Aquaculture, Introductions and Transfers and Transgenics ... FAR_Ireland.pdf · Irish Focus Area...

IP(10)23

Aquaculture, Introductions and Transfers and Transgenics

Focus Area Report

EU-Ireland

Irish Focus Area Reports (FARs) on Aquaculture, Introductions and

Transfers, and Transgenics (based on CNL(09)15 and incorporating the elements from the Guidance on Best Management Practices, SLG(09)5)

___________________________________________________________________________ 1. An overview of Aquaculture, Introductions and Transfers and Transgenics in Ireland There are two main activities where aquaculture practices, including introductions or transfers of salmonids may occur in Ireland i.e.

• introductions/transfers of salmonids from hatcheries, rearing or holding facilities to marine or freshwater aquaculture facilities for on growing in captivity and subsequent sale for food.

Introductions of salmonids from outside the jurisdiction of Ireland have been permitted in recent years for aquaculture purposes i.e. Ireland has imported from the UK, Norway, the USA and Iceland under strict controls. In the recent past, Ireland has also had imports from Canada.

• introductions/transfers of hatchery salmonids from hatcheries, rearing or holding facilities into the wild and for ranching purposes.

Enhancement of salmon stocks has been carried out in Ireland for well over a century. The largest programmes are associated with large rivers which were harnessed for hydro power in the 1930’s and 1940’s and some rivers where the effects of large scale drainage schemes resulted in mitigation restocking. Transgenic salmonids are not used and have never used for aquaculture or restocking in Ireland and there are no plans to do so as this would contravene current scientific advice and policy. 1.1.1 Aquaculture in Ireland Since its initial trial development in the early 1970s, the Irish industry has grown to become a significant contributor to local economies. The Irish aquaculture industry provides fulltime and part time employment for some 2,000 people and had a value in 2007 of €131m. Production of farmed salmon in 2007 was estimated at 13,800 tonnes.

There are three distinct regions in Ireland where marine salmonid farming is carried out; all are on the west coast, one in Donegal, one in Galway/Mayo and one in Cork/Kerry. The licensed sites are illustrated on the maps below:

1

Figure 1 Donegal area finfish aquaculture activity

2

Figure 2 Galway/Mayo area finfish aquaculture activity

3

Figure 3 Cork/Kerry area finfish aquaculture activity

1.2.2 Introductions and transfers relating to Restocking/Ranching in Ireland Ongoing restocking, enhancement, ranching or other practices require the transfer of salmonids between hatchery freshwater rearing locations (this includes all life stages from eggs to adult transfers) and the introduction of these life stages into rivers where they enter the wild. These activities require permission from the State and details of these practices are maintained annually by the Marine Institute (ESOPS – Enhancement Stocks, Origin, Progress and Status). A summary of the national activities from this programme are included for information in Table 1 Full details on restocking of each individual river etc are also available. Approximately 12 hatcheries operate in Ireland. Each of these is predominantly for the enhancement of a single river. On average 2,000 broodstock (usually line-bred hatchery stock) are used in the production of juveniles. There has been a tendency to plant less eyed ova and unfed fry with more fry, parr and smolts being produced in recent years.

4

Table 1 Stocking of various life-stages of Atlantic salmon in Ireland since 1995. (Source Marine Institute Enhancement Stocks – origin, progress and status, ESOPS – full details on individual rivers are on the Marine Institute ESOP database).

Jan - Dec ProductionYear Hatcheries Male Female Million's Av./F.male Eyed Ova Unfed Fry Fry Parr Smolts 1 Smolts 2 Total

1995 13 2,046 2,205 6.750515 3,061 113,360 464,413 3,031,750 488,513 295,196 0 4,393,232

1996 17 2,016 2,082 7.321852 3,517 185,877 3,209,351 217,300 307,192 520,199 0 4,439,919

1997 17 1,869 2,109 8.189486 3,883 226,420 3,735,658 544,398 443,318 500,389 140 5,450,323

1998 17 2,339 2,763 10.842924 3,924 1,167,237 4,158,878 502,329 348,898 460,311 0 6,637,653

1999 13 2,354 2,454 9.456507 3,854 0 4,227,732 114,909 256,675 610,071 650 5,210,037

2000 12 1,712 2,020 9.206557 4,557 227,458 3,814,682 0 116,927 493,726 0 4,652,793

2001 12 2354 2622 8.151113 3108 144,240 3,466,630 82,240 349,304 526,297 3400 4,572,111

2002 13 1,633 1,951 7.767942 3,981 75,020 2,929,323 57,000 600,158 598,246 0 4,259,747

2003 15 2,088 2,208 8.009743 3,627 257,969 3,495,993 138,106 314,924 770,618 0 4,977,610

2004 14 1,634 1,753 6.732957 3,841 94,640 2,575,193 67,900 286,753 606,426 0 3,630,912

2005 14 2,306 2,463 8.450144 3,431 131,164 4,585,800 98,500 422,785 661,439 5,995 5,905,683

2006 12 1,816 1,907 6.64129 3,483 137,030 3,181,205 72,000 426,388 790,711 4,607,334

2007 10 1,370 1,448 4.930522 3,405 6,500 1,946,216 30,800 614,070 640,397 0 3,237,983

2008 12 1,525 1,575 4.596473 2,918 65,000Average 1,933 2,111 7.6462875 3,614 202,280 3,214,698 381,326 382,762 574,925 849 4,767,334

StrippingReleased (Jan - Dec)

Production Eyed Ova

The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation has defined Salmon Ranching as: “the release of reared juvenile Atlantic salmon with the intention of harvesting all of them on their return” (CNL (06)48). NASCO (CNL (91)27) describes the process as: “ a system of aquaculture involving the release of reared juvenile salmon to marine waters, in which they migrate freely, with the intention of harvesting them when they reach marketable size. Although ranching and enhancement have often been used synonymously the principal objective of ranching is the harvest of released stock for food. The principal objective of enhancement is augmentation of the wild stock”. Following these definitions there are few true “ranching” operations in Ireland. An example of this is in the Burrishoole River, Newport, Co. Mayo which as been carried out under experimental conditions by the Marine Institute (or its predecessors) since the mid 1970’s i.e. smolts have been released and the returns have been captured entirely by rod and line or by an in-river trap (for broodstock purposes mainly). A similar operation has taken place on the River Screebe since the 1990s where returning adult salmon which hade been released as smolts from a rearing facility have been intercepted by rods or by an in-stream trap. The term “ranching” is confusing in this regard as the principal objective in both instances is to augment a rod fishery and not strictly the harvest of these returnees for food and both would be better described as “rod fishery enhancement (or augmentation)” or “experimental release and return programmes”.

5

1.2 Policy and management structure Possession of any salmonids or their progeny, live or dead, requires State permission or a licence (e.g. a fishing licence, salmon dealers licence, aquaculture licence or an authorisation granted under Section 14 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959. All movements of salmonids are closely regulated. All aquaculture facilities must be in possession of an aquaculture licence and where appropriate a fish health authorization. Certain facilities may also be subject to further regulation by virtue of planning regulations and water usage (by County Councils/ River Basin Management). 1.2.1 Aquaculture The licensing and regulation of aquaculture, both finfish and shellfish, in Ireland is the statutory responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF). The core Act covering Aquaculture licensing is the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997. In considering an application for an aquaculture licence, including an application to renew an aquaculture licence, the licensing authority must consider:

• the potential impacts on safety and navigation, • the ecological impacts on wild fisheries, natural habitats, flora and fauna, • the suitability of the waters, • the other beneficial uses of the place or waters, • the likely effects on the economy of the area, and • the statutory status under European legal frameworks of the area under application.

This process involves consultation with a range of scientific and technical advisers as well as various statutory consultees. Applications are also subject to public consultation whereby any interested person or body may make submissions or observations on any licence application. The process also involves publication of Ministerial decisions on applications and allowing a one month period for appeal of any decision. Any such appeal must then be considered by the independent Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board. Aquaculturists, who have applied for a renewal of their aquaculture licences, are legally entitled to continue operations, following the expiration of their licences, by virtue of the provisions of Section 19A(4) of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997, and the aquaculture activities may continue, subject to the terms and conditions of the original licence/s, pending determination by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the renewal applications. 1.2.2 Introductions and Transfers as they relate to Restocking/Ranching Ireland has contributed to the formulation of and is in agreement with NASCO’s policy in Restocking (Appendix 1, Williamsburg Agreement). Ireland’s commitment to this policy is outlined in Appendix 1 (attached). A recent history of restocking practices in Ireland is attached in Appendix 2. In addition to the adoption of the NASCO Guidelines on restocking, recommendations from the Marine Institute are as follows: Precautionary Approach for ranching and releasing smolts specifically to increase angling returns. • Site location distant from rivers with wild populations

6

• No harvest outside of river • Harvest station in lower reaches better access to fish during the season • Large river or flow to encourage fish to actively enter river • In-river trap to remove all returning hatchery fish • Stock with high return capability • All fish to be tagged and genetically typed • All stock to be disease free on transfer and release • All stock to be vaccinated The State agencies involved with the protection and development of inland fisheries are the Central and Regional Fisheries Boards (upon enactment of legislation these will be known as Inland Fisheries Ireland later in 2010). All hatcheries and aquaculture facilities engaged in the culture or farming of salmonids must be covered by an Aquaculture licence as a requirement of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997. All facilities where fish are held, reared or on-grown must hold a Fish Health Authorisation granted under S.I. 261 of 2008 www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/si/0261.html (also at Appendix 3). All those proposing to transfer salmonids of any life-stage between freshwater locations for the purposes of restocking or “ranching” must notify the Fish Health Unit of the Marine Institute prior to movement. 1.2.3 Transgenics Transgenic salmonids are not used and have never been used for aquaculture or restocking in Ireland and there are no plans or policy to do so as this would contravene current scientific advice and policy. 2. Implementation of the Williamsburg Resolution: 2.1 The Parties shall cooperate in order to minimize adverse effects to the wild salmon stocks from aquaculture, introductions and transfers and transgenics. Assessment at Licence Application Stage In relation to aquaculture licence applications the following are required to submit an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as part of the application process:

• all seawater salmonid breeding installations • seawater fish breeding installations with an output which would exceed

100 tonnes per annum; • all fish breeding installations consisting of cage rearing in lakes; • all fish breeding installations upstream of drinking water intakes; • other fresh-water fish breeding installations which would exceed 1 million

smolts and with less than 1 cubic metre per second per 1 million smolts low flow diluting water.

Other aquaculture applications may also be required to submit an EIS if it is considered that it may have a significant impact on the environment.

7

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/si/0261.html

All potential environmental impacts including wild-farmed interactions must be outlined and addressed in the EIS. Detailed scoping documents are provided for guidance in the preparation of an EIS. The EIS is a public document and together with any commentary received during the application process forms part of the body of information utilized in making a determination on the licence application. Subsequent to a licence being granted all finfish farms are subject to a series of mandatory monitoring protocols covering water quality, benthic impacts, sea lice control, fallowing of sites and an audit of operations. (Monitoring Protocols for Offshore Finfish Farms May 2000) http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/fisheries/aquacultureforeshoremanagement/monitoringprotocols/ (Also at Appendices 4a to 4e). Based on the results of this monitoring the Minister has the power to modify the licence or impose sanctions up to and including withdrawal of the licence for non compliance. Sea Lice Management There is a process in place to determine the national picture of sea lice prevalence in the state. A number of controls are in place to ensure the effective and efficient management of sea lice. There is a national sea lice monitoring programme which involves the inspection and sampling of each year class of fish at all fish farm sites 14 times per annum - twice per month during March, April and May and monthly for the remainder of the year except December-January. One inspection is carried out during this period. This programme is applied at all marine finfish farms

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/fisheries/aquacultureforeshoremanagement/monitoringprotocols/Sea%20Lice%20Monitoring%20and%20control%20Protocols%203.pdf (Also at Appendix 4c).

Data on lice levels at salmon farms are made available to all stakeholders each month and all data are published in full each year with a full analysis by the Marine Institute.

In 2008 this monitoring protocol was updated and strengthened by DAFF by the launching of a new Pest Management Strategy. http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/fisheries/aquacultureforeshoremanagement/SeaLiceControlStrategy%20230210.pdf (also at Appendix 8). This strategy introduced a new management cell approach to dealing with incidences where target levels of lice control were not being met. Containment Ireland has a very good record with regard to escapes of salmonids from farming operations. As part of an ongoing FP7 project called “Prevent Escape”, an audit of escapes from fish farming operations is being undertaken. There have been no major escapes reported from Irish farming operations in the last three years with the exception of a November 2009 fish escape in Cuigeal Bay, Co. Galway (A total of 35,000 salmon escaped due to storm damage to a single cage - of these 10,000 were subsequently recovered - there have been no reports of the remaining escapees in the intervening period). This does not preclude escape events by individuals or small numbers of fish which may have gone undetected or unreported. The National Coded Wire Tagging programme allows for a good estimate of the number of

8

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/fisheries/aquacultureforeshoremanagement/monitoringprotocols/


http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/fisheries/aquacultureforeshoremanagement/monitoringprotocols/Sea%20Lice%20Monitoring%20and%20control%20Protocols%203.pdf


http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/fisheries/aquacultureforeshoremanagement/SeaLiceControlStrategy%20230210.pdf


farmed escapees taken in fisheries. The data over the past years has not indicated a huge volume of escapees in marine fisheries at least (Figure 1). The level of escapees detected nationally over the years 2002 – 2006 were consistently less than 0.5%. Appendix 5 contains recent information on escapees in Irish catches and the implications of this.

