Electric Fishing Fry Index Survey - Fowey

Semi & Fully Quantitative Electric Fishing Surveys

River Fowey

January 2023

Hannah Winchester

Westcountry Rivers Trust Electric Fishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2022

Westcountry Rivers Trust is an environmental charity established in 1995 to restore, protect and improve the rivers, streams, and water environments in the region for the benefit of wildlife and people.

This report has been written and prepared by: Hannah Winchester

Published by: Westcountry Rivers Trust Rain Charm House, Kyl Cober Parc, Stoke Climsland, Callington, Cornwall, PL17 8PH.

Tel: 01579 372140

Email: info@wrt.org.uk

Web: www.wrt.org.uk

Charity no. 1135007

Company no. 06545646

Document history:

© Westcountry Rivers Trust: 2023. All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Westcountry Rivers Trust

Westcountry Rivers Trust Electric Fishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2022

Executive Summary

Westcountry Rivers Trust (WRT) undertook electric fishing (EF) surveys throughout the River Fowey catchment during the summer of 2022. The surveys are a continuation of monitoring undertaken as part of the Water for Growth (W4G) and is the twelfth consecutive year of Fry Index Survey monitoring and the second year of additional quantitative area-based surveys conducted on the catchment. Both salmon and trout are present throughout the Fowey catchment, with salmon spawning occurring on the main river and some of the tributaries in varying abundance. Trout spawning appeared to be far more successful on the tributaries of the main river with most producing good and excellent classifications. It should also be noted that summer 2022 was the driest since 1995 as well as the second hottest year on record. Conservation strategies, such as the Defend/Repair/Attack approach, have been applied on a sub catchment level dependant on classifications received during the semi-quantitative surveys. Works undertaken through the W4G project have been commented on where it is believed fish passage and/or arboricultural works have increased salmonid recruitment or where fish passage concerns are restricting access to certain areas

Westcountry Rivers Trust Electric Fishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2022

1. Introduction

The Westcountry Rivers Trust (WRT) undertook 24 semi-quantitative fry index and 1 quantitative area-based electric fishing surveys of the River Fowey catchment in September 2022. This was the twelfth consecutive year of fish monitoring undertaken by WRT and was continued as part of the monitoring for the Water for Growth Project (W4G) and forms part of establishing a long-term dataset of semi-quantitative fry numbers and quantitative fry and par density.

This year the sites were selected from the list of 2021 sites, with the addition of no new sites (Figure 1), however, there were a few sites not fished by WRT as these were monitored by the Environment Agency as part of their six-year cycle Water Framework Directive monitoring. It is hoped that these sites will continue to be surveyed every year to build a strong baseline dataset for the catchment.

2. Methodology

2.1 Electric Fishing Protocols

Electric fishing uses a controlled electric current to induce fish to swim toward an anode and into a hand net, and thereby be counted and assessed. When carried out correctly by experienced and qualified surveyors it is not harmful to fish and the fish are released back to the same location they were caught. In upland streams and shallower sections of

Figure 1 Survey site location, River Fowey, 2022

rivers, an electric fishing backpack is used and therefore this type of kit was used for all the Fowey surveys.

There are several approaches to electric fishing assessments in rivers; quantitative, area semi-quantitative and time semi-quantitative methodologies. All three methods have their advantages and disadvantages.

Quantitative electric fishing is a thorough methodology that has the highest degree of accuracy of all the methods. The main disadvantages of this approach are it is less mobile than backpack equipment and it takes longer to undertake surveys. It Is therefore more costly than other approaches. With this method, an area of river is netted off and the fish are removed from this defined stretch in multiple passes until sufficient fish are removed to form a very accurate assessment of species and numbers. It is not required to remove all the fish from the area but rather ensure a consistent fishing method that gives a linear decrease in the number of fish caught per pass. The overall catch decline gives an accurate estimate of the total number of fish in the location. This is known as the ‘depletion’ methodology.

An area-based semi-quantitative electric fishing methodology follows the same process as quantitative electric fishing but only a single pass is carried out. A lack of multiple passes renders the method only semi quantitative and therefore less accurate, but it has the advantage of being much quicker than the depletion method, and it is suitable for use on all waterbody types. It is able to detect multiple species and is reasonably accurate but is less time efficient and therefore costlier than a time-based methodology (described below).

