a direct count of the reduction in salmon returning to their spawning grounds above a barrier or quantify the loss in salmon production related migration barriers.

6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to extend my gratitude and thanks to the following people who without I would not of been able to complete my project: my advisor of studies, Dr Colin Adams & Dr Paddy Boylan, and support staff, Dr Jennifer Dodd. Additionally James Barry; Matt Newton; Rachel Scott; Jenny McLeish; Art Niven and Calum Margey. I would also like to thank the IBIS project for providing funding for the project and, the Loughs Agency and SCENE for providing office spaces, resources and support during the project.

75

7.0 REFERENCES Aas, O., Einum, S., Klemetsen, A. & Skurdal, J. (2011). Atlantic Salmon Ecology. Blackwell Publishing. United Kingdom. Aarestrup, K., Jepsen, N., Rasmussen, G., kland, F. & Thorstad, E. B. (2000). Prespawning migratory behaviour and spawning success of sea-ranched Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in the River Gudenaa, Denmark. Fisheries Management and Ecology. 7: 387-400. Acreman, M. C. & Ferguson, A. J. D. (2010). Environmental flows and the European Water Framework Directive. Environmental flows: Science and Management. 55: 32-48. Alabaster, J. S. (1990). The temperature requirements of adult Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., during their upstream migration in the River Dee. Journal of fish biology. 37: 659-661. Annon., (1995). Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities, OTAENV-641 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1995). Baisez, A., Bach, J-M., Leon, C., Parouty, T., Terrade, R., Hoffmann, M. & Laffaille, P. (2011). Migration delays and mortality of adult atlantic salmon Salmo salar en route to spawning grounds on the River Allier, France. Endangered species research. 15: 265-270. Baker, C. (2004). Surveyed Road Crossings and Dams in the Piscataquis River Drainage. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Maine Fishery Resources Office. Beamish, F. W. H. (1978). Swimming Capacity. Fish Physiology. Volume VII. Locomotion. edited Hoar, W. S & Randall, D. J. Academic Inc Press. Beavers, A. E., Hotchkiss, R, H. & Belk, M. C. (2008). Fish Passage at Udot Culverts: Prioritization and Assessment. Final Report No. UT-08.8. Utah Department of Transportation Research and Innovation Division. United States. pp. 25. Berg, O. K. (1986). The formation of non-anadromous populations of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in Europe. Journal of Fish Biology. 27: 805-815.

76

Boylan, P. (2004). Dynamics of the atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) population of the River Foyle, Ireland. PhD Thesis. University of Glasgow. Brown, R. S. & Geist, D. R. (2002). Determination of swimming speeds and energetic demands of upstream migrating fall Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Klickitat River, Washington. Pacific Northwest national Laboratory, Washington. pp. 52 + vi Burford, D.D, McMahon, T.E., Cahoon, J.E. & Blank, M. (2009). Assessment of trout passage through culverts in a large Montana drainage during summer low flow. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29: 739-752 Burrows, J. (2007). Atlantic Salmon Angling on the Penobscot. Penobscot River Restoration Trust Cahoon, J., McMahon, T., Solcz, A., Blank, M. S. & Stein, M. S. (2007). Fish Passage in Montana Culverts: Phase II - Passage Goals. Montana Department of Transportation. Montana State University Bozeman, Montana. Castella, E., Bickerton, M., Armitage, P. D. & Petts, G. E. (1995). The effects of water abstraction on invertebrate communities in U.K. streams. Hydrobiologia. Vol 308. Number 3. Pages 167-182. Chanseau, M. & Larinier, M. (1998) The behaviour of returning adult Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in the vicinity of a hydroelectric plant on the Gave de Pau river (France) as determined by radiotelemetry. In: Jungwirth M, Schmutz S, Weiss S (eds) Fish migration and fish bypasses. Fishing New Books. Oxford. pp. 257264. Clavero, M., Blanco-Garrido, F., & Prenda, J. (2004). Fish fauna in Iberian Mediterranean river basins: biodiversity, introduced species and damming impacts. Aquatic Conservation: marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 15: 415-426. Coffman, J.S. (2005). Evaluation of a predictive model for upstream fish passage through culverts. Master's Thesis. James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia. 77