Figure 10 Occurrence of escapees in Irish commercial catches

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Donegal Mayo Gal/Lim S.West South National

Perc

ent (

%)

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 1: The occurrence of escapees in commercial catches is consistently very low Taken from Figure 10 of the National Report for Ireland – ICES Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon Working Document 2009. 2.2 Information to demonstrate that the proposed activity will not have a significant adverse impact on wild salmon stocks or lead to irreversible change. 2.2.1 Aquaculture There are a number of requirements in place which ensure that aquaculture applications in Ireland undergo comprehensive evaluation. Prospective licensees are required to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed activity will not have a significant adverse impact on wild salmonid stocks. In practice all offshore finfish farming operations over 100 tonnes capacity are required to submit a comprehensive EIS. An EIS is required in the following circumstances:

• all seawater salmonid breeding installations • seawater fish breeding installations with an output which would exceed

100 tonnes per annum; • all fish breeding installations consisting of cage rearing in lakes; • all fish breeding installations upstream of drinking water intakes; • other fresh-water fish breeding installations which would exceed 1 million

smolts and with less than 1 cubic metre per second per 1 million smolts low flow diluting water.

Other aquaculture applications may also be required to submit an EIS if it is considered that it may have a significant impact on the environment. All potential environmental impacts including wild-farmed interactions must be outlined and addressed in the EIS. Detailed scoping documents are provided for guidance in the preparation of an EIS. The EIS is a public document and together with any commentary

9

received during the application process forms part of the body of information utilized in making a determination on the licence application. Subsequent to a licence being granted all finfish farms are subject to a series of mandatory monitoring protocols covering water quality, benthic impacts, sea lice control, fallowing of sites and an audit of operations. All aquaculture businesses, including fish farms, are required to be in possession of the appropriate fish health authorisation. All finfish farms are subject to stringent monitoring regimes as set out in the Monitoring Protocols for Offshore Finfish Farms May 2000. http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/fisheries/aquacultureforeshoremanagement/monitoringprotocols/ (Also at Appendices 4a to 4e) Based on the results of this monitoring the Minister has the power to modify the licence or impose sanctions up to and including withdrawal of the licence for non compliance. 2.2.2 Restocking/Ranching: information necessary to demonstrate that the proposed activity will not have a significant adverse impact on wild salmon stocks or lead to irreversible change. Ireland’s adherence to the NASCO Guidelines for Stocking Atlantic Salmon Rationale for stocking. NASCO has developed Guidelines for Restocking of Atlantic Salmon. The following is a short extract from Appendix 1 attached prepared by the Marine Institute and the DCENR: The principal output from restocking practices is from the four main hydro-electric dammed rivers. Restocking is still regarded as a suitable enhancement technique due to the difficulties with both upstream and downstream fish passage over these significant barriers and because of the generally high stock levels required to achieve the Maximum Sustainable Yield (Conservation Limits) for these rivers. Table 6 from Report of the Standing Scientific Committee of the National Salmon Commission – The Status of Irish salmon Stocks in 2008 with Precautionary Catch Advice for 2009. Stocks above large rivers impounded for hydro-electric schemes. Counts are average counts for the most recent 5 years with the exception of the Liffey (Islandbridge) which is the most recent 4 years.

RiverWetted Area U/S Dams Total CL 1SW CL 2SW CL Average Count

Shannon 30,895,619 49,524 45,909 3,729 707

Erne 6,457,264 16,554 15,345 1,247 1445

Liffey 2,308,361 4,391 4,062 329 1157

Lee 1,923,476 2,789 2,585 210 57 As recognised in the NASCO guidelines there are many possible causes for the decline of Atlantic salmon populations and stocking may not be an appropriate solution. The Electricity Supply Board of Ireland, the Central and Regional Fisheries Boards (to become known as”

10



Inland Fisheries Ireland” under forthcoming legislation), the Marine Institute and other agencies are actively investigating other enhancement techniques. In addition, stocking is also carried out for experimental ranching purposes in the Burrishoole River, as part of an ongoing Marine Institute research programme generating comparative survival data since the 1950’s. In accordance with the precautionary approach, the proponent of stocking must apply appropriate risk assessment methodologies (see Article 4). Proponents must also provide all relevant information to facilitate a full evaluation of the impacts of stocking upon wild salmon stocks (Article 3); see also Section IV. This information is compiled by the Marine Institute and forms a comprehensive database of hatchery activities as they relate to the deliberate introduction of hatchery reared progeny into the wild. With full co-operation from the hatchery operators, the Marine Institute have been able to monitor for the past 15 years the number of adult broodstock being taken for stripping, the numbers of eggs, fry, parr and smolts derived from these strippings and the stocking history including numbers, locations and dates of release of hatchery reared fish in all catchments and for all hatcheries involved in these activities. A summary to this data is given in Table 1 below. Details of Irish origin salmonids used for international restoration programmes are also kept (i.e. the Rhine 2000 programme etc) and are available on request. Table 1 Information on restocking in Ireland (2010 is partial only)


1995 13 2,046 2,205 6.750515 3,061 113,360 464,413 3,031,750 488,513 295,196 4,393,232

1996 17 2,016 2,082 7.321852 3,517 185,877 3,209,351 217,300 307,192 520,199 4,439,919

1997 17 1,869 2,109 8.189486 3,883 226,420 3,735,658 544,398 443,318 500,389 140 5,450,323

1998 17 2,339 2,763 10.842924 3,924 1,167,237 4,158,878 502,329 348,898 460,311 6,637,653

1999 13 2,354 2,454 9.456507 3,854 0 4,227,732 114,909 256,675 610,071 650 5,210,037

2000 12 1,712 2,020 9.206557 4,557 227,458 3,814,682 0 116,927 493,726 4,652,793

2001 12 2,354 2,622 8.151113 3,108 144,240 3,466,630 82,240 349,304 526,297 3,400 4,572,111

2002 13 1,633 1,951 7.767942 3,981 75,020 2,929,323 57,000 600,158 598,246 4,259,747

2003 15 2,088 2,208 8.009743 3,627 257,969 3,495,993 138,106 314,924 770,618 4,977,610

2004 15 1,640 1,764 6.764957 3,835 94,640 2,575,193 92,900 286,753 631,426 3,680,912

2005 15 2,312 2,472 8.516144 3,445 131,164 4,585,800 98,500 422,785 661,439 5,995 5,905,683

2006 13 1,822 1,919 6.71629 3,500 137,030 3,181,205 112,000 426,388 822,711 4,679,334

2007 10 1,370 1,448 4.930522 3,405 6,500 1,946,216 30,800 614,070 640,397 3,237,983

2008 12 1,525 1,575 4.596473 2,918 65,000 1,969,580 0 490,358 430,882 2,955,820

2009 11 1,516 1,504 4.683319 3,113 65,823 2,692,562 1,000 633,328 440,416 3,833,129

2010 11 699 852


Production Eyed Ova

An examination of the relative success or otherwise of restocking programmes in Ireland is available in Appendix 2.

11

2.3 The Parties should develop and apply appropriate risk assessment methodologies in considering the measures to be taken in accordance with the Williamsburg Resolution. 2.3.1 – Risk assessment with regard to Aquaculture The Monitoring Protocols for offshore Finfish Farms, May 2000, set out the standards and requirements to be met by finfish farms. These standards have been set on the basis of the best available information and scientific advice by the competent authority’s technical advisors and are reviewed from time to time. Failure to meet these standards can result in sanctions including modifications to the licence conditions. http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/fisheries/aquacultureforeshoremanagement/monitoringprotocols/ (Also at Appendices 4a to 4e) 2.3.2 – Risk assessment with regard to Restocking/Ranching Extensive stocking programmes undertaken in Ireland over the last thirteen years have made little real contribution to the productivity of Irish rivers or to the goals of restoring self-sustaining salmon runs. Furthermore, evidence from recent experiments suggesting that artificial introductions are likely to depress rather than enhance the productivity of natural populations, including feral or quasi-wild populations that have been established by successful hatchery programmes, suggests that more caution and planning is required before hatchery reared progeny are released into the wild. As an outcome of this and in consideration of the risks associated with putative enhancement programmes, the Irish authorities and their advisers are considering that the terms of reference of and the current supportive breeding programmes being undertaken in Ireland be reviewed in the light of the data now available. The relevant authorities governing authorizations for restocking and ranching is the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the various Regional Fisheries Boards where appropriate. 2.4 Information related to Annexes 2, 3 and 4 of the Williamsburg Resolution: With reference to the above the Irish aquaculture industry is regulated in line with best international practice to minimise any potential impacts on wild stock. Measures in place include: a stringent sea lice monitoring and control programme, site specific requirements on containment which have resulted in very low levels of escapees in the recent past as well as a comprehensive fish health management regime which protects against transfers of disease across geographical areas. Sitings of aquaculture operations are subject to a full EIS and will be subject to an Appropriate Assessment in the case of operations in or adjacent to Natura 2000 sites. At the time of application a full site selection process including an EIS is undertaken. As part of the licensing process all aspects of the suitability of the site and all proposed structures are assessed by the licensing authority’s technical experts. Licences are only granted where site conditions are suitable and proposed structures are fit for purpose. All offshore finfish sites are required to have in place a Single Bay Management Plan covering all aspects of stocking and fish husbandry including fallowing schedules and separation of generations. A Fish Health Management Plan and an emergency plan to cover contingencies are also required. These must be updated regularly.

12



The full text of Ireland’s response to the Annex 2 of the Williamsburg Resolution is appended for information. (Appendix 10). 2.4.1 Minimise escapes of farmed salmon. As part of each licence application detailed information of hydro-dynamism at the proposed site is required as part of the EIS process. Proposals regarding cage specification and anchoring systems suitable to the proposed environment are required and evaluated during the determination of the licence. See supporting evidence of low overall escapees in Irish catches - Table below and other information in Appendices 5 and 6. Figure 10 Occurrence of escapees in Irish commercial catches

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50


Perc

ent (

%)

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

From the table it can be seen that the overall occurrence of escapees in Irish commercial catches is very low While no technical standards are specified by the licensing authority, fish farm licensees must submit details of proposed structures to the Licensing authority’s technical staff for approval. In cases where it is proposed to use any nonstandard equipment, further details, including proof of suitability, may be required. The Licensing authority regularly inspects sea cages and freshwater installations for licence compliance, suitability and wear and tear.

Marine finfish aquaculture licensees are required to have an emergency plan providing for appropriate responses to mortalities, escapes, disease, chemical spills etc. Typically marine finfish farm licences contain a requirement for the Licensee to report any escape of fish to DAFF (the licensing authority), the Marine Institute and the relevant Regional Fisheries Board within 24 hours. The licensee is also required to keep records of fish escaped, including numbers, types, origin and year classes and must make these records available to DAFF, the Marine Institute, and the relevant Regional Fisheries Board on request. In the case of significant escapes the licensee will be required to provide a full report including full details of the arrangements in place to recover as many as possible of the escaped fish and the reasons for the escape of fish in the first instance. The licensee is required to cooperate with the relevant Regional Fisheries Board in this respect.

13

2.4.2 To minimize impacts of ranched salmon by utilizing local stocks and developing and applying appropriate release and harvest strategies; In Ireland ranching of salmon only occurs on an experimental basis from the Burrishoole River and under strict controls where all upstream fish can be intercepted. In the absence of full upstream traps in other systems using hatchery reared salmon or in the case of large scale releases of smolts for mitigation purposes (hydro construction or arterial drainage schemes in the past) stocks are derived from indigenous stocks. This is as advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice. There is potential, however, in some instances for large releases of hatchery reared smolts to impact negatively on wild stocks and this is an area of concern for Irish authorities. Apart from maintaining adherence to the NASCO Guidelines on restocking (including ranching) the generalized advice from the Marine Institute for any proponent of a commercial ranching operation or enhancement of a rod fishery is as follows: Precautionary Approach for ranching and releasing smolts specifically to increase angling returns. • Site location distant from rivers with wild populations • No harvest outside of river • Harvest station in lower reaches better access to fish during the season • Large river or flow to encourage fish to actively enter river • In-river trap to remove all returning hatchery fish • Stock with high return capability • All fish to be tagged and genetically typed • All stock to be disease free on transfer and release • All stock to be vaccinated 2.4.3 To minimize the adverse genetic and other biological interactions from salmon enhancement activities, including introductions and transfers: Current strategies are to only use indigenous strains for hatchery programmes. Further details are provided in Appendix 1. This is as advised by NASCO, the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice. There are still concerns, however, about inadvertent straying of hatchery fish into neighbouring rivers and the potential interactions which may occur. Local Regional Fisheries authorities where possible identify and report such introgressions and may remove these strays. 2.4.4 Minimise the risk of disease and parasite transmission between all aquaculture activities, introductions and transfers, and wild salmon stocks. Measures to address the above include fish health management, sea lice programmes, fallowing and single year class stocking. Fish Health Programme All salmonid farming operations are subject to the provisions of the European Communities (Health of Aquaculture Animals and Products) Regulations 2008, which transpose European Council Directive 2006/88/EC into Irish Law. www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/si/0261.html (See also Appendix 3). Under this legislation, every Aquaculture Production Business (APB) must be authorized by the Marine Institute. Only operations which have provided evidence of adequate record

14


keeping and biosecurity measures will be authorized. In addition, operators must comply with movement and disease notification as well as partaking in a national risk based disease surveillance programme. The Marine Institute has the legal powers to refuse an application for authorisation, to revoke an authorisation or to place compliance notices on APBs which are not operating within the parameters of the legislation Sea Lice Monitoring In general, monitoring of lice infestation levels on salmonid farms in Ireland was initiated in April/May 1991. This was in response to concerns that lice emanating from farmed salmonids might be implicated in the phenomenon of large numbers of sea trout returning to rivers in early summer in an emaciated state and with elevated lice numbers. Since April 1994, monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Sea Trout Task Force and its successor body, the Sea Trout Management and Advisory Group.

The current national sea lice monitoring programme involves the inspection and sampling of each year class of fish at all fish farm sites 14 times per annum - twice per month during March, April and May and monthly for the remainder of the year except December-January. One inspection is carried out during this period.