A time-based, semi-quantitative electric fishing methodology differs from both the approaches described above. Instead of limiting the area fished (by use of nets) it limits the amount of time used to fish to assess fish numbers. As no nets are deployed, fish in deeper sections of large rivers can frequently avoid capture using this method. It is therefore only suitable to assess salmonid fry, who are restricted to a shallower section of upland streams and rivers. This method is extremely rapid and therefore costeffective, allowing for deployment across whole river catchments although its major drawback is its lower accuracy than netted approaches.

In weighing up the pros and cons of the various approaches it is worth considering what would be required for a truly reliable method. In scientific publications it is usually considered that if an approach is accurate 95% of the time then this is an acceptable standard. Such an approach would be said to have sufficient statistical power to answer the question asked, for example, ‘has this habitat improvement resulted in more fish in the area studied?’. For an electric fishing methodology to have sufficient statistical power it requires a large number of sites to be fished in a fully-quantitative depletion methodology over a number of years. As such an effort is rarely practicable and will cost more than the habitat improvements it attempts to measure, this approach is rarely applied in the UK. River managers in the UK have limited budgets and therefore it is the case that an

electric fishing programme of insufficient statistical power to achieve 95% confidence is usually accepted as a compromise between accuracy and cost.

Bearing in mind the limits of statistical power that these approaches usually have (as practically applied), it is important to consider the aim of a given electric fishing programme. In the case of WRT’s catchment scale electric fishing programme, the aim is to build up historical data on each catchment to provide information as to how to best take action to improve the fish stocks for salmon and trout. To achieve this, the largest number of sites possible for maximum catchment coverage must be fished over several consecutive years to i) guide current/future conservation strategies and ii) identify whether or not the actions taken on the catchment have had a positive effect on fish numbers. Most importantly the electric fishing programme is specified to be carried out at a catchment scale where salmon and trout spawning areas occur. As most rivers have many tributaries or main stems of considerable length, a relatively large number of sites are required for full coverage. This typically equates to between 20 to 100 sites on rivers in southwest England, depending on the river catchment geography. All things considered; a timed semi-quantitative approach was considered most appropriate for the WRT electric fishing programme. This method will indicate the main issues and areas that need addressing on a river catchment including:

• Upstream barriers to fish-passage

• Degraded habitat quality

• The upper limit of salmon spawning

• Successfully/Unsuccessfully enhanced habitat

• Catchment-scale fry migration due to river levels

• Point source and diffuse pollution

2.2 Life Cycle and Bottlenecks

The aim of the semi-quantitative electric fishing program is to identify issues that prevent salmonids from effectively completing their life-cycle, and then proposing solutions that are proportionate to the issue at hand. It is useful to adopt certain conceptual frameworks to each of these aims, and in this report, we will use two of these frameworks; the ‘habitat bottlenecks’ that describe the causes of issues in salmonid ecology (Figure 2), and the ‘Defend/Repair/Restore’ conservation strategy framework which describes the appropriate habitat action depending on the ecological situation found at the site.

2.3 Catchment-Based Fisheries Conservation Strategy (Defend/Repair/Attack)

In using the fry index classification, catchment population abundance monitoring and determining the river reach density classification, a series of priority areas can be outlined, and management recommendations made tailored to the particular species. Recommendation actions broadly follow the Defend/Repair/Attack concept, developed by Ronald Campbell of the Tweed Foundation. For every river reach that is classified, a management action can be loosely determined.

Whilst this provides a useful structuring framework, the reality of given situations can bring many complexities and lies on a continuum between these extremes. The goal is to move the river reaches of the Fowey up from the unstable point (i.e. poor fish stocks and habitat) to the broad top of a healthy, natural riverine ecosystem. Where the populations are in a very poor state, radical actions may be required to see a change. Conversely, where the stocks are already good, habitat re-engineering and stocking operations would be inappropriate. Actions to achieve these improvements can be divided between ‘fish stock actions’ such as fish translocations or bag limits for anglers and ‘fish habitat actions’ such as removing barriers to migration or coppicing. In many situations, both types of action will be required. This concept helps divide catchment scale management for fisheries into priorities and therefore can help to maximise multiple benefits through targeted work.