Colavecchia, M., Katopodis, C., Goosney, R., Scruton, D. A. & McKinley, R. S. (1998). Measurement of burst swimming performance in wild Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) using digital telemetry. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management. 14: 41-51. Croze, O. (2005) Radio-tracking: a useful tool for the Aulne Atlantic salmon rehabilitation programme. In: Spedicato MT, Lembo G, Marmulla G (eds) Aquatic telemetry: advances and applications. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Fish Telemetry held in Europe, Ustica, Italy, pp. 1324. Dane, B.G. A review and resolution of fish passage problems at culvert sites in British Columbia. Technical Report, Fisheries and Marine Service of Canada, issue 180. pp 126 + xi. Deegan L.A. & Buchsbaum, R.N. (2005). The effect of habitat loss and degradation on fisheries. In: Buchsbaum, R., Pederson, J. & Robinson, W.E. (eds.) The decline on fisheries resources in New England: evaluating the impact of overfishing, contamination and habitat degredation. Cambridge (MA): MIT Sea Grant College Program, Publication No. MITSG 05-5: 67-96 Dempsen, J. B., Schwarz, C. J., Reddin, D. G., OConnell, M. F., Mullin, C. C. Bourgeois, C. E. (2001). Estimation of marine exploitation rates on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) stocks in Newfoundland, Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 58: 331-341. Dulvy, N. K., Sadovy, Y. & Reynolds, J. D. (2003). Extinction vulnerability in marine populations. Fish and Fisheries. 5: 25-64. Fjeldstad, H. P., Barlaup, B. T., Stickler, M., Gabrielsen, S. E. & Alfredsen, K. (2011). Removal of weirs and the influence on physical habitat for Salmonids in a Norwegian River. River Research and Application. 28: 753-763. Fontenelle, G., Douaire, G., Baglinie`re, J. L., Prouzet, P. & Harache, Y. (1980). Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L. 1766) in Brittany and Lower Normandy: preliminary observations on the general characteristics of adults. Fisheries Management. 11: 49-60.

78

Freeman, R.E., Stanley, E.H. & Turner, M.G. (2003). Analysis and conservation implications of landscape change in the Wisconsin River floodplain, USA. Ecological Applications 13: 416-431. Fryirs, K. & McNab, K. (no date). Using the river Styles framework as a physical template upon which an anthropophysical layer can be developed for urban streams. Brisbane City Council. Furniss, M. J., Firor, S. & Love, M. (2000). Software and Learning System for the Analysis of Fish MigrationThrough Culverts. Stream systems technology centre. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. United States. Garcia-Berthou, E., Alcaraz, C., Pou-Rovira, Q., Coenders, G. & Feo, C. (2005). Introduction pathways and establishment rates of invasive aquatic species in Europe. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 62: 453-463. Garcia de Leaniz, C. (2008). Weir removal in salmonid streams: implications, challenges and practicalities. Hydrobiologia. 609: 83-96. Gerlier, M. & Roche, P. (1998) A radio telemetry study of the migration of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and sea trout (Salmo trutta trutta L.) in the upper Rhine. Hydrobiologia 372: 283-293. Gibson, R. J. (1993). The Atlantic salmon in fresh water: spawning, rearing and production. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 3: 39-73. Gibson, J. & Haedrich, R. (2006). Life History Tactics of Atlantic salmon in Newfoundland. Freshwater Forum. 26: 38-45. Gilvear, D. J., Heal, K. V. & Stephen, A. (2002). Hydrology and the ecological quality of Scottish river ecosystems. The science of the total environment. 294: 131-159. Gowans, A. R. D., Armstrong, J. D. & Priede, I. G. (1999). Movements of adult Atlantic salmon in relation to hydroelectric dam and fish ladder. Journal of Fish Biology. 54: 713-726. 79