In 2000 this monitoring regime was formally adopted as one of a number of Monitoring Protocols to which all salmon farmers are required to adhere. The inspections are carried out directly by the Marine Institute. This programme is applied at all marine finfish farms. http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/fisheries/aquacultureforeshoremanagement/monitoringprotocols/ (Also at Appendices 4a to 4e)

Data on lice levels at salmon farms are made available to all stakeholders each month and all data are published in full each year with a full analysis by the Marine Institute.

In 2008 this monitoring protocol was updated and strengthened by the DAFF by the launching of a new Pest Management Strategy (Appendix 8). This strategy introduced a new management cell approach to dealing with incidences where target levels of lice control were not being met. Fallowing at Offshore Finfish Farms (i) Requirement to Fallow All finfish farms are obliged to undertake appropriate following which is a recognised technique for the control of disease and parasite problems (including sea lice infestation). (ii) Description of Fallowing Fallowing involves the separation of generations of farmed fish. Each generation of fish is maintained on a site, which is geographically separate. This separation prevents the transmission of disease organisms or parasites from older to younger generations of fish, thus reducing the level of infection in the younger generation. To effectively prevent the vertical transmission of disease and parasites, as this process is called, requires that, at the end of each production cycle at a site, it is left fallow for a period to ensure that all infective stages are dead, or gone, before restocking the site. For this process to be effective, the separation between sites must be sufficient to prevent lateral transfer of infective material between sites, the fallow period must be of an appropriate length and adjacent sites must fallow at the same time.

15



(iii) Current Best Practices The best results are obtained from following regimes which incorporate the following elements:

• Smolts are stocked into designated smolt sites, which are not used to hold older fish.

• Smolt sites are high-energy sites (exposed sites with -good water exchange), which are fallowed annually over the winter months.

• Production sites are distant from smolt sites. • All production sites are fallowed annually for a minimum of 30 continuous days

and all equipment on site cleared and disinfected. • Adjacent production sites are fallowed synchronously.

Where there is more than one finfish farm in a particular bay, fallowing must be pursued in the context of the Single Bay Management/Co-ordinated Local Aquaculture Management Systems (CLAMS) process. DAFF reserves the right to prescribe specific fallowing requirements in particular cases if necessary. Single Year Class Stocking Single year class stocking is achieved by way of individual Bay Management plans under the auspices of a Single bay Management Plan or the CLAMS process as outlined above. A range of strategies are employed from bay to bay including the use of offshore smolt sites, alternate stocking of bays and fallowing of adjacent production sites prior to restocking with the next generation of fish. Further details on sea lice management is provided at link below and also at Appendix 4c, 8 and 9. http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/fisheries/aquacultureforeshoremanagement/monitoringprotocols/Sea%20Lice%20Monitoring%20and%20control%20Protocols%203.pdf http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/fisheries/aquacultureforeshoremanagement/SeaLiceControlStrategy%20230210.pdf 2.4.4.1 Minimise the risk of disease and parasite transmission Restocking/Ranching All transfers of hatchery reared fish for release into the wild must be cleared by a qualified vetinarian and be certified as disease free. Regular mandatory checks on broodstocks and inspections of hatcheries are carried out on an annual basis. All movements must comply with the provisions of SI 261 of 2008 www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/si/0261.html (Also at Appendix 3) and with the provisions of the Fish Health Authorisation which the Marine Institute has granted to that particular operation. Appendix 3 summarizes the scope of the national legislation. http://www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/B341F0A9-502C-4784-A07E-9AD7000BE915/0/SampleFinfishHealthManagementPlan.doc Appendix 11 outlines the measures which an operation must comply with in order to become/ remain authorised (i.e. their Fish Health Management Plan). 2.5 Movements into a Commission area of reproductively viable Atlantic salmon or their gametes that have originated from outside that Commission area should not be permitted. Limited introductions of salmonids from outside the jurisdiction of Ireland have been permitted. In recent years, Ireland has imported from the UK, Norway, the USA and Iceland. In the recent past, we have also had imports from Canada.

16






http://www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/B341F0A9-502C-4784-A07E-9AD7000BE915/0/SampleFinfishHealthManagementPlan.doc

http://www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/B341F0A9-502C-4784-A07E-9AD7000BE915/0/SampleFinfishHealthManagementPlan.doc

2.6 Introductions into a Commission area of reproductively viable non-indigenous anadromous salmonids or their gametes should not be permitted. Limited introductions of salmonids from outside the jurisdiction of Ireland have been permitted. In recent years, Ireland has imported from the UK, Norway, the USA and Iceland. In the recent past, we have also had imports from Canada. 2.7 No non-indigenous fish should be introduced into a river containing Atlantic salmon without a thorough evaluation of the potential adverse impacts on the Atlantic salmon population(s) which indicates that there is no unacceptable risk of adverse ecological interactions. Introductions of non-indigenous salmonids or other fish species into rivers containing salmon are not permitted in Ireland 2.8 The Parties should apply the Guidelines for Action on Transgenic Salmon (Annex 5 of the Williamsburg Resolution – CNL (04)41), to protect against potential impacts from transgenic salmon on wild stocks. Transgenic salmonids are not currently and have never been used in aquaculture or stock enhancement (or ranching) in Ireland. This would be against current best practice and advice from the Marine Institute. 2.9 Parties should, as appropriate, develop and apply river classification and zoning systems in accordance with Annex 6 of the Williamsburg Resolution for the purposes of developing management measures concerning aquaculture, and introductions and transfers. All rivers have been classified according to the NASCO classification scheme. Given the poor returns for extensive restocking programmes over the past decades and new evidence of the potential negative effects of using hatchery progeny for some restocking programmes, the Marine Institute, Regional and Central Fisheries Boards, the Electricity Supply Board (the predominant hatchery stakeholder) are in the process of reviewing all restocking programmes and policies which will include reference to the NASCO classification scheme. 2.10 The Parties should initiate corrective measures without delay where significant adverse impacts on wild salmon stocks are identified. 2.10.1 Aquaculture The measures taken to minimise the risks of harmful interactions between aquaculture and wild stocks and to establish corrective measures as may be necessary are outlined throughout this document. They include fish escape reporting requirements, sea lice monitoring and various monitoring requirements for offshore finfish farms. Fish Escapes All aquaculture operations are required to report losses due to escapes. Furthermore investigations and industry surveys being undertaken as part of a current EU funded (FP7) international research project, “Prevent Escape”, is examining the extent and causes of potential and actual failures in containment at marine finfish farming operations in Ireland. The results will be used to advise on improvements in containment.

17

With regard to escapees, responses to large scale escape events range from specific netting surveys to remove escapees at sea and special licences to allow capture of escapees in freshwater traps. These measures are implemented as required. Such interventions can be carried out directly by Regional Fisheries Boards. Sea Lice Monitoring The current national sea lice monitoring programme involves the inspection and sampling of each year class of fish at all fish farm sites 14 times per annum - twice per month during March, April and May and monthly for the remainder of the year except December-January. One inspection is carried out during this period. This programme is applied at all marine finfish farms

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/fisheries/aquacultureforeshoremanagement/monitoringprotocols/Sea%20Lice%20Monitoring%20and%20control%20Protocols%203.pdf (See also Appendix 4(c)). Data on lice levels at salmon farms is made available to all stakeholders each month and all data is published in full each year with a full analysis by the Marine Institute.

In 2008 this monitoring protocol was updated and strengthened by DAFF by the launching of a new Pest Management Strategy http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/fisheries/aquacultureforeshoremanagement/SeaLiceControlStrategy%20230210.pdf (See also Appendix 8). This strategy introduced a new management cell approach to dealing with incidences where target levels of lice control were not being met. Monitoring Protocols In May 2000 the various monitoring requirements for offshore finfish farms were codified into a series of Monitoring Protocols for Offshore finfish Farms. There are five protocols in all and all licensed farms are required to comply with them as part of their license conditions. The protocols cover sea lice monitoring and control, benthic monitoring, water quality monitoring, fallowing and an audit of operations. Under these protocols all farms a subject to a rigorous programme of monitoring by way of impendent inspection programmes which are reported to the licensing authority (currently DAFF). http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/fisheries/aquacultureforeshoremanagement/monitoringprotocols/ (Also at Appendices 4a to 4e)

2.10.2 Restocking/Ranching Apart from some concerns regarding the release of smolts into small rivers where the intention is to augment a rod fishery, generally it has not been possible to identify a clear case where hatchery restocking practices have caused specific damage to a wild stock. However, given recent genetic evidence of negative interactions between hatchery reared and wild stocks all restocking practices are being reviewed in this light in order to develop a new policy on restocking with hatchery reared progeny in Irish rivers. This review is under way by the main research and management organizations and should be available by end of 2010. 2.11 Each Party should encourage research and data collection (as detailed in Annex 7 of the Williamsburg Resolution) in support of the Williamsburg Resolution and should take steps to improve the effectiveness of the Williamsburg Resolution.

18







2.11.1 Aquaculture Research and Data collection Monitoring of lice infestation levels on salmonid farms in Ireland was initiated in April/May 1991. Data on lice levels at salmon farms are made available to all stakeholders each month and all data are published in full each year with a full analysis by the Marine Institute.

The current national sea lice monitoring programme involves the inspection and sampling of each year class of fish at all fish farm sites 14 times per annum - twice per month during March, April and May and monthly for the remainder of the year except December-January. Only 1 inspection is carried out during this period. In 2000 this monitoring regime was formally adopted as one of a number of Monitoring Protocols to which all salmon farmers are required to adhere. The inspections are carried out directly by the Marine Institute. This program is applied at all marine finfish farms.

Netting in estuaries over the May/June period has been undertaken since 1992 to determine the sea lice infestation of prematurely returning sea trout in Ireland. Throughout the 1990s rivers close to and at a distance from salmon farms were sampled. Results of monitoring have been published (Tully et al, 1999, Gargan et al, 2003). Over the past ten years, monitoring of lice infested sea trout has been confined to rivers entering salmon aquaculture bays, mainly in the West and North West. A report is prepared annually by the Central Fisheries Board on the number of rivers sampled, numbers of sea trout captured and lice infestation rates (the report for 2004 is attached in Appendix 9). Over the period 1992-2009, over eight thousand sea trout have been analysed in the programme. Less than fifty salmon post-smolt have been encountered in this netting programme, as salmon tend not to return to freshwater after entry to the sea. Live fish-lift trawling was undertaken for three years over 2001-2003 to determine sea lice infestation rates on salmon post smolt. The numbers of salmon post smolt captured were low due to limited trawling time and levels of lice infestation encountered were very low. Some sea trout captured at sea exhibited high pre-adult and adult lice levels. Surface gill-nets were used on a number of occasions to capture salmon post smolt in Killary Harbour to investigate sea lice levels on migrating post-smolts. During a survey in May 2004, low numbers of lice were recorded on salmon smolts, the first record of lice infestation on wild salmon smolts in Ireland. Mortality due to sea lice has been investigated by the Marine Institute as part of an EU project (SUMBAWS) and ongoing research. Several embayments were selected and trials carried out over several years. In general mortality on treated fish (i.e. fish treated with the SLICE

®product have shown higher survival rates although the differences are not always

significantly different. Where differences have occurred these have ranged from marginal differences to very large differences in survival between experimental.

Similar experiments have been undertaken by the Central Fisheries Board. The sea lice treatment SLICE

® was used to determine the marine survival of hatchery reared salmon in

three aquaculture bays in the west of Ireland over the 2003-2005 period. Release of SLICE®

-treated and control groups of hatchery-reared salmon smolts into aquaculture bays allows assessment of the potential impact of sea lice induced marine mortality to be examined. No farmed salmon were present in one of the bays for one of the eight experimental smolt

19

releases. Analysis of tag recaptures showed that SLICE-treated smolts experienced increased survivorship over un-treated controls in all seven releases when farm net-pens were in production. The data also indicate that un-treated smolts experienced reduced marine growth compared to treated groups, perhaps due to sub-lethal effects of early infestation of salmon smolts by larval sea lice. Experimental results are being prepared for publication. A summary of the data available for the occurrence of escapees in the Irish catches is provided in Appendix 5. Overall there has been a very low incidence of farmed fish in these catches but caveats apply i.e. escapees may not always be available for scanning as they would be considered damaged fish and may not be included with the overall catch examined. Similarly, catch scanning covered the main commercial catches and this fishery only operates between May and July (with extensions possible in August in some years). There is no systematic scanning of escapee salmon in Irish rivers. Only very small numbers are recorded in the annual runs of the River Burrishoole, site of the Marine Institutes Research Facility in Newport, Co. Mayo where all upstream and downstream migrating salmon are counted. Similarly, only small numbers of escapees have been recorded in the upstream trap on the River Screebe, Connemara, Co. Galway. There is a need for a more systematic approach to monitoring the incidence of escapees but the generally held scientific view presently (see Appendix 6) is that these escapees in the main migrate north and possible do not make it back to freshwater (in Ireland at least) following escapes from cages. However, the negative impacts such introgression might result in have recently been identified (McGinnity et al 2006) and there is due cause for concern and further efforts to monitor the runs at selected locations in the vicinity of aquaculture facilities. 2.11.2 Restocking/Ranching Research and data collection There are currently two major monitoring programmes operated by the Marine Institute on behalf of the DCENR. These are the National Coded Wire Tagging and Tag Recovery Programme where in the course of maintaining long time series of information on marine survival, exploitation rates and freshwater survival, national catches are scanned and the occurrence of fish farm escapees and other hatchery origin salmon are identified in catches and runs. This programme involves the examination of up to 20% of the total catch (over 50% prior to the cessation of the mixed stock fishery at sea) and is the only systematic scanning programme carried out at a national level and has been ongoing since 1980. The results of this programme are reported to ICES and NASCO annually. The second major monitoring programme carried out by the Marine Institute on behalf of the DCENR of is the ESOPS (Enhancement Stocks – origin, progress and status) programme of monitoring all enhancement activities from capture of broodstock to subsequent release of the progeny into the wild. This programme has been ongoing since 1995. The overview of this programme is included in the National Report for Ireland which is provided to ICES and NASCO annually. Both of these annual assessment programmes provide essential information on the survival of wild salmonids and factors implicate in the recent declines in mortality. Research is ongoing under the auspices of the Beaufort Marine Science Award Scheme to further investigate the impacts of hatchery released salmon on wild stocks.