2.4Site Selection

Survey sites on the Fowey were selected to provide representative samples from distinct river reaches, characterised by habitat type, proximity to barriers and proximity to targeted restoration works under the gravel augmentation project. Sites are proposed by WRT and will help to contribute to a longer-term EF survey dataset where trends can be established, and positive or negative patterns of salmonid recruitment inferred based on the findings within a sub catchment.

Figure 2 Diagrams defining salmonid habitat bottlenecks (Summers et al, 1996)

2.5 Field Sampling and Data Analysis

Permission for all sites was established before electric fishing surveys took place and each site was electric fished by a two or three-person team. The voltage of the unit was set at each site depending on the water conductivity, measured using a handheld conductivity meter. The operatives fished continuously for a standard five minutes over suitable fry habitat without the use of stop nets. The fishing area was variable, and the length of fishing time was fixed. Fish were collected in a net and placed into an aerated holding bucket before processing.

All salmonids were identified to species and fork length was measured and recorded. Numbers or density estimates were recorded for all other species captured. Habitat features such as land use, substrate type and shading were recorded at each site. Any fry that were missed or escaped during electric fishing were assigned to either trout or salmon groups depending on the relative percentage of each species already recorded at the site.

The results of the semi-quantitative electric fishing survey results were classified according to the methodology of Crozier and Kennedy (1994), displayed in Table 1, with each site being given an equivalent density classification compared to quantitative monitoring. This semi-quantitative methodology was designed by Crozier and Kennedy for both salmon and trout. However, the results for trout need adjustments to consider the difference in the regression line for trout and salmon as described by Crozier and Kennedy.

The quantitative results were analysed using the statistical quantitative Zippin removal model (Zippin, 1958) to determine an estimated population size. Population estimates for the area fished are used to calculate the density of population per 100m2. The results from the Zippin removal model were then used to classify each site using the National Fisheries Classification Scheme (Table 2).

Table 1 Semi-quantitative abundance categories for salmon fry (Crozier & Kennedy, 1994)

Westcountry Rivers Trust Electric Fishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2022

Based on the lengths of fish captured during the survey, using a length frequency histogram, salmon fry were considered to be any individual that measured up to 90mm (Figure 3) and trout fry were considered to be any individual measuring up to 85mm (Figure 4).

Table 2 National Fisheries Classification Scheme

Figure 3 Salmon fry length frequency distribution, River Fowey 2022

Figure 4 Trout fry length frequency distribution, River Fowey 2022

Atlantic salmon frequency distribution, 2022

Brown trout frequency distribution, 2022

3. Results & Discussion

WRT surveyed 24 semi-quantitative and one quantitative sites on the River Fowey in September. Weather and general survey conditions were dry and very warm which resulted in extremely low river levels and increased water temperatures. It should also be noted that summer 2022 was the driest since 1995, as well as the second hottest year on record. As with previous years, surveyors kept a close eye on river water temperatures to ensure surveying did not proceed if water temperatures exceeded 18°C, in accordance with Environment Agency guidance.

As in previous years, the 2022 catchment survey demonstrates that the River Fowey catchment can support excellent salmonid spawning and the importance of large, main river stem and larger tributary spawning sites for salmon reproduction, whereas trout rely on important, generally smaller side tributaries. There were three excellent classification sites for salmon in 2022, along with three good sites. Salmon fry were absent from ten of the 24 sites, however, most of these sites are historically absent of salmon, mainly due to obstructions and poor or unsuitable habitat. Trout fry were far more productive with four excellent classification sites along with eight good classification sites, with only one site being absent of trout fry.

As in previous years salmon spawning was sporadic with varied results and although most of the main river sites did hold salmon fry of varying numbers some of the side tributaries also held salmon fry to excellent to poor numbers. In contrast, most of the trout fry were present in largest numbers in the tributaries of the Fowey with all of the excellent sites being within the Warleggan. A total of 390 salmon (183 in 2021) and 500 trout (688 in 2021) were caught across all sites which included the number of salmon and trout parr caught at each semi-quantitative site, but these do not have any formal classification associated.