Greig, S. M., Sear, D. A. & Carling, P. A. (2005). The impact of fine sediment accumulation on the survival of incubating salmon progeny: Implications for sediment management. Science of The Total Environment. 344: 241-258. Gross, M. R (1998). One species with two biologies: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the wild and in aquaculture. Canadian Journal of Fish Aquatic Science. 55: (Supp 1.) 131-144. Harden Jones, F.R. (1968). Fish migration. E. Arnold, London. pp 325 + viii Hasler, A. D., Scholz, A. T. & Horrall, R. M. (1978). Olfactory Imprinting and Homing in Salmon: Recent experiments in which salmon have been artificially imprinted to a synthetic chemical verify the olfactory hypothesis for salmon homing. American Scientist. 66: 347355. Hawkins, A.D. & Smith G.W. (1968). Radio-tracking observations on Atlantic salmon ascending the Aberdeenshire Dee. Scottish Fisheries Research Report Supplement, 36: 1-24 Heggberget, T. G., kland, F. & Ugedal, O. (1996). Prespawning migratory behaviour of wild and farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in a north Norwegian river. Aquaculture Research. 27: 313-322. Hendry, K. & Cragg-Hine D. (2003). Ecology of the Atlantic Salmon. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series N0. 7. English Nature, Peterborough. pp 33. Hesthagen, T., Larsen, M. B. & Fiske, P. (2011). Liming restores Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) populations in acidified Norwegian rivers. Canadian Journal of Fish Aquatic Science. 68: 224-231. Hholclk, J. (1980). Possible reason for the expansion of Carassius auratus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Teleostei, Cyprinidae) in the Danube River Basin. International Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie. 65:673-679. Hindar, K., Fleming, I. A., McGinnity, P., Diserud, O. (2006). Genetic and ecological effects 80

of salmon farming on wild salmon: modelling from experimental results. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 63: 1234-1247. Hotchkiss, R. H & Frei, C. M. (2007). Design for fish passage at roadway stream crossings. Synthesis Report. Washington State University. Hu, B. Q., Yang, Z. S., Wang, H. J., Sun, X. X. & Bi, N. S. (2009). Sedimentation in the Three Gorges Dam and its impact on the sediment flux from the Changjiang (Yangtze River), China. Hydrology and Earth Systems Sciences. 6: 5177-5204. Jansson, R., Nilsson, C. & Malmqvist, B. (2007). Restoring freshwater ecosystems in riverine landscapes: the roles of connectivity and recovery processes. Freshwater Biology. 52: 589596. Jensen, A. J., Heggerget, T. G. & Johnsen, B. O. (1986). Upstream migration of adult Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in the River Vefsna, northern Norway. Journal of Fish Biology. 29:459-465. Johnsen, B. O (1978). The effect of an attack by the parasite Gyrodactylus salaris on the population of salmon parr in the river Lakselva, Misvaer in northern Norway. Journal of Arctic Biology. 11: 7-9. Johnsen, B. O. & Jensen, A. J. (1986). Infestations of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, by Gyrodactylus salaris in Norwegian rivers. Journal of Fish Biology. 29: 233-241. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (2007). Second Report by the UK under Article 17 on the implementation of the Habitats Directive from January 2001 to December 2006. Conservation status assessment for : S1106: Salmo salar - Atlantic salmon. Peterborogh: JNCC. Jonsson, B. & Ruud-Hansen, J. (1985). Water temperature as the primary influence on timing of seaward migrations of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 42: 593-595.

81

Jonsson, N., Jonsson, B. Hansen, L. P. (1997). Changes in proximate composition and estimates of energetic costs during upstream migration and spawning in Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. Journal of Animal Ecology. 66: 425-436. Jonsson, N. & Jonsson, B. O. (2011). Ecology of Atlantic Salmon and Brown Trout. Habitat as a template for life histories. Fish & Fisheries Series. Volume 33. 1st Edition. Jones, D. R. (1982). Anaerobic exercise in teleost fish. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 60: 1131 -1134. Jones, P. D. (2006). Water quality and fisheries in the Mersey estuary, England: A historical perspective. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 53: 144-154. Juanes, F., Gephard, S. & Beland, K. F. (2004). Long-term changes in migration timing of adult Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) at the southern edge of the species distribution. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 61: 2392-2400. Katopodis, C. (1992). Introduction to Fishway Design. Freshwater Institute. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Canada. Kemp, P. S. & OHanley, J. R. (2010). Procedures for evaluating and prioritising the removal of fish passage barriers: a synthesis. Fisheries Management and Ecology. 17: 297-322. Kemp, P. S., Russon, I. J., Waterson, B., OHanley, J. & Pess, G. R. (2008). Recommendations for a "Coarse-resolution radid-assessment". Methodology to assess barriers to fish migration and associated prioritisation tools. International Centre for Ecohydraulic Research Klemetsen, A., Amundsen, P. -A., Dempson, J. B., Jonsson, B., Jonsson, N., OConnell, M. F. & Mortensen, E. (2003). Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L., brown trout Salmo trutta L. and Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (L.): a review of aspects of their life histories. Ecology of Freshwater Fish. 12: 1 -59. Kocik, J.F. & Sheehan, T.F. (2006). Status of Fishery Recourses off the Northeastern US. 82