20

It is acknowledged that more systematic scanning of freshwater catches or populations during the year and in association with known escape events for aquaculture sites are required. Apart from the Burrishoole and Screebe River traps and ESB broodstock collections, there is little direct monitoring of the occurrence of escapees in freshwater. 2.12 Educational materials should be developed and distributed to increase awareness

of the risks that introductions and transfers of aquatic species may pose to wild salmon stocks and the need for measures to control these activities.

In considering the above, the Report should identify the expected extent and timescale of effects and an explanation of how socio-economic factors are applied and how this affects the attainment of NASCO’s objectives. 2.12.1 Educational materials on Restocking/Ranching A summary table outlining the extent and timescales of the possible negative effects from the practice of restocking/ranching is shown in Table 2. Regarding education material, the websites of the CFB and the various RFB’s contain information to raise awareness of various risks including:- Gyrodactylus http://www.cfb.ie/fishing_in_ireland/fishfluke.htm Zebra mussels http://www.shannon-fishery-board.ie/aboutus/zebramussels.htm Material relating invasive pond weeds can be found at the following website: http://www.invasivespeciesireland.com/files/public/General%20Information/Field%20guide%20to%20invasive%20species%20in%20Ireland%20booklet.pdf

21

http://www.cfb.ie/fishing_in_ireland/fishfluke.htm

http://www.shannon-fishery-board.ie/aboutus/zebramussels.htm

http://www.invasivespeciesireland.com/files/public/General%20Information/Field%20guide%20to%20invasive%20species%20in%20Ireland%20booklet.pdf

http://www.invasivespeciesireland.com/files/public/General%20Information/Field%20guide%20to%20invasive%20species%20in%20Ireland%20booklet.pdf

Table 2 Expected effects of Restocking/Ranching and Timescale of effects with management and mitigation measures indicated for Ireland Specific outcome

Licence/permission Required

Disease Cert Required

Expected Extent of Effect Timescale of Effects Mitigation

Subsequent monitoring Management

Broodstock collection Yes Yes Removal of excess wild stock

Persistent if occurring each year

Most programmes rely on returning hatchery fish with little recourse to taking wild broodstock

Mainly by hatchery operators and Annual ESOPS (Enhancement Stocks - Origin, progress and status) data collection and database updating DCENR/RFBs

Removal of specific components of the run

Persistent if occurring each year

As above and broodstcock collected from Septmber on. Hatchery records Hatchery operators

Stripping/ Fertilisation Yes No

Not enough broodstock or skewed ratio of males to females

Can make large differences to subsequent returns and could affect broodstock quality over time

Most hatchery programmes use the required ratio and number of male and female broodstock except in experimental cases where specific groups are to be developed and tagged

Mainly by hatchery operators and Annual ESOPS (Enhancement Stocks - Origin, progress and status) data collection and database updating Hatchery operators

Planting of eggs/fry/parr Yes Yes

Stocking in areas with wild stock already present

Even if carried out at a small scale, persistent restocking in thses areas could lead to loss of wild production.

This is avoided as most hatchery operators, particularly those run by the state carry out electrofishing surveys to identify areas wit low natural production. However there is still concern given new genetic information

Mainly by hatchery operators and Annual ESOPS (Enhancement Stocks - Origin, progress and status) data collection and database updating Hatchery operators

Stocking using smolts Yes Yes

Overstocking of hatchery smolts relative to existing wild stock

Excessive returns of adult hatchery salmon relative to wild stocks over time will lead to loss of productivity in the wild stocks and possible extinction of the wild stock if allowed to continue.

This still occurs in many restocking programmes with smolts. However, the possible negative effects of using smolts in enhancement projects have not yet been widely recognised. Marine Institute/CFB/ESB advising on best practice - DCENR developing a new protocol on restocking practices. Applications are being scrutanised more and the general policy has been to reduce the numer of smolts being released in favour of earlier life stages. Some applications have been refused.

Mainly by hatchery operators and Annual ESOPS (Enhancement Stocks - Origin, progress and status) data collection and database updating. Hatchery operators

No efficient harvest mechanism in place to remove or separate hatchery fish from wild stocks. As above

There are programmes involving smolt releases for enhancing rod fisheries but do not have the neccesary trap facilities to ensure a full harvest and seperation of wild from hatchery fish. The general recommendation is for full for trapping facilities to allow removal of all surplus hatchery fish.

Information available from the national Coded Wire Tagging and Tag Recovery Programme on return rates and numbers of hatchery fish remaining in the wild. Also, information on the return rates of hatchery smolts is available from the National Coded Wire Tagging and Tag Recovery Programme operated by the Marine Institute on behalf of the DCENR. Up to 300,000 smolts may be tagged annually Hatchery operators

Straying

Probably no lasting problem is strays are at a low level and the occurances are rare. However, persistant lwo level straying could have the same effect as low leves of fish farm escapees on wild salmon productivity

Good imprinting lowers the risk of straying. Where strays are encountered they are usually removed.

Information from the National Coded Wire Tagging and Tag Recovery Programme provides information on the rates of straying annually. This is uaually less than 1% of the total returns for any given tag release group.

Hatchery operators and Regional Fisheries Boards

Ranching Yes Yes Straying As above As above As above As above

Increased exploitation on wild stocks due to presence of large numbers of ranched salmon

The continues presence of a ranching fishery will lead to an expectation of large catches and it is not possible to target only ranched fish in these fisheries. This could be a problem locally Ireland and is under review along with the overall objectives and justification for stock programmes in Ireland.

Restocked or ranched salmon are included in any TAC which is recommended by the Standing Scientific Committee of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resource. This reduces the potential exploitation on wild stocks.

Information from ESOPS monitoring programme and exploitation rates generated from National Coded Wire Tagging and Tag Recovery Programme DCENR/RFBs

22

Appendix 1 Annex 4 of NASCO Guidelines on Restocking

Irish adherence to the NASCO Guidelines for Stocking Atlantic Salmon

I. Introduction

The term stocking is defined as “the deliberate release of Atlantic salmon into the wild at any stage of their life-cycle for enhancement, mitigation, restoration, rehabilitation or ranching purposes” (Annex 1).

II. Rationale for stocking

The principal output from restocking practices are for the four main hydro-electric dammed rivers. Restocking is still regarded as a suitable enhancement technique due to the difficulties with both upstream and downstream fish passage over these significant barriers and because of the generally high stock levels required to achieve the Maximum Sustainable Yield (Conservation Limits) for these rivers i.e.

Table 6 from Report of the Standing Scientific Committee to the Department of Communications Energy and Natural Resources – The Status of Irish salmon Stocks in 2008 with Precautionary Catch Advice for 2009. Stocks above large rivers impounded for hydro-electric schemes. Counts are average counts for the most recent 5 years with the exception of the Liffey (Islandbridge) which is the most recent 4 years.

RiverWetted Area U/S Dams Total CL 1SW CL 2SW CL Average Count

Shannon 30,895,619 49,524 45,909 3,729 707

Erne 6,457,264 16,554 15,345 1,247 1445

Liffey 2,308,361 4,391 4,062 329 1157

Lee 1,923,476 2,789 2,585 210 57

However as recognised in the NASCO guidelines there are many possible causes for the decline of Atlantic salmon populations and stocking may not be an appropriate solution. Therefore The Electricity Supply Board of Ireland, the Central and Regional Fisheries Boards (to become the Inland Fisheries Authority of Ireland), the Marine Institute and other agencies are actively investigating other enhancement techniques.

In addition, stocking is also carried out for experimental ranching purposes in the Burrishoole River, as part of an ongoing Marine Institute research programme generating comparative survival data since the 1950’s.

In accordance with the Precautionary Approach, the proponent of stocking must apply appropriate risk assessment methodologies (see Article 4). Proponents must also provide all relevant information to facilitate a full evaluation of the impacts of stocking upon wild salmon stocks (Article 3); see also Section IV. This information is compiled by the Marine Institute and forms a comprehensive database of hatchery activities as they relate to the deliberate introduction of hatchery reared progeny into the wild. With full co-operation from the hatchery operators, the Marine Institute and the Department of Communications Energy and Natural Resources have been able to monitor for the past 15 years the number of adult broodstocks being taken for stripping, the numbers of eggs, fry, parr and smolts derived from these strippings and the stocking history including numbers, locations and dates of release of hatchery reared fish in all catchments and for all hatcheries involved in these activities. A summary of these data is given in Table 1 below. Details of Irish origin salmonids used for international restoration programmes are also kept (i.e. the Rhine 2000 programme etc) and are available on request .

An examination of the relative success or otherwise of restocking programmes in Ireland

is available in : Restocking programmes for salmon (Salmo salar L.) in Ireland – how successful have they been ? Niall Ó Maoiléidigh, Philip McGinnity, Denis Doherty, JonathanWhite, Denis McLaughlin, Anne Cullen, Tom McDermott, Nigel Bond. ICES CM 2008/ N:13, III. Guidelines for Conducting Stocking – Irish situation

A. Definition of river classes -– All Irish rivers have been designated as per

the three classes of rivers used by NASCO (Section 2 in NAC(94)14)

B. Guidelines applicable for all rivers 1. Reproductively viable strains of Atlantic salmon of European origin,

including Icelandic origin, are not to be released in the North American Commission Area and reproductively viable strains of Atlantic salmon of North American origin are not to be released in the North-East Atlantic Commission Area. - No such transfers have taken place or are permissible in Ireland

2. Prior to any transfer of eggs, juveniles or broodstock a health inspection of

the donor facility will be undertaken during and/or preceding the transfer, and no fish will be transferred from the facility to other facilities or released into waters to which the NASCO Convention applies, if emergency diseases as defined by national, state, or provincial authorities are detected at the donor facility. – In Ireland all transfers of salmonids must be certified as disease free by the Department of Agriculture,

Fisheries and Food. All hatcheries are bound to report any notifiable diseases.

3. Fish with restricted diseases may be transferred or released into waters to

which the NASCO Convention applies, provided that this does not result in changing the disease status of the receiving facility or waters. These transfers must also comply with national, state or provincial regulations. – As above for Ireland

4. Hatchery rearing programmes to support the introduction, mitigation,

restoration, ranching, and enhancement of Atlantic salmon should try to comply with the following measures:

(a) Use only F1 progeny from wild stocks – This is as advised by the

Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

(b) Derive broodstock from all phenotype age-groups and the entire run of a donor population. – This is as advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

(c) Avoid selection of the “best” fish during the hatchery rearing period - This is as advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

(d) During spawning, make only single paired matings from a broodstock population of no less than 100 parents. - This is as advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

In general, all of the above guidelines are used by responsible hatchery operators and except where specific experimental groups are being developed in supported scientific assessments, there have been no major breaches of the above guidelines as indicated by the ESOPS programme of monitoring operated by the Marine Institute. C. Guidelines applicable to rivers in Class I, II, III in Ireland

1. General

(a) No Atlantic salmon reared in a fish culture facility are to be released into a Class I river, another river which has its estuary within an appropriate, specified distance from a Class I river, or a marine site that is an appropriate, specified distance from a Class I river. – There is still some restocking being carried out in Class I rivers although the rationale for so-doing is currently under review

(b) No non-indigenous Atlantic salmon stock is to be introduced.

2. Rehabilitation

(a) Fisheries management techniques will be used to ensure sufficient

spawners such that spawning escapement exceeds a minimum target level to maintain an effective breeding population.- The current national goal of fisheries and habitat management is for stocks to meet scientifically established Conservation Limits . See below for general description of restocking in Irish Rivers.

(b) Habitat that becomes degraded will be restored to the greatest extent possible – This is a stipulation in the EG Water Framework Directive to which all EU countries are obliged to meet particular targets within a specified timeframe.

3. Establishment or re-establishment of Atlantic salmon in a river or

part of a watershed where there are no salmon

(a) Use transfers of adults or juvenile salmon from the residual population in other parts of the watershed. - This is as advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

(b) A nearby salmon stock that has similar phenotypic characteristics

to the lost stock could be transferred if there is no residual stock in the recipient watershed and provided an effective breeding population is maintained in the donor watershed. - This is as advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

(c) If the biological characteristics of the original stock are not known

or there was no previous stock in the recipient watershed, then broodstock or early life stages could be transferred from a nearby river having similar habitat characteristics. - This is as advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

4. Ranching

(a) No ranching of salmonids is permitted within an appropriate, specified distance of the estuary of a Class I river. – All ranching has been carried out in rivers which have had some history of restocking in the past. This is as advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

D. Guidelines applicable to rivers in Class II 1. General

(a) Reproductively viable Atlantic salmon stocks, non-indigenous to

its NASCO Commission area, are not to be introduced into watersheds or into the marine environment of Class II rivers. - This is not permitted by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

(b) Restoration, enhancement and sea ranching activities are permitted in the freshwater and marine environments. - This is as advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

2. Rehabilitation

(a) The preferred methods are to improve degraded habitat and ensure escapement of sufficient spawners through fisheries management. - This is as advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

(b) If further measures are required, use residual stocks for

rehabilitation and enhancement. If the residual stock is too small, select a donor stock having similar life history and biochemical characteristics from a tributary or nearby river. - This is as advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

(c) Stocking of hatchery-reared smolts is preferred, to reduce

competition with juveniles of the natural stocks - This is questionable given the poor performance of returning ranched smolts in spawning populations and the likely selection of traits which may not be conducive to best survival in the early stages of the progenies life history. More information is required on this NAASCO guideline from geneticists.

3. Establishment or re-establishment of Atlantic salmon in a river or part of a watershed where there are no salmon

(a) To establish an Atlantic salmon stock, use a stock from a nearby river having similar stream habitat characteristics - This is as currently advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. However, this may not be good guidance if the nearby river has components of the stock which are very different to that of the recipient stock. It may be better to develop a specific strain more suitable to the recipient river or even simply allow recolonisation by straying from nearby rivers.