Table 3 River Fowey semi-quantitative salmon and trout fry classifications and addition parr caught for 2022 (ordered from upstream to downstream)

Westcountry Rivers Trust Electric Fishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2022

Table 4 Fowey salmon fry historic classifications 2010-2022 (N.B cross hatched classifications are sourced from EA surveys)

Westcountry Rivers Trust Electric Fishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2022

Westcountry Rivers Trust Electric Fishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2022

Table 5 Fowey trout fry historic classifications 2010-2022 (N.B cross hatched classifications are sourced from EA surveys)

Westcountry Rivers Trust Electric Fishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2022

Westcountry Rivers Trust Electric Fishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2022

Figure 5 Annual percentage split of semi-quantitative salmon fry classifications from 2010-2022

Figure 6 Annual percentage split of semi-quantitative trout fry classifications from 2010-2022

Fowey Salmon Fry Classification Stack

Fowey Trout Fry Classification Stack

Westcountry Rivers Trust Electric Fishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2022

Fowey salmon, trout & combined salmonid fry average numbers per site surveyed.

Figure 7 Mean annual semi-quantitative salmonid fry caught per site from 2011-2022

Figure 8 Total catch for salmon and trout fry derived from semi-quantitative data (including total number of fry per survey site), River Fowey 2022

Salmon Trout Combined

Rivers Trust Electric Fishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2022

Figure 9 Semi-quantitative salmon fry classification, River Fowey 2022

Figure 10 Semi-quantitative trout fry classification, River Fowey 2022

Westcountry Rivers Trust Electric Fishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2022

Table 6 River Fowey quantitative salmon fry and parr classifications including density per 100m2

Table 7 River Fowey quantitative trout fry and parr classifications including density per 100m2

Table 8 River Fowey quantitative results in comparison to 2021

Table 9 River Fowey quantitative results in comparison to 2021

11 Quantitative salmon fry classification, River Fowey 2022

Figure

Rivers Trust Electric Fishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2022

Figure 12 Quantitative salmon parr classification, River Fowey 2022

Figure 13 Quantitative trout fry classification, River Fowey 2022

Main River Fowey

Although most of the salmon spawning occurred on the main River Fowey, recruitment did vary at each site. There were two excellent classifications that were achieved at Golitha Draynes and Rivermead (31 and 24 fry, respectively). Lawarne LDAC achieved a good classification with 20 fry, Trago Two Foot achieved a fair classification with 9 fry and The Nether and DS Bodithial Bridge both achieved poor classifications with 3 and 1 fry, respectively. Both Leskernick Hill and Glynn US Parkway were absent of salmon and although this is historically the case for Leskernick Hill, as it is situated near the headwaters of the catchment, Glynn US Parkway is far lower down in the catchment. It has been noted that the habitat was potentially not optimal to hold fry at the Glynn site and more situated to parr life stage as shown in the five parr recorded at time of surveying. It would be worth considering if there was habitat more suitable to fry close to this site to see if it could perform better as hydrogeomorphological process can alter the characteristics of sites over time.

Through the Water for Growth Project several structures, such as Trekeivesteps Gauging Station and Bodmin Parkway Bridge, have undergone works to improve fish passage and it is encouraging that salmon are managing to migrate high up the main river system. However, there are still some barriers present on the main river, if solutions could be agreed upon at these sites it would potentially further improve access for more salmon to migrate higher up the system. By increasing the ability for salmon to successfully

Figure 14 Quantitative trout parr classification, River Fowey 2022

migrate freely through the River Fowey, it is hoped more salmon fry will be recorded at sites in the upper catchment.

Trout followed a similar trend, and although no excellent sites were recorded, Leskernick Hill was the only site to achieve a good classification with 17 trout fry. The remaining sites achieved two fair, four poor and one absent classification. Usually when one species (trout or salmon) is in lower abundance the other tends to dominate and although this is the case for some sites on the main river there are some sites which have lower classifications for each. This may indicate that there is limited quality habitat available for either species to utilise and more investigation to find the limiting factors would help direct future works in the catchment.