NEFSC - Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division, NOAAhttp://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/af/salmon/archives/41_AtlanticSalmon_2006.pd f Kornfield, I., Bailey, J., Beland, K. & Ritzi, C. 1995, December 19. Report of the Salmon Genetics Committee. Governors Maine Atlantic Salmon Task Force. Lucas, M.C. & Baras, E. (2001). Migration of freshwater fishes. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, U.K. pp. 420 + xvii Lnnerholm, Y. (2011). Upstream fish migration in relation to barriers in Fyrisn. Biology Education Centre, Department of limnology, Uppsala University. pp. 23. Magee, J. A., Obedzinski, M., McCormick, S. D. & Kocik, J. F. (2003). Effects of episodic acidification on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts. Canadian Journal of Fish Aquatic Science. 60: 214-221. Marmulla, G. (2001). Dams, fish and fisheries. Opportunities, challenges and conflict resolution. Food and Agriculture of the United Nations. Mawle, G. W. & Peirson, G. (2009). Environmental Agency. Economic evaluation of inland fisheries. Managers report from science project SC050026/SR2. McCormick, S. D., Hanse, L. P., Quinn, T. P. & Saunders, R, L. (1998). Movement, migration and smolting of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fish Aquaculture Science. 55: (Supp 1). 77-92. McDowall, R.M. (1997). The evolution of diadromy in fishes (revisited) and its place in phylogenetic analysis. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 7: 443-462 McGinnity, P., Prodhl, P., Ferguson, A., Hynes, R., Maoileidigh, N. O., Baker, N., Cotter, D., OHea, B., Cooke, D., Rogan, G., Taggart, J. & Cross. (2003). Fitness reduction and potential extinction of wild populations of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, as a result of interactions with escaped farm salmon. Proceeding of the Royal Society London Biological 83

Sciences. 270: 2443-2450. McLaughlin, R.L., Porto, L., noakes, D.L.G., Baylis, J.R., Carl, L.M., Dodd, H.R., Goldstein, J.D., Hayes, D.B. & Randall, R.G. (2006). Effects of low-head barriers on stream fishes: taxonomic affiliations and morphological correlates of sensitive species. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63: 766-779. Meixler, M.S., Bain, M.B. & Todd, W.M. (2009). Predicting barrier passage and habitat suitability for migratory fish species. Ecological Modelling 220: 2782-2791. Milliman, J, D. & Mei-e, R. (1995) River Flux to the Sea: Impact of Human Intervention on River Systems and Adjacent Coastal Areas. Climate change: Impact on coastal habitation. pp. 57-83. Mills, D. (1989). Ecology and Management of Atlantic Salmon. Chapman & Hall. Cambridge. United Kingdom. NASCO. (2009). Focus Area Report on Protection, Restoration and Enhancement of Salmon Habitat. UK - Northern Ireland. IP(09)14draft. NASCO. (2008). Implementation Plan, European Union - Germany. Ad Hoc Review Group. IP(07)21 FINAL. Niven, A., Santiago, R., OConnor, M. & Lawlor, D. (2010). Camowen River and Tributaries Catchment Status Report. Report Ref: LA/CSR/02/11. Loughs Agency of the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. pp. 1-77. Norris, R. H., Linke, S., Prosser, I., Young, W. J., Liston, P., Bauer, N., Sloane, N., Dyer, F. & Thoms, M. (2007). Very-broad-scale assessment of human impacts on river condition. Freshwater Biology. 52: 959-976. kland, F., Erkinaro, J., Moen, K., Niemela, E., Fiske, P., McKinley, R. S. & Thorstab, E. B. (2001). Return migration of Atlantic salmon in the River Tana: Phases of migratory behaviour. Journal of Fish Biology. 59: 862-874. 84