(b) If re-establishing a stock, use a stock from a nearby river that has

similar biological characteristics to the original stock. – Ax above

(c) It is preferable to stock rivers with broodstock or early life history stages (eggs and fry); this would allow selection and imprinting by juveniles to occur. - This is as currently advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

(d) If eggs are spawned artificially, use single pair matings and optimize the effective number of parents. - This is as currently advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

4. Ranching

(a) Atlantic salmon ranching will only be permitted at release sites located greater than an appropriate, specified distance from the estuary of a Class II river and it is demonstrated that the activity will not negatively affect wild Atlantic salmon stocks. - This is as currently advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

D. Guidelines applicable to rivers in Class III 1. General

(a) Indigenous and non-indigenous Atlantic salmon may be considered

for introduction or transfer (with the exception noted in item III-B-1), if fish health and genetic protocols are followed and negative impacts on local stocks of Atlantic salmon can be shown to be minimal using careful ecological impact evaluation. - This is as

currently advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

2. Rehabilitation

(a) Habitat quality should be upgraded wherever possible. - This is as advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

(b) Rebuilding stocks can be achieved by controlling exploitation and by stocking cultured fish. - This is as currently advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. However, some examples of recolonisation by starys fron nearby rivers without to much intervention are also available and this should also be considered as a strategy.

3. Establishment or re-establishment of Atlantic salmon in a river or part of a watershed where there are no salmon

(a) Transfer source stocks from nearest rivers having similar habitat

characteristics. - This is as currently advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

(b) Stock with juvenile stages (eggs, fry and/or parr). If eggs are spawned artificially, use single pair matings and optimize the effective number of parents. - This is as advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

4. Ranching

(a) Ranching of Atlantic salmon is permitted if it is demonstrated that the activity will not negatively affect Atlantic salmon restoration or enhancement programmes or the development of wild Atlantic salmon stocks. - This is as currently advised by the Marine Institute and adopted as best practice by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

IV. Guidelines for administering stocking A. Introduction

Both proponents and agencies responsible for managing Atlantic salmon must ensure that the risk of adverse effects on wild Atlantic salmon populations from stocking is minimized. All of the guidelines below are being considered by the Department of Communications, Energy and natural Resources.

B. Responsibility of proponent of stocking

1. Proponents must submit an application for stocking of Atlantic salmon to the permit-issuing agency (see Box 1).

2. This application must provide a full justification for stocking such

that a complete evaluation will be possible prior to issuance of a permit. It must also provide sufficient documentary evidence to show that all measures have been considered and that risks of adverse impacts have been minimized.

3. The lead time required for notice and justification of stocking will

be determined by the permit-issuing agency.

4. Proponents should be aware of these guidelines established for stocking Atlantic salmon.

5. Proponents must report all stocking that is conducted.

C. Responsibility of those with the authority to issue permits

1. Enact reasonable laws to protect wild stocks of Atlantic salmon and prevent the release of Atlantic salmon that will adversely affect the productivity of existing wild Atlantic salmon stocks.

2. Establish, maintain, and operate a permit system and inventory for

all stocking of Atlantic salmon. 3. Enact regulations required to control the stocking of Atlantic

salmon as per established protocols.

4. Establish a formal scientific evaluation process consistent with the

Precautionary Approach to review all applications (private and government agencies) for the stocking of Atlantic salmon and recommend conditional acceptance or rejection of the proposed stocking based on the potential impact on the productivity of existing Atlantic salmon populations.

5. Establish an evaluation process to determine the effectiveness of

this stocking and its impacts on wild Atlantic salmon stocks.

6. Within a class of rivers, each agency may be more restrictive in setting salmon stocking guidelines. Less restrictive stocking guidelines may be applied to an individual watershed if it has no existing Atlantic salmon population and its estuary is beyond an appropriate, specified distance from a watershed with an existing Atlantic salmon population.

7. Annually, submit to NASCO the results of the permit

submission/review process, and a list of stocking proposed, approved, and conducted in their jurisdiction and advise of any variance from these guidelines.

Box 1. Preparation of stocking proposals

The following information is required, by the permit-issuing agency, with applications involving stocking of salmonids. This information will be used to evaluate the risk of adverse effects on Atlantic salmon stocks. An application procedure similar to the guidelines proposed below has been in development by the Department of Communications Energy and natural Resources for some years and await a full consensus from stakeholders, other salmon management agencies and bodies.

(1) Name the species, strain and quantity to be stocked, and include:

(a) Time of stocking;

(b) List anticipated future stocking;

(c) List previous stocking.

(2) Area, place, river or hatchery from which the fish will be obtained. (3) Proposed place of release and any interim rearing sites.

(4) Disease status of donor hatchery, river or other location from which fish

are obtained.

(5) Disease status of recipient facility or stream (where available).

(6) Objectives of the stocking and the rationale for not using local stock (if such use is not proposed).

(7) For non-indigenous stocks, provide the available biological characteristics

of donor stock. This would include such characteristics as run timing, time of spawning, age-at-maturity, size-at-age etc. and potential for competition with local stocks of Atlantic salmon in the recipient waters or nearby waters.

(8) Information on similar stocking.

(9) Proposed procedure for transportation from donor to recipient site.

(10) List measures to be taken to prevent transmission of disease agents and to

reduce the risk of escape of fish.

(11) Species composition at proposed site of introduction and adjacent rivers.

(12) Climatic regime and water chemistry, including pH of waters at the site of

proposed introduction and of adjacent rivers.

(13) Potential of stocked fish to disperse to nearby streams.

(14) A bibliography of pertinent literature should be appended to the proposal.

Table 1 Information on restocking in Ireland (2010 is partial only)


1995 13 2,046 2,205 6.750515 3,061 113,360 464,413 3,031,750 488,513 295,196 4,393,232

1996 17 2,016 2,082 7.321852 3,517 185,877 3,209,351 217,300 307,192 520,199 4,439,919

1997 17 1,869 2,109 8.189486 3,883 226,420 3,735,658 544,398 443,318 500,389 140 5,450,323

1998 17 2,339 2,763 10.842924 3,924 1,167,237 4,158,878 502,329 348,898 460,311 6,637,653

1999 13 2,354 2,454 9.456507 3,854 0 4,227,732 114,909 256,675 610,071 650 5,210,037

2000 12 1,712 2,020 9.206557 4,557 227,458 3,814,682 0 116,927 493,726 4,652,793

2001 12 2,354 2,622 8.151113 3,108 144,240 3,466,630 82,240 349,304 526,297 3,400 4,572,111

2002 13 1,633 1,951 7.767942 3,981 75,020 2,929,323 57,000 600,158 598,246 4,259,747

2003 15 2,088 2,208 8.009743 3,627 257,969 3,495,993 138,106 314,924 770,618 4,977,610

2004 15 1,640 1,764 6.764957 3,835 94,640 2,575,193 92,900 286,753 631,426 3,680,912

2005 15 2,312 2,472 8.516144 3,445 131,164 4,585,800 98,500 422,785 661,439 5,995 5,905,683

2006 13 1,822 1,919 6.71629 3,500 137,030 3,181,205 112,000 426,388 822,711 4,679,334

2007 10 1,370 1,448 4.930522 3,405 6,500 1,946,216 30,800 614,070 640,397 3,237,983

2008 12 1,525 1,575 4.596473 2,918 65,000 1,969,580 0 490,358 430,882 2,955,820

2009 11 1,516 1,504 4.683319 3,113 65,823 2,692,562 1,000 633,328 440,416 3,833,129

2010 11 699 852


Production Eyed Ova

Appendix 2 Not to be cited without prior reference to the authors ICES CM 2008/ N:13 Restocking programmes for salmon (Salmo salar L.) in Ireland – how successful have they been ? Niall Ó Maoiléidigh1, Philip McGinnity2, Denis Doherty3, JonathanWhite4,

Denis McLaughlin1, Anne Cullen1, Tom McDermott1, Nigel Bond1. ABSTRACT Name(s) of authors: Niall Ó Maoiléidigh, Philip McGinnity, Denis Doherty, and Jonathon White, Denis McLaughlin, Anne Cullen, Tom McDermott, Nigel Bond. Restocking is a widely used tool in Ireland to mitigate against the loss of salmon populations caused by creation of hydropower dams, river drainage and pollution. Strategies have included restocking with all stages in-river supplemented with substantial releases of hatchery-reared smolts. The efficacy of restocking with regard to establishing self-sustaining stocks is examined in light of ongoing problems in fresh water and poor and declining marine survival with reference to returns from coded wire tagged salmon and recoveries in broodstocks at rearing stations. 1 Marine Institute, Newport, Co. Mayo, Ireland [Tel: +353(98) 42300; e-mail:[email protected]] 2 University College Cork, Department of Zoology, Ecology and Plant Science, Distillery Fields, North Mall, Cork, Ireland, email: [email protected]] 3 Electricity Supply Board, Fisheries Conservation, ESB Salmon Hatchery, Knather Road, Ballyshannon, Co Donegal. [Tel: +353 (71) 9851712, email: [email protected]] 4 Marine Institute, Rinvlle, Oranmore, Co. Galway, Ireland [Tel: +353(91)387200, email: [email protected]]

Keywords: Atlantic salmon, restoration, stocking, coded wire microtagging.

Not to be cited without prior reference to the authors - 2 -

INTRODUCTION Stocking and rearing salmonids is an established technique for artificially increasing salmonid productivity with the objective being to increase the adult numbers available to the system. In recent years, up to 1 million reared salmon smolts have been released into Irish rivers. There is also extensive use of eggs, fry and parr to supplement these smolt releases. Artificial propagation has the advantage that the mortality associated with juvenile development in the wild (over 95%) can be substantially reduced by rearing the progeny of wild or artificially produced parents to eyed egg, fry, parr or smolt stage, in the relative safety of a hatchery. This is due to the elimination of many of the factors (competition for food, predators, disease etc) which normally operate on the wild population and limit production under natural circumstances. In general however, stocking has become a panacea for any river system which has, or appears to have, a reduced stock. Stocking in the past has often been carried out in systems where the natural productivity was not known, and invariably, follow up surveys were not carried out to assess the actual benefits of the stocking operation. There is clearly a need to establish a policy with regard to stocking practices, which will protect wild stocks from indiscriminate stocking or other population manipulation. In 1993, Ireland was considered to have a: “ widespread, abundant and self-sustaining population of Atlantic salmon” (Whilde 1993). Although the report noted that salmon were under pressure from commercial exploitation they were not considered to be threatened at the time. The most recent assessment carried out in 2007, under Irelands commitments to the European Councils Directive on the Conservation of Habitats, Flora and Fauna (92/43/EEC) states that : “The salmon population in Ireland has declined by 75% in recent years and although salmon still occur in 148 Irish rivers, only 43 of these have healthy populations”. (Anon. 2008a) Factors leading to this decline are described in the above report and include reduced marine survival (probably as a result of climate change), poor river water quality (resulting from factors such as inadequate sewage treatment, agricultural enrichment, acidification, erosion and siltation), forestry related pressures and over-fishing. Concerns related to factors causing mortality at sea, such as diseases, parasites and marine pollution are also noted. Although the range where salmon were to be found was classified as good, the population size was considered bad, habitat condition was considered poor with

future prospects also considered poor. The overall classification for the Atlantic salmon in Ireland was described as “Bad”. In recent years river specific Conservation Limits have been derived for all Irish salmon rivers (Crozier et al 2004, Prevost et al 2004, Ó Maoiléidigh et al 2004). In line with this, fishery management measures in Ireland from 1997 to 2006 have been aimed at reducing exploitation on returning stocks and increasing escapement and meeting these Conservation Limits. A significant increase in escapement of wild fish is likely in many rivers following the Irish Governments decision in 2006 to close the mixed stock salmon fishery. This fishery was estimated to intercept between 30 to 50% of all returning wild salmon to Irish waters (ICES 2008). However, despite this expected increase in escapement, many Irish rivers will still fail to meet their required Conservation Limits (Anon 2008b). Conversely, several rivers which had been meeting and exceeding their conservation limits will see a significant surplus over this requirement due to the closure of the mixed stock fishery. Therefore the use, or continued use of hatchery stocks in the rebuilding process and in stock management needs to be considered in this context. In a wider context, the North Atlantic salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) have adopted a Precautionary Approach to salmon management and conservation (NASCO 1998). In this context, management strategies include stock rebuilding as part of the conservation strategy (NASCO 2004). These rebuilding strategies include fisheries management, habitat enhancement and protection, control of interactions between wild and aquaculture fish and restocking. NASCO (2006) have noted that stocking is widely carried out by many government and private entities for enhancement, mitigation, restoration, rehabilitation or ranching purposes and advise that “while these programmes are sometimes successful, it is now known that stocking can also have negative impacts on wild salmon stocks and other species, and poor hatchery practices may negatively impact the characteristics of the wild stock that we wish to conserve”. Other potential consequences outlined by NASCO include: depression of the survival and abundance of indigenous populations and straying of stocked fish into nearby rivers and protagonists of restocking are advised by NASCO to consider fully the risks as well as the benefits arising from stocking. There have been several recent reviews on restocking and the use of hatchery reared progeny of Atlantic salmon (e.g. Cowx, 1994 and 1998; Fleming and Petersson, 2001; Aprahamian et al., 2003; McGinnity et al., 2003, Cross et al., 2007). Given that salmon stocks are in decline across much of the North Atlantic (ICES 2008) there is a need for rational and effective methods to be applied for stock rebuilding. In this paper, stocking histories of the last 13 years in Ireland are reviewed along with the extent of hatchery activity, the numbers of fish being taken from the wild for stripping, juveniles being produced, rivers being stocked and returns in relation to meeting specific objectives in this instance the attainment of Conservation Limits.