Warleggan

Salmon fry were absent from all semi-quantitative sites on the Warleggan. This is usually the case for Castle Dewey, which historically has not produced salmon and is a tributary of the Warleggan and a smaller stream possibly suited more to brown trout. Temple Tor higher up on the river also has habitat more suited to brown trout spawning. Both Barleysplat Wood and Whiterail Bridge produced salmon fry in the 2021 surveys, albeit in low numbers but the 2022 surveys were both absent of salmon fry. Historically, both sites can be sporadic in salmon fry presence and could possibly be the fry are either displaced or there were few spawning success the previous year, so fry could be limited. Salmon were still present at both sites with parr being recorded. Trout fry abundance remained constant from 2021 to the 2022 surveys with all semi-quantitative site classifications remining the same. In contrast, Trengoffe Wood (the fully quantitative site) achieved good classifications for both salmon and trout fry with 60.07 and 22.87 fish per 100m2 respectively and 8.19 and 17.06 parr per 100m2 respectively. Although trout fry density has decreased slightly from the 2021 survey, this is likely due to the increase in salmon fry which increased from a fair to a good classification. The increase in salmon fry in 2022 is very encouraging and shows that there is optimal habitat present for all life stages from fry to parr as demonstrated in the 2021 excellent parr classification. Moreover, this site was piloted for aboricultural interventions which involved hinge cutting willow stands into the banks, creating added refuge and improving the shade regime on riffle areas by crown lifting certain trees. It appears both trout and salmon have responded well to this intervention with increases of both species and could be replicated at other sites to increase salmon recruitment. In addition, through the Water for Growth Project, work was undertaken at Trengoffe Gauging Station to increase fish passage efficiency at this site which has improved the access for salmon and other migratory species to the available habitat upstream.

St Neot

Salmon recruitment on the St Neot was relatively good with varying classifications at each site Pengelly Bridge/Kitesnest Woods was the most productive site achieving an excellent

classification with 42 fry being recorded which was also a slight increase in individuals from the 2021 surveys. Lampen Lane was the next highest producing site with a good classification and 12 salmon fry recorded and although direct comparisons with the 2021 survey are not possible as this survey followed a fully-quantitative methodology, historical data does suggest that salmon can be present in good numbers at this site. It is encouraging that salmon fry and parr are present throughout most of the length of the St Neot, which supports that fish are able to migrate freely throughout. More so, work has been done through the Water for Growth project which has improved passage at Craigshill Wood Gauging station and the removal of a large trash screen close to the village of St Neot. This would have significantly improved passage for migrating salmonids and it is hoped to be highlighted in the annual surveys going forward. Furthermore, various arboricultural interventions have been conducted on the St Neot and supported by other sites such as Trengoffe Woods on the Warleggan have shown to benefit both salmon and trout.

However, it must be noted that there is a local hatchery which do release fish into the St Neot, with these surveys conducted after stocking of fry. It is difficult to determine if the salmon fry and parr recorded are stocked fish or hatched fish from returning adults. Either way it still highlights that there is high quality habitat present along the St Neot that is being utilised by salmonid species and is not a limiting factor for recruitment. Overall, trout recruitment on the St Neot was relatively low with Carnglaze being the only site achieving a good classification with 14 fry which was an increase from the fair classification achieved in 2021. Lampen Lane, Pengelly Bridge/Kitesnest Wood and S&J all achieved fair classifications which was a decrease from the 2021 surveys. Overall, the St Neot varied in performance for both salmon and trout but does support that not only do fish have free passage to migrate the entire length of available river but there is sufficient quality habitat available for both species and highlights the St Neot being an important tributary of the Fowey catchment.

Cardinham Water

Salmon fry were present on the Cardinham Water, but recruitment varied between all three sites. US Glynn was the highest scoring site of a good classification with 15 fry being recorded and is the highest classification that has been achieved since 2018. Fletchers Bridge achieved a poor classification with two fry recorded and although this is not directly comparable to the 2021 fully-quantitative survey, both years did produce low numbers of salmon fry. Millpool was absent of salmon fry but historically has not produced fry, which could support that there is either a lack of suitable habitat for salmon or that the site is situated too high in the catchment. Through the Water for Growth Project, a number of barriers have been highlighted on the Cardinham Water which could be a limiting factor for successful spawning. Similarly to salmon, trout recruitment also varied from each site with Millpool achieving the highest classification of good (19 fry), which is the same classification as last year and historically similar to other years. Both

Fletchers Bridge and US Glynn achieved fair classifications with five and eight fry recorded respectively and is historically similar to other years classifications.