Ornell, P. (2012). Video monitoring of the River Neidenelva salmon and sea-trout migrations in 2006-2011. Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute. Otero, J., Jensen, A. J., LAbee-Lund, J. H., Stenseth, N. C., Storvik, G. O. & Vollestad, L. A. (2011). Quantifying the Ocean, Freshwater and Human Effects on Year-to-Year variability of One-Sea-Winter Atlantic Salmon angled in multiple Norwegian rivers. Plus One. 6: 1-11. Ovidio, M & Philippart, J. C. (2002). The impact of small physical obstacles on upstream movements of six species of fish. Synthesis of a five years telemetry study in the River Meuse Basin. Hydrobiologia. 483: 55-69. Paish, O. (2002). Small hydro power: technology and current status. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 6: 537-556. Pricewatershousecoopers. (2007). The Social and Economic Impact to Northern Ireland, and areas within the Loughs Agency, of Recreational Fisheries, Angling and Angling Resources. Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, The Loughs Agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Rakowitz, G., Kubecka, J., Fesl, C. & Keckeis, H. (2009). Intercalibration of hydroacoustic and mark-recapture methods for assessing the spawning population size of a threatened fish species. Journal of Fish Biology. 75: 1350-1370. Rivinoja, P. (2005). Migration problems of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in floe regulated rivers. Acta Univertstatis Agriculturae Sueciae. 114: 1-36 Romakkaniemi, A., Pera, I., Karlsson, L. Jutila, E., Carlsson, U. & Pakarinen, T. (2003). Development of wild Atlantic salmon stocks in the rivers of the northern Baltic sea in response to management measurements. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 60: 329-342. Roni, P., Beechie, T., Bilby, R., Leonetti, F., Pollock, M., & Pess, G. 2002. A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific 85

Northwest watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 22: 20. Rosenberg, D. M., McCully, P. & Pringle, C. M. (2000). Global-Scale Environmental Effects of Hydrological Alterations: Introduction. BioScience. 50: 746-751. Roscoe, D.W. & Hinch, S. G. (2010). Effectiveness monitoring of fish passage facilities: historical trends, geographic patterns and future directions. Fish and Fisheries. 11: 1233. Saunders, R. L. & Sprague, J. B. (1967). Effects of copper-zinc mining pollution on a spawning migration of Atlantic salmon. Water Research. 1: 419-432. Saunders, D. L., Meeuwig, J. J. & Vincent, A. C. J. (2002). Freshwater Protected Areas: Strategies for Conservation. Conservation Biology. 16: 30-41. Scottish Natural Heritage (2012). http://www.snh.gov.uk/land-and-sea/managingfreshwater/freshwater-fisheries/ accessed on 19-March-2013 Shapiro, S. S. & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 52: 591-611. Sheer, M. B. & Steel, E. A. (2006). Lost Watersheds: Barriers, Aquatic Habitat Connectivity, and Salmon Persistence in the Willamette and Lower Columbia River Basins. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 135: 16541669 Smith, G. W., Smith, I. P. & Armstrong, S. M. (1994). The relationship between river flow and entry to the Aberdeenshire Dee by returning adult Atlantic salmon. Journal of Fish Biology. 45: 953-960. SNIFFER. (2010a). WFD111 (2a) Coarse resolution rapid-assessment methodology to assess obstacles to fish migration. Field manual level A assessment. SNIFFER. (2010b). Trialling of the methodology for quantifying the impacts of obstacles to fish passage. Final Report. WFD111 (Phase 2a). Pages