MATERIALS AND METHODS In 1994, the Fisheries Research Centre (and subsequently the Marine Institute from 1996) began collecting records of all of the stocking activities in Ireland in an effort to establish the scale of restocking programmes i.e. the number and size of the rivers being stocked, the numbers and source of any wild fish being removed for broodstock purposes and the possible impacts and effects on wild salmon stocks. Under this programme, (ESOPS, Enhancement Stocks – Origin, Progress and Status) all hatchery operators have been requested to supply details of the broodstock captured, eggs produced, and all locations, dates and numbers of progeny at each life stage released into the wild. In this way a comprehensive overview of the stocking activities in Ireland has been produced since 1995. In order to quantify the returning adults from the various stocking strategies using different life-history stages of Atlantic salmon in Ireland, conversion factors for the survival of eyed ova, unfed fry, fry and parr to the smolt stage are required. These have derived from deEyto et al., 2007, McGinnity, 1997 and McGinnity (pers. comm). Subsequently, conversion of smolts to adults is based on returns from the Irish National Coded Wire Tagging and Tag Recovery Programme (Ó Maoiléidigh et al, 2001). The conversion factors used are presented in Table 1. A distinction is made when converting smolts from plantings to adult returns and smolts reared entirely in the hatchery to adult returns. In the former, the survival rates generated in the National CWT programme for “wild” Irish smolts is used which would be considerably higher in most instances than hatchery reared smolts. Similarly, the exploitation rates used for adults derived from the returns of planted smolts is also based on the wild exploitation index on the assumption that the planted progeny will have spent more time in the wild and will subsequently behave more like true wild salmon. This will result in higher overall returns of planted hatchery progeny (eyed ova to parr) than assuming survivals and exploitation rates derived for smolts reared entirely in the hatchery. The main objective of most restocking programmes in Ireland has generally been to restore depleted salmon stocks. While often significant returns of salmon have been generated from these programmes, the difficulty has been in gauging the long term success of the strategy. This was essentially due to the lack of an acceptable population “benchmark” with which to measure the outcome of the restocking projects. In 1998, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO, 1998) adopted the precautionary approach to fisheries management (as outlined in FAO, 1995, 1996). Central to this was agreement that management measures should be aimed at maintaining all salmon stocks in the NASCO Convention Area above pre-agreed Conservation Limits. The Conservation Limit for Atlantic salmon is defined by NASCO as:

“the spawning stock level that produces long term average maximum sustainable yield as derived from the adult to adult stock and recruitment relationship”. Ideally river specific stock and recruitment analysis would be the most accurate way to determine river specific Conservation Limits (Crozier et al., 2004). However, the acquisition of these relationships is resource intensive as they require a long time scale to cover many generations and a wide range of stock levels. Typical relationships are based on 20 to 30 years of stock and recruitment data. It will, for the foreseeable future, be necessary to transport CLs from data-rich rivers to data-poor rivers (Prévost et al., 2003). To this end a Bayesian hierarchical modeling framework has been developed to transport stock and recruitment information between rivers and to set Conservation Limits for individual rivers accordingly (Crozier et al., 2004, Ó Maoiléidigh et al., 2004). These Conservation Limits form the basis of the “benchmark” used in this study to gauge the overall and long term success of these stocking programmes. RESULTS Table 1 provides a summary of salmon hatchery stocking activities in Ireland since 1995. The total number of eggs produced in all stocking programmes combined has ranged from 4.5 million to 10.8 million (average 7.6 million) per annum. The scale of stocking with the various life stages has varied, but stocking with unfed fry has dominated numerically with upwards of 4.5 million being planted in some years (average 3.2 million). One year old smolts were the next most dominant life-stage with up to 790,000 being released (average 575,000). Parr releases are also significant with up to 614,000 released (average 383,000). Stocking with eyed ova and fry has also been carried out but at a lower volume. Between 1,300 and 2,354 adult males and 1,448 to 2,763 females have been used annually to generate the progeny for stocking with the ratio usually close to 1:1. Since 1995, up to 17 separate hatchery facilities have been in operation with between 10 and 12 in recent years. This includes small satellite rearing facilities which may take progeny from other hatcheries. Generally speaking the national output of juvenile stages for restocking programmes has been remarkable consistent over the years. Stocking strategies have been quite variable even within individual rivers (Table 2). Some rivers have been stocked consistently over the years while others have had very small or sporadic introductions. Eight rivers have only been stocked on a single occasion. Forty five individual rivers, out of a possible 150 or so salmon rivers nationally, have been stocked in the last 15 years to some degree. Of these 8 have had eyed ova planted, 30 have been stocked with unfed fry, 18 with fry, 22 with parr, 21 with 1+ smolts and 3 with 2+smolts. There are four major hatcheries producing the bulk of the material i.e. the Erne at Cathaleen’s Fall, the Shannon at Parteen, the Lee at Inniscarra and the Corrib at Cong. The former three release salmon as part of a programme to mitigate for lost production due to the building of hydro-electric dams on these rivers. Eyed ova planting has been important numerically in the Erne and the Owenmore rivers

in some years. Similarly, significant stocking with unfed fry has taken place on the rivers Shannon, Erne, Cork Blackwater, Lee and Barrow. Stocking with fry has extensively taken place on the Shannon, Cork Blackwater (in one year only), the Erne, Deel and Screebe. Parr have been stocked at high levels into the Corrib, Erne, Shannon and Lee while smolts (1+) have been used extensively in the Shannon, Erne, Lee and Bundorragha. Stocking with 2+ smolts has not be extensively carried anywhere during this period. The magnitude of the potential returns estimated from these releases has been compared to the individual Conservation Limits for these rivers to gauge, at least in numerical terms the possible contribution these stocking activities might have on the wild stocks. The issue of quality of the returning fish and their ability to perform as well on spawning beds or in survival through subsequent life-history stages compared to wild stocks is not dealt with in the instance. Given that the primary aim of most stocking programmes is to restore depleted stocks, rivers have been grouped according to whether they are currently failing to meet Conservation Limits and those which are already meeting CLs. Within the category of rivers failing to meet Conservation Limits currently, rivers which are subject to mitigation measures due to the building of hyrdo-electric dams are dealt with separately. In this instance rivers which are being stocked but where the intention is to harvest or remove all of the returning adults are not included in this analysis as the progeny are not expected to contribute to wild runs subsequently (i.e. Burrishoole, Bundorragha, Screebe). There are 10 rivers (without hydro installations) which are failing to meet Conservation Limits and which have been stocked at some time or another in the last 13 years. In the case of the Rivers Boyne, Barrow, Nore, Suir, Maigue, Fergus and Eske, the estimated return from the stocking programme was on average 5% or less than the Conservation Limit required for these rivers in numbers of salmon. Stocking has been intermittent, and was mainly carried out up to 2000 for four of the former rivers. Consistent stocking has taken place on the Maigue since 1995 and on the Fergus since 2000 but these rivers are still consistently failing to meet their Conservation Limits (attainment of CL 16% for the Maigue and 29% for the Fergus). For the River Deel, estimated returns should have potentially generated between 10 and 40% of the spawning population on average in some of the early years, but more recent contributions would be far less. Consistent stocking has also taken place on the River Bunowen and potential estimated returns representing on average 10% of the Conservation Limit have been attained. However this river is only meeting 68% of its Conservation Limit currently. There are four rivers which have been harnessed for hydro-electrical power generation. Of these the highest estimated return of hatchery fish relative to the Conservation Limit is to the River Lee, with over 10% of the required Conservation Limit being generated.

However, despite consistent restocking this river is estimated to be only meeting 2.2% of its Conservation Limit (based on the runs of wild fish past the fish counter) suggesting that the overall contribution of the hatchery fish is probably much less. Early restocking programmes for the river Erne are likely to have generated up to 40% on average of the returns required to meet the Conservation Limit. However, more recent contributions are estimated to be much lower (less than 5%) and the river is far below its Conservation Limit (only 9.5% of Conservation Limit being attained currently based on upstream counts). Both the Liffey and Shannon are only generating a small fraction of the Conservation Limit in numbers of salmon. There are 12 rivers meeting or exceeding their Conservation Limit where stocking is carried. Again, stocking is variable both in numbers and frequency. In nearly all instances, the returns generated are far higher in proportion to the required Conservation Limit than the rivers which are failing to meet their Conservation Limits. The longest series of stocking activities are for the Cork Blackwater, Caragh, Corrib, Ballinahinch, Erriff, Owenmore and Crana. Returns relative to the Conservation Limit requirement have varied over time and between rivers but generally have been between 5 and 20% on average. Extensive stocking in some years has resulted in the returns of hatchery fish being higher than the Conservation Limit requirement with this increase representing a doubling in some instances. DISCUSSION Stocking and rearing salmonids is an established technique for artificially increasing their productivity with the objective being to increase the adult numbers available to the system. In recent years, up to 1 million reared salmon smolts have been released into Irish rivers. There is also extensive use of eggs, fry and parr to supplement these smolt releases. Artificial propagation has the advantage that the mortality associated with juvenile development in the wild (over 95%) can be substantially reduced by rearing the progeny of wild or artificially produced parents to eyed egg, fry, parr or smolt stage, in the relative safety of a hatchery. This is due to the elimination of many of the factors (competition for food, predators, disease etc) which normally operate on the wild population and limit production under natural circumstances. Some river systems are dependant on stocking to establish an annual run of migratory salmonids and in the short to medium term stocking may be the only viable method of maintaining high levels of smolt output. In general however, stocking has come to be regarded as a panacea for any river system which has, or appears to have, a reduced stock. Stocking in the past has generally been carried out in systems where the natural productivity was not known, and invariably, follow up surveys were not carried out to assess the actual benefits of the stocking operation. The term stocking is defined as “the deliberate release of Atlantic salmon into the wild at any stage of their life-cycle for enhancement, mitigation, restoration, rehabilitation or ranching purposes” (NASCO 2006).

Stocking with hatchery reared salmon has been carried out in Ireland since the start of the 1900’s usually with the intention of to boosting stocks or as a response to specific management problems such as fish kills caused by either chronic or acute pollution incidences, loss of habitats due to impoundments or other land use activities. In Ireland this practice has not been widespread and generally the hatchery progeny have been released in their parents river of origin and relatively few rivers have had introductions of non-indigenous fish. The number and locations of hatcheries operating in the 13 years examined in this review are probably not much different for the past 30 years or so. Unfortunately, there has been little follow up assessment as to the efficacy of this practice with regard to generating adult returns and more importantly the real contribution to spawning and subsequent generations by way of electro-fishing, smolt trapping, mark-recapture studies, catch samples and catch surveys. In many respects, the goal of the hatchery programme should be to establish a self sustaining run of salmon (i.e. a return of salmon which meets and exceeds its Conservation Limit). There should be no further need for the hatchery unless other persistent problems have not been eliminated and the goal has not been achieved. In general the results above suggest that the contribution being made by hatchery reared intervention (in this instance simply in terms of adult numbers being generated) is minimal for rivers where the stocks are failing to meet Conservation Limits. The objective of establishing self-sustaining runs of salmon in the first instance and the further objective of meeting the required Conservation Limit are unlikely to be fulfilled with the present strategy. The overall problems associated with the operation of hyrdo-electric dams add further complications and difficulties in meeting these objectives and it is likely that restocking with hatchery progeny will not in itself provide the solution and in fact may limit the re-establishment of small quasi-wild populations which could have established following extensive restocking in earlier years. The presence of such populations (i.e. returning adults which were not released as eggs, fry parr or smolts but are the offspring of fish which had spawned naturally in the wild) needs to be verified in order to protect early establishing populations A first step in this instance would be to cease restocking in these areas in order to identify if and where there are such small but established populations and steps taken to avoid any further restocking which might cause a reduction in the fitness of the newly established population e.g. by hybridization with less well adapted newer introductions or direct competition for resources. There are several rivers in Ireland meeting and exceeding their Conservation Limits that are stocked extensively. The subsequent returning adults can represent a significant addition to the adult spawning population and there should be concerns relating to the negative impacts of genetic introgression if this proportion is large and persistent. The counter argument that these stocks would fail to meet their Conservation Limits without this intervention should be critically examined in light of current information on genetic interactions. The idea of “boosting” the natural productive capacity of a river or stream may seem desirable but this must be balanced with the possible negative genetic consequences in the long term (McGinnity et al, 2003). Certainly, the need to stock into rivers which are clearly meeting the productive capacity naturally should be examined

both in terms of potential negative biological effects on existing wild stocks, the concerns about using hatchery progeny as a legitimate conservation management tool and simply whether it is good value for the money being invested in these programmes. Other methods of stock enhancement exist and recent management measures aimed at restricting or eliminating mixed stock fisheries, restricting recreational and in-river commercial fisheries, have been put in place in Ireland and should allow a significantly higher proportion of spawners to access freshwater and their spawning areas. Significant EU legislation now exists to improve water quality and this should also have benefits in terms of salmon stock restoration. There is clearly a need to establish a policy with regard to stocking practices, which will protect wild stocks from indiscriminate stocking or other population manipulation and identify appropriate circumstances for the use of hatchery reared Atlantic salmon. On the basis of the results presented here we conclude that extensive stocking programmes undertaken in Ireland over the last thirteen years have made little real contribution to the productivity of Irish rivers or to the goals of restoring self-sustaining salmon runs. Furthermore, evidence from recent experiments suggesting that artificial introductions are likely to depress rather than enhance the productivity of natural populations, including feral or quasi-wild populations that have been established by successful hatchery programmes, suggests that more caution and planning is required before hatchery reared progeny are released into the wild . Consequently we recommend that the terms of reference of and the current supportive breeding programmes being undertaken in Ireland be reviewed in the light of the data presented here. Acknowledgements We thank the Marine Institute for updating and maintaining the ESOPS database of stocking activities in Ireland and for preparing tables and summary data for analyses. We also thank the owners and operators of the hatcheries who supply the information on restocking. Elvira De Eyto, Marine Institute is gratefully acknowledged for providing ranges of survival values for juvenile salmon.

Table 1 Conversion rates for the survival of juvenile stages of salmon to the smolt stage, survival rates of wild smolts to adult returns and exploitation rates on wild salmon. The lower panel has the survival rates of hatchery reared smolts to adult returns and exploitation rates on hatchery reared salmon released as smolts.

Period

Eyed ova to smolt

Min Max

Unfed fry to smolt

Min MaxFry to

smolt Min Max

Parr to smolt Min Max

Smolt to adult (from planting)

Min Max

Expl. rate on adults (from plantings)

Min Max

1995-1999 0.005 0.034 0.005 0.034 0.070 0.130 0.150 0.370 0.080 0.20 Min 0.6

2000-2007 0.005 0.034 0.005 0.034 0.070 0.130 0.150 0.370 0.064 0.06 0.3 0.4

Period

Hatchery smolts to

adults Min Max

Expl. rate of

hatchery smolts

Min Max

1995-1999 0.01 0.08 0.6 1.0

2000-2007 0.01 0.05 0.3 0.9

Table 2 Stocking of various life-stages of Atlantic salmon in Ireland since 1995


1995 13 2,046 2,205 6.750515 3,061 113,360 464,413 3,031,750 488,513 295,196 0 4,393,232

1996 17 2,016 2,082 7.321852 3,517 185,877 3,209,351 217,300 307,192 520,199 0 4,439,919

1997 17 1,869 2,109 8.189486 3,883 226,420 3,735,658 544,398 443,318 500,389 140 5,450,323

1998 17 2,339 2,763 10.842924 3,924 1,167,237 4,158,878 502,329 348,898 460,311 0 6,637,653

1999 13 2,354 2,454 9.456507 3,854 0 4,227,732 114,909 256,675 610,071 650 5,210,037

2000 12 1,712 2,020 9.206557 4,557 227,458 3,814,682 0 116,927 493,726 0 4,652,793

2001 12 2354 2622 8.151113 3108 144,240 3,466,630 82,240 349,304 526,297 3400 4,572,111

2002 13 1,633 1,951 7.767942 3,981 75,020 2,929,323 57,000 600,158 598,246 0 4,259,747

2003 15 2,088 2,208 8.009743 3,627 257,969 3,495,993 138,106 314,924 770,618 0 4,977,610

2004 14 1,634 1,753 6.732957 3,841 94,640 2,575,193 67,900 286,753 606,426 0 3,630,912

2005 14 2,306 2,463 8.450144 3,431 131,164 4,585,800 98,500 422,785 661,439 5,995 5,905,683

2006 12 1,816 1,907 6.64129 3,483 137,030 3,181,205 72,000 426,388 790,711 4,607,334

2007 10 1,370 1,448 4.930522 3,405 6,500 1,946,216 30,800 614,070 640,397 0 3,237,983

2008 12 1,525 1,575 4.596473 2,918 65,000Average 1,933 2,111 7.6462875 3,614 202,280 3,214,698 381,326 382,762 574,925 849 4,767,334


Production Eyed Ova

Figure 1 Estimated potential returns of hatchery reared Atlantic salmon relative to Conservation Limit requirements – Rivers currently below CL

Figure 2 Estimated potential returns of hatchery reared Atlantic salmon relative to Conservation Limit requirements – Rivers currently below CL and with hydro-electric installations

Figure 3 Estimated potential returns of hatchery reared Atlantic salmon relative to Conservation Limit requirements – Rivers currently above CL

REFERENCES Anon. 2008a. The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland. Conservation status in Ireland of habitats and species listed in the European Council Directive on the Conservation of Habitats, Flore and fauna 92/43/EEC. National Parks and Wildlife Service. Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, The Brunswick press, Dublin, 136pp. Anon. 2008b. Report of the standing Scientific Committee of the national salmon Commission – Status of stocks in 2007 and catch advice for 2008. Department of Communications, Marine and natural Resources, Unpublished. Aprahamian, M.W., Martin Smith, K., McGinnity, P, McKelvey, S. and Taylor, J. 2003. Restocking of salmonids – opportunities and limitations. Fisheries Research. 62, 211-227. Cowx, I.G. 1994, Stocking Strategies. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 1, 15-30. Cowx, I.G. (Ed.). 1998. Stocking and Introduction of Fish. Fishing News Books, Oxford. Cross, T.F., McGinnity, P., Coughlan, J., Dillane, E., Ferguson, A., Koljonen, M-L., Milner, N., O’Reilly, P., Vasemagi, A. (2007) Genetic considerations for Stocking and Ranching of Atlantic salmon. In The Genetics of Atlantic Salmon: Implications for Conservation. Ed. by E. Verspoor, J. Nielsen and L. Stradmeyer. Blackwell, Oxford Chapter 11, 332-352 Crozier, W. W., Potter, E. C. E., Prévost, E., Schon, P–J., and Ó Maoiléidigh, N. 2003. A co-ordinated approach towards the development of a scientific basis for management of wild Atlantic salmon in the north-east Atlantic (SALMODEL – Scientific Report Contract QLK5–1999–01546 to EU Concerted Action Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources). Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast. 431 pp. de Eyto, E., McGinnity, P., Consuegra, S., Coughlan, J., Tufto, J., Farrell, K., Jordan, W. C. Cross, T., Megens, H-J., Stet, R. (2007.). Natural selection acts on Atlantic salmon MHC variability in the wild. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 274: 861-864. FAO. 1995. Precautionary approach to fisheries. Fisheries Technical Paper, 350, Part 1. 52 pp. FAO. 1996. Precautionary approach to fisheries. Fisheries Technical Paper, 350, Part 2. 210 pp. Fleming, I.A. and Petersson. 2001. The ability of released hatchery salmonids to breed and contribute to the natural productivity of wild populations. Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research 75: 71-98. ICES 2008 Report of the Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon (WGNAS) ICES CM 2008/ACOM:18, 235pp. McGinnity, P., Stone, C., Taggart, JB., Cooke, D., Cotter, D., Hynes, R., MaCamley, C., Cross, T. and Ferguson, A. (1997). Genetic impact of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon on native populations: use of DNA profiling to assess freshwater performance of wild, farmed and hybrid progeny an a natural river environment. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 54, No. 6. McGinnity, P., Prodöl, P., Ferguson, A., Hynes, R., Ó Maoiléidigh, Baker, N., Cotter, D., O’Hea, B., Cooke, D., Rogan,G., Taggart,J., and Cross, T. 2003. Fitness reduction and potential extinction of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, as a result of interactions with escaped farm salmon. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 270, 2443-

2450. NASCO. 1998. North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. Agreement on the adoption of a precautionary approach. Report of the 15th annual meeting of the Council. CNL(98)46. 4 pp. NASCO 2004. Guidelines on the Use of Stock Rebuilding Programmes in the Context of the Precautionary Management of Salmon Stocks. CNL(04)55, 6pp. NASCO. 2006. North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. NASCO Guidelines for Stocking Atlantic Salmon in : The Williamsburg Agreement - Resolution by the Parties to the Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean to Minimise Impacts from Aquaculture, Introductions and Transfers, and Transgenics on the Wild Salmon Stocks. CNL(06)48, 44pp. Ó Maoiléidigh N., Potter E. C. E., McGinnity P., Whelan K. F., Cullen A., McLaughlin D., and McDermott T. 2001. The significance and interpretation of net catch data. In Proceedings of the Atlantic Salmon Trust Symposium on the Interpretation of Rod and Net Catch Data, Lowestoft, 2001. 15–30. The Atlantic Salmon Trust, Pitlochry. 107 pp. Ó Maoiléidigh, N., McGinnity, P., Prévost, E., Potter, E. C. E., Gargan, P., Crozier, W. W., Mills, P., and Roche, W. 2004. Application of pre-fishery abundance modelling and Bayesian hierarchical stock and recruitment analysis to the provision of precautionary catch advice for Irish salmon (Salmo salar L.) fisheries. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61: 1370–1378. Prévost, E., Parent, E., Crozier, W., Davidson, I., Dumas, J., Gudbergsson, G., Hindar, K., McGinnity, P., MacLean, J., and Sættem, L. M. 2003. Setting biological reference points for Atlantic salmon stocks: transfer of information from data-rich to sparse-data situations by Bayesian hierarchical modelling. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 60: 1177–1194. Whilde, A. 1993. Threatened mammals, birds, amphibians and fish in Ireland. Irish Red Data Book 2: Vertebrates. HMSO, Belfast

Appendix 3

SUMMARY

OF

SI 261 OF 2008

THE EUROPEAN

COMMUNITIES

(HEALTH OF AQUACULTURE

ANIMALS AND PRODUCTS)

REGULATIONS

2008

BACKGROUND 1. The current EU Aquatic Animal Health regime was established by Council Directive 91/67/EEC which was implemented in Ireland by the European Communities Placing on the Market and Control of Certain Diseases Regulations 1996 (SI 253 of 1996); the European Communities Trade in Fish Regulations 1997 (SI 191 of 1997) and the European Communities Importation of Fish from Third Countries Regulations 1997 (SI 192/1997). The new Fish Health Directive replaces Council Directive 91/67/EEC and the regulations implementing it come into operation on 1 August 2008. 2. The new Directive also replaces Council Directive 93/53/EEC which was implemented in Ireland by the European Communities Placing on the Market and Control of Certain Diseases Regulations of 1996 (S1 253 of 1996) and Council Directive 95/70/EC, implemented by the European Communities Minimum Measures for the Control of Certain Diseases Affecting Bi-valve Molluscs (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (SI 17 of 2001). 3. The existing EU legislation governing aquatic animal health has been in place for 15 years during which time the aquaculture sector has evolved, the EU has expanded and new disease threats have emerged. This new Directive builds on the successful elements of the existing aquatic animal health regime and introduces new measures to reflect developments in the sector. The main aim of the new Directive is to raise standards of aquaculture health throughout the EU and to control the spread of disease while maintaining freedom to trade. While the focus of the Directive is primarily aquaculture production businesses, the Directive also contains provisions relating to stocked fisheries for angling, installations which keep fish but do not intend to market them, smaller-scale farmers who produce directly for human consumption and fish kept for ornamental purposes. MAIN FEATURES 1. The main new features compared with the existing aquatic animal health regime include:

• official authorisation of aquaculture production businesses; • the potential for authorisation to be removed in the event of

non-compliance; • more transparent regulation and control systems, including a

public register of authorised production businesses; • authorisation of put and take fisheries; • registration of transporters of aquaculture animals;

2

• a risk-based approach in relation to disease surveillance; • controls on movements of potential vector and susceptible

species; • a structure for declaring the health status of Member States and

compartments, in addition to zones; • the facility for Member States to self-declare disease freedom for

zones and compartments; 2. The features retained from the existing aquatic animal health regime include:

• compulsory notification of certain diseases; • compulsory eradication of certain exotic diseases; • freedom, eradication or containment for certain non-exotic

diseases; • a trade regime within the EU which is based on health status; • Third country (i.e. non-EU) import rules harmonised with EU

rules; • the ability for Member States to put in place new rules on

diseases which are important to them, subject in certain cases to EU scrutiny.

Definitions The Directive defines: ‘aquaculture production business’ as: “any undertaking, whether for profit or not and whether public or private, carrying out any of the activities related to the rearing, keeping or cultivation of aquaculture animals”; ‘aquaculture animal’ as: “any aquatic animal at all its life stages, including eggs and sperm/gametes, reared in a farm or mollusc farming area, including any aquatic animal from the wild intended for a farm or mollusc farming area”; ‘aquatic animal’ as:

i) fish belonging to the superclass Agnatha and to the classes Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes;

ii) mollusc belonging to the Phylum Mollusca iii) crustacean belonging to the Subphylum Crustacea”;

‘compartment’ as: “one or more farms under a common biosecurity system containing an aquatic animal population with a distinct health status with respect to a specific disease”; and

3

‘zone’ as: “a precise geographical area with a homogeneous hydrological system comprising part of a water catchment area from the source(s) to a natural or artificial barrier that prevents the upward migration of aquatic animals from the lower stretches of the water catchment area, an entire water catchment area from its source(s) to its estuary, or more than one water catchment area, including their estuaries, due to the epidemiological link between the catchment areas through the estuary”. Other definitions are set out in Article 3 and Annex I of the Directive. Authorisation of Aquaculture Production Businesses Fish Health Authorisation 1. The Directive requires that all aquaculture production businesses are authorised by the Competent Authority, which in this case, is the Marine Institute. 2. Processing establishments engaged in the sanitary slaughter of aquaculture animals for disease control purposes are also required to be authorised by the Competent Authority.

3. The Directive does not apply to certain types of operation. These are:

a) ornamental aquatic animals reared in non-commercial aquaria b) wild aquatic animals harvested or caught for direct entry into

the food chain c) aquatic animals caught for the purposes of production of fish

meal, fish feed, fish oil and similar products.

The Regulations also provide for certain ornamental aquatic animals which, though within their scope, are exempted from certain provisions, including the authorisation requirements. This exemption applies where ornamental aquatic animals are kept in pet shops, garden centres, garden ponds, commercial aquaria or with wholesalers:

a) without any direct contact with natural waters in the

Community; or b) which are equipped with an effluent treatment system reducing

the risk of transmitting diseases to the natural waters to an acceptable level.

4

Operations to be Authorised 1. Under the Regulations, the following types of business will be authorised:

• fin fish farms and shellfish farms • aquaculture processing businesses where sanitary slaughter are

carried out • shellfish depuration plants • shellfish dispatch centres and holding centres • premises where aquacultures animals are kept without the

intention of being placed on the market • put and take fisheries • commercial aquaria • quarantine facilities • premises where ornamental fish are kept in contact with natural

water, where the effluent is not disinfected 2. Ireland differs from most other Member States in that fish farms here are already licensed under the 1997 Aquaculture (Amendment) Act and therefore are already subject to a regulatory system. Under the authorisation procedure it is proposed that authorisations granted to fish farms under the new Fish Health Directive will be granted separately to any aquaculture licence but will run concurrently with the licence. It is proposed that the authorisation issued under the Directive will deal only with issues relating to aquatic animal health while the aquaculture licence will continue to regulate other aspects of the aquaculture operation. 3. With the exception of Carlingford and L.Foyle, all existing fish farms will be required to have applied for a Fish Health Authorisation by 1 October 2008. A longer time frame will however, be set out for existing farms in the Foyle and Carlingford areas to allow for the delegation of responsibility for licensing these areas to transfer to the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission (FCILC), following the commencement of Part II of the Foyle and Carlingford Fisheries Order (Northern Ireland) 2007. 4. The Regulations do not provide for a single shared authorisation for several mollusc farms in a mollusc farming area. It is the Department’s view that the authorisation granted in respect of a licensed farm should apply only to that farm, otherwise the revocation of an authorisation covering several mollusc farms would have implications for the continued operation of other farms covered by the single authorisation. It is however likely, that mollusc samples taken as part of the Risk Based Surveillance programme envisaged under Article 10 of the Directive, will be taken on a bay-by-bay basis i.e. from a “mollusc farming area” as opposed to testing each individual site. Likewise, although farms will be categorised initially according to

5

risk, the overall risk categorisation will be at bay level i.e. even though an individual mollusc farm may fall into a low risk category for example, he may be re-allocated to a medium or even high risk category, depending on the categorisation of neighbouring farms in the bay. Conditions of Authorisation 1. Authorisations are granted subject to certain conditions specified in the Regulations. These conditions require all aquaculture production businesses to: • Keep a record of all movements of aquaculture animals and

products, including dead fish • Keep a record of mortalities occurring on the farm • Participate in a risk based surveillance scheme and keep records of

the results of any such scheme • Implement and maintain good bio-security practices (referred to in

the Directive as good hygiene practice). Fish Health Management Plan In order to take a comprehensive approach to the systems and documentation which are required on a site which is to be authorised, Regulation 23 of SI 261 of 2008 requires that each application for a Fish Health Authorisation should be accompanied by a document called a Fish Health Management Plan which will contain (at a minimum) details outlining –

(a) a suitable risk based fish health surveillance scheme (b) the maintenance of appropriate records (including records

relating to mortality, movements and risk based surveillance) (c) the implementation of good hygiene practice (d) action to be taken (i.e. notification procedure) if there are

increased mortalities on the site (e) actions to be taken (i.e. notification procedure) if a disease listed

in Part II of Annex IV of the Directive; or a disease for which we have Additional Guarantees, is suspected

The Conditions of Authorisation 1. Applications must be made to the Marine Institute to obtain a Fish Health Authorisation. The granting of a Fish Health Authorisation will be subject to the submission of an application form and the provision of an appropriate Fish Health Management Plan, indicating compliance with the Regulations. Once granted, it will be a legal requirement to comply with the conditions of authorisation.

6

2. Existing licensed fish farm operators are currently required to comply with the conditions of aquaculture licences which amongst other things, include conditions relating to record keeping, disease reporting, biosecurity and movements. It is proposed that the general approach to these issues will be carried over to the new Fish Health Authorisation. 3. It will be a requirement for all movements of live aquaculture animals to require prior notification to the Marine Institute. It is proposed that movements will be recorded on a national database to ensure that in the event of a disease situation, traceability can be guaranteed. How the Authorisation Process will work 1. A Fish Health Authorisation will not be granted until an application has been made and the Marine Institute is satisfied from the Fish Health Management Plan that each business has a system in place which ensures compliance with the Regulations in relation to recording, biosecurity and Risk Based Surveillance. Once the application and the Fish Health Management Plan have been processed and where required, the information validated, by the Marine Institute, a Fish Health Authorisation will be granted. 2. Provision has been made for the suspension and revocation of authorisations in the event of non–compliance, as well as for an appeals process where an individual may appeal against the refusal or the revocation of an authorisation. 3. It should be noted that Article 64 of the Directive provides for the application of Transitional Measures for a period of up to 4 years. Such transitional measures may be required for the identification and authorisation of businesses which are not currently subject to licensing under the 1997 Aquaculture Act. Existing Licensed Fish Farms It should be noted that the Fish Health Authorisation granted under the Directive will not replace the aquaculture licence but will run concurrently with it. Where either an aquaculture licence or an authorisation is revoked in respect of a fish farm, the fish farm will no longer be able to operate lawfully. Similarly fish farms licensed by the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission in the Foyle and Carlingford Areas will require both the aquaculture licence and a Fish Health Authorisation in order to operate lawfully.

7

Aquaculture Licence Applications In respect of applications for an aquaculture licence made after 1 August 2008, the authorisation process will run concurrently with the aquaculture license process and the decision on whether or not to grant an aquaculture licence shall be made concurrently with the decision on whether to grant an authorisation. Anyone applying for an aquaculture licence will therefore also apply for a Fish Health Authorisation as part of the application process. It will not be possible to obtain an aquaculture licence without also being granted the required Fish Health Authorisation. Enforcement 1. All fish farms will be routinely inspected in accordance with the official surveillance programme and compliance with conditions of authorisation monitored. 2. Provision has been made in the new legislation for the issue of enforcement notices in respect of operations which do not comply with a condition of the Fish Health Authorisation. It will be an offence to fail to comply with an enforcement notice and the Marine Institute will have power to take appropriate measures to ensure that enforcement notices are complied with. 3. In cases of non-compliance with conditions of the Fish Health Authorisation or where other enforcement action has been unsuccessful, the Marine Institute may use its powers to suspend or revoke an authorisation.. The operator would have the right to appeal against a decision to revoke an authorisation. 4. Where an authorisation is revoked, any aquaculture licence in force would also cease to have effect. Similarly in respect of aquaculture operations in the Foyle and Carlingford Areas licensed by the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, the revocation of an authorisation would result in the operation being unable to operate lawfully. Offences Regulation 37 of the SI provides for the imposition of fines or indeed, imprisonment in extreme cases where the provisions of the SI are contravened. Operations Keeping, Holding or Selling Aquatic Animals for Ornamental Purposes

8

The obligation is to protect ornamental aquatic animals from disease and to prevent spread of disease from ornamental aquatic animals to fish farms or to the wild. One risk is that cold water ornamental aquatic animals may be released into natural waters with the associated risk that KHV or SVCV may be transferred to wild fish. Official supervision would be considered excessive in some cases, for example, where ornamental aquatic animals are kept clearly separate from natural waters. In certain circumstances, these animals are exempt from the authorisation process and placing on the market rules, and they are not taken into account in assessing the disease status of an area. These exemptions only apply where the holding facility is not connected to natural waters or has an effective effluent treatment system in place to prevent the spread of disease. It is important to note that commercial producers of aquatic animals for ornamental purposes are not covered by the exemption in Article 2.2 of the Directive and therefore will be required to be authorised. Authorisation of Processing Establishments 1. Where there is an outbreak of a listed disease in an area which has been declared free, the Regulations permit clinically healthy animals of commercial size to be harvested for processing or for direct human consumption. This must be done under conditions which prevent the spread of the pathogen in question.

2. Any dispatch centres, purification centres and similar businesses processing aquaculture animals from a containment area are required to have suitable means to treat effluent. 3. Processing of aquatic animals which have been slaughtered for disease control purposes can only be processed in an authorised processing establishment. Any establishment wishing to process such aquatic animals must be authorised by the Marine Institute prior to such processing taking place. 4. In order to ensure that the processing of diseased aquatic animals can be undertaken at short notice, it would be preferable if such establishments could seek to obtain authorisation at the earliest opportunity. Surveillance Disease Reporting The Regulations place an obligation on those involved with aquatic animals to report any suspicion or confirmation of those diseases specified in the Directive to the Competent Authority. This includes fish farmers, keepers of aquatic animals, persons transporting

9

aquaculture animals, veterinarians and other animal health professionals. Increased Mortality The Regulations place an obligation on those involved with aquaculture animals to notify the Marine Institute and, in the case of fin-fish, a private vet, where any increased mortality occurs in aquaculture animals. This obligation applies to fish farmers, keepers of aquatic animals, persons transporting aquaculture animals, veterinarians and other animal health professionals. An increased level of mortality may be defined as that which is unexplained and is significantly above the level of what is considered to be normal for the site under the prevailing conditions. It is proposed that following an initial period of three years, the mortality trends on each site will be reviewed by the Competent Authority and an estimation made of what level of mortality may be defined as abnormal for that site at given time points in the production cycle. These figures will then be inserted into the Fish Health Management Plan for that site and will be used as an indicator of when veterinary investigation is required. Official Surveillance and Inspections The Regulations provide for a risk based surveillance scheme to be applied at all fish farms, incorporating a formal inspection programme undertaken by the Marine Institute and, where appropriate, the taking of samples. The frequency of the surveillance programme to be applied will be based on two factors:

• the requirements of any programme in place for the purposes of obtaining or maintaining disease free status [this will apply largely to Bonamia (in molluscs), KHV (in cyprinids) and White-Spot Disease(in crustacea)]; and

• the risk that the individual business or installation poses to

aquatic animal health. In terms of the risk-based approach, the proposed inspection frequencies are outlined in the annexes to the covering letter which has been sent to each business with their application form for a Fish Health Authorisation. These proposals are based on the risk an individual site may pose of contracting or spreading disease. The inspection programme for fin-fish will consist of a combination of visits made by the Marine Institute and the farms own private practitioner. For shellfish sites, all visits will be made by officers authorised under SI No. 261 of 2008.

10

It will be compulsory for fin-fish sites to put their animals under the care of a veterinary practitioner. This will not be a compulsory obligation for shellfish farmers. Transport 1. The transport of aquaculture animals potentially poses a significant risk of spreading disease. The Regulations seek to ensure that the means of transportation, including any water exchange, does not alter the health status of animals in transit or at the point of destination. It also requires that where aquaculture animals are transported, transporters keep a record of mortality occurring during transport, as practicable for the type of transport and the species being transported, as well as details of fish farms and processing establishments visited. 2. Additionally it is proposed to protect the health of aquatic animals by requiring that transporters are registered by the Marine Institute. In order to achieve registration, an application must be made to the Marine Institute. This application must be accompanied by a Biosecurity Plan and details of how the company intends to comply with the record keeping provisions of the legislation. Applications for inclusion on the Aquaculture Animal Transport Register must be made to the Fish Health Unit, Marine Institute, Renville, Oranmore, Co. Galway before October 1st, 2008. The new legislation includes powers for the enforcement of the transport provisions, including the power to serve enforcement notices and de-register transporters and a right of appeal against de-registration. 3. If the mode of transport to be used within Ireland originates in another MS / EEA country, the owners of the vessel / vehicle must either be registered on our Aquaculture Animal Transport Register or be otherwise registered in their country of origin, in order to operate legally here. 4. The registration scheme reflects the important role that transport companies play in maintaining Ireland’s fish health status. The purpose is to provide for a close relationship with the enforcement authority to enable them to readily track movements of aquatic animals in the event of a disease situation occurring. As with the Fish Health Authorisation system, it is envisaged that in the event of non-compliance, a stepped approach to enforcement will be applied, with the ultimate sanction being the removal of registration, in extreme cases.

11

Marketing and Trade in Aquaculture Animals 1. Aquaculture animals placed on the market for farming, for restocking into the wild or for angling purposes:

• must be clinically healthy, and; • must not come from a farm or mollusc farming area with

unresolved increased mortality, and; • for susceptible and vector species, in relation to the listed

diseases for which we are declared free, must only come from compartments, zones or Member States which are also declared free.

2. In addition, a person must not move an aquaculture animal from a premises whether within the State or otherwise, to a premises in the State, unless he or she has given at least 72 hours notice of the movement to the Marine Institute. Such notice must be made in writing either by letter, by sending a fax to the Fish Health Unit on 091-387201 or by emailing [email protected] In the case of fin-fish, the notification must be accompanied by a report from the company’s veterinary practitioner stating that the animals are clinically healthy and do not come from a farm where there is unresolved increased mortality. 3. The Marine Institute will continue to issue health certificates for appropriate movements of aquatic animals from Ireland, and within Ireland, where required. From time-to-time, consignments of aquatic animals moving into the country will be inspected. All paperwork will however, be checked for compliance (i.e. even if the consignment is not physically checked on arrival). Legal provision has been made to take action should animals not be clinically healthy or should certification not be in order on arrival. Such provisions may include requiring the consignment to be returned or destroyed if the consignment or health certification does not comply with the legislation. In relation to movements within the country, official health certification will only be required in relation to movements out of Bonamia infected areas, where animals are to be re-laid. Official notification will of course, be required in relation to all other movements within the country (as outlined in the paragraph above). 4. A new certification system for Intra-Community and Third Country trade will be in place in the Community from November 1st this year. Those companies who wish to import live fish or shellfish into Ireland must consult with the Marine Institute well in advance of the proposed importation date to ensure the site of origin complies

12

with the health requirements pertaining to the site of destination of the animals. 5. Any fish or molluscs leaving Ireland for on-growing/re-laying abroad should be notified to the Marine Institute in advance so that appropriate certification can be provided, where required. Certification and the generation of a TRACES message will be required where fish/ molluscs are to be on-grown / re-laid in approved areas in other Member States. Where animals are to be on-grown/ re-laid in non-approved areas in other Member States, the Marine Institute must still be notified in advance, so that a TRACES message can be sent to the Authorities in the recipient Member State. In the case of molluscs, this notification may be in the form of a copy of the Gathers Document which accompanies your consignment. This should be faxed through to the Marine Institute at 091-387201. This fax should be transmitted to the Institute as soon as the consignment is dispatched from the site. The Diseases 1. The Directive classifies the listed diseases into exotic and non-exotic diseases at Part II of Annex IV of the Directive. It also sets out the minimum measures for controlling disease. 2. The diseases listed as exotic are: Epizootic Haematopoietic Necrosis*, Epizootic Ulcerative Syndrome*, Taura