Trenant Stream, Bodithial Stream, Deviock Stream, (including Clinic Viaduct and Cabilla Wood)

A number of smaller tributaries were surveyed which usually only contain trout did produce varying results. The Trenant Caravan Park achieved a poor classification with two fry being recorded, a slight decrease from the 2021 surveys, however, five salmon parr were recorded. The site provides sub-optimal fry habitat, there is limited land on this particular landowners river section. It would benefit including a new survey site above this particular site to determine how far salmon are reaching the length of the Trenant Stream. Cabilla Wood achieved a poor classification with one salmon fry being recorded, and although this is a smaller stream which is more suited to trout, it is easy for salmon to access if not able to access quality habitat on the main river. Historic data does support that small numbers of salmon fry do get recorded on this river, which suggests that if this river is utilised by salmon and it is likely that it is one of a pair of spawning fish due to the few salmon being present. All three remaining sites; Clinick Viaduct, Bodithial Stream and Deviock Stream, were all absent of salmon fry which is usually the case for these where historic data shows no salmon ever recorded here, apart from Deviock Stream which did have salmon fry present in 2011, 2012 and 2013 but not since. Although these three sites did not produce any or large numbers of salmon, all three produced relatively good classifications of trout with one excellent and two good classifications being produced which again follows the same trend as historic data.

In addition, through the Water for Growth Project, work has been undertaken on the Trenant to improve fish passage through the removal of a dilapidated pipe culvert bridge located in the upper reaches of the river. Although it is unlikely salmon will spawn this far upstream, this will help other migratory species and help to re-naturalise this river section. Trout fry recruitment was good on the Trenant Stream with both the Caravan Park and Pipe Bridge site achieving good classifications with 18 and 21 fry recorded, respectively. As mentioned, the very most upper reaches of the river are more suited to trout but does not mean that salmon will not migrate just below this section where habitat is more varied.

4. Recommendations

The WRT EF surveys are undertaken to gain an understanding year on year recruitment of salmon and trout, but they have slightly different habitat preferences, and one species will often dominate over the other where the other has limited or no presence. There will be natural annual variations in populations, and this is to be expected depending on the success of recruitment of a species. Therefore, management strategies need to be considered for each species, hence a conservation strategy for both salmon and trout.

The strategy for restoration and conservation of sites suggested here broadly follows the “Defend, Repair, Attack” (DRA) concept (Table 10) developed by Ronald Campbell of the Tweed Foundation, and has, in the past, been applied locally in the Exe catchment by the River Exe and Tributaries Association project. The fry productivity of the rivers is assessed by a combination of historic semi-quantitative electric fishing results. These results are then applied in context of existing plans (e.g. Salmon Action Plan, habitat walkover surveys and genetic data) to produce assessments and recommendations for each subcatchment of the river. These sub-catchments are classified according to three levels: Defend, Repair, and Attack.

Despite the DRA strategy being a useful tool to identify and prioritise works in catchments, the requirements of waterbodies can rarely be quite so clear cut. The coloured arrow in Table 10 represents the continuum of the three strategies and the goal for each waterbody; to move all the Tamar sites from their current position to somewhere in the Defend category, or to ensure they remain in this status if fish stocks are already good.

Defend

Repair

These areas have good fish stocks and habitat and need safeguarding actions to ensure no decline occurs.

These areas have moderate fish stocks, and fish habitat in a moderate condition; these areas need assisted habitat recovery to move them into the Defend category.

These areas have poor fish stocks, and the habitat is significantly degraded. These areas need drastic intervention such as habitat reengineering in order to improve their status.

Maintain bag limits

Habitat Safeguarding

Catch and release

Assisted habitat recovery

Habitat re-engineering

Table 10 Defend/Repair/Attack strategy

Table 11 Fowey sub catchment classification and DRA strategy.

Westcountry Rivers Trust Electric Fishing Survey Report - River Fowey, 2022

Sub-catchment Average Fry Index Class & Conservation Strategy Salmon Trout Repair Repair

Trenant Poor Attack

Cardinham Water Poor Attack

Bodithial Stream Absent Attack

Devioc Stream Absent Attack

5. Acknowledgements

Poor Attack

Fair Repair

Good Defend

Excellent Defend

Westcountry Rivers Trust would like to thank all landowners who gave us permission to undertake surveys on the River Fowey catchment. We would also like to thank the Fowey Rivers Association and the Environment Agency.