86

Stabell, O. B. (1984). Homing and Olfaction in salmonids: A critical review with special reference to the Atlantic salmon. Biological Reviews. 59: 33-338. Standen, E. M., Hinch, S. G. & Rand, P. S. (2004). Influence of river speed on path selection by migrating adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 61: 905-912. Staurnes, M., Kroglund, F. Rosseland, B. O. (1995). Water quality requirement of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in water undergoing acidification or liming in Norway. Water, Air & Soil Pollution. 85: 347-352. Stasko, A.B., Horrall, R.M., Hasler, A.D. & Stasko D. (1973). Costal movements of mature Fraser River pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) as revealed by ultrasonic tracking. Journal of the Fisheries Board of Canada 30: 1309-1316. Surian, N. (2007). River Channelization. Encyclopedia of Water Science. Chapter 241. Second Edition. pp. 986-990. Sutterby, R. & Greenhalgh, M. (2005). Atlantic salmon: an illustrated natural history. Stackpole Books. USA. Tay District Salmon Fisheries Board (2007). Annual Report 2006/07. pp. 48 Taylor EB (1991) A review of local adaptation in salmonidae, with particular reference to Pacific and Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture, 98: 185207. Tchir, T.L., Johnson, E.A. & Miyanishi, K. (2004). A model of fragmentation in the Canadian boreal forest. Canadian Journal od Forest Research 34: 2248-2262. Thorstad, E. B., Okland, F., Aarestrup, K. & Heggberget, T, G. (2008). Factors affecting the within-river spawning migration of Atlantic salmon, with emphasis on human impacts. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. 18: 345-371. Tonteri, A., Titov, S., Veselov, A., Zubchenko, A., Koskinen, M, T., Lesbarreres, D., Kaluzchin, S., Bakhmet, I., Lumme, J. & Primmer, C, R. (2005). Phylogeography of 87

anadromous and non-anadromous Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) from northern Europe. Annales Zoologici Fennici. 42: 1-22. Tripolszky, S. (2012). Ten Rivers. A review of Europe's New Water Protection. Brussels, Belgium. pp 28. Verspoor, E. & Cole, L. J. (1989). Genetically distinct sympatric populations of resident and anadromous Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 67: 1453-1461. Warren, M.L. & Pardew, M.G. (1998). Road crossings as barriers to small-stream fish movement. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127: 637-644. Warren, D., Robinson, J. M., Josephson, D. C., Sheldon, D. R. & Kraft, C. E. (2012). Elevated summer temperatures delay spawning and reduce redd construction for resident brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Global Change biology. 18: 1804-1811. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (1999). Fish passage design at road culverts: A design manual for fish passage at road crossings. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Lands Program Environmental Engineering Division. United States. Watt, W. D (1987). A summary of the impact of acid rain on atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Canada. Water, Air and Soil Pollution. 35: 27-35. Watt, W. D. (1989). The impact of habitat damage on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) catches. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 105: 154-163. Webster, L., Phillilps, L., Russell, M., Dalgarno, E. Moffat, C. (2005). Organic contaminants in the Firth of Clyde following the cessation of sewage sludge dumping. Journal of Environmental Monitoring. 7: 1378-1387. Webb J (1990) The behaviour of adult Atlantic salmon ascending the Tivers tay and Tummel to Pitlochry dam. Scott Fish Res Rep 48:127 Webb, J. & Hawkins, A. D. (1986). The movements and spawning behaviour of adult salmon 88

in the girnock burn, a tributary of the Aberdeenshire Dee. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. Windsor, M. L., Hutchinson, P., Hansen, P. L. & Reddin, D. G. (2012). Atlantic salmon at sea: Findings from recent research and their implications for management. NASCO document. Edinburgh. Winter, H. V. & Van Densen, W. L. T. (2001) Assessing the opportunities for upstream migration of non-salmonid fishes in the weir-regulated River Vecht. Fisheries Management and Ecology. 8: 513-532. Wofford J.E.B., Gresswell R.E. & Banks M.A. (2005) Influence of barriers to movement on within-watershed genetic variation of coastal cutthroat trout. Ecological Applications 15: 628637 Wolfensohn, S. & Lloyd, M. (2004). Handbook of Laboratory Animal management and welfare. Blackwell Publishing. WWF. (2001). The status of Wild Atlantic Salmon: A river by river assessment. Young, M. K. (1995). Resident Trout and Movement: Consequences of a New Pardigm. Fish Habitat Relationships: Technical Bulletin. 18: 1-5.!

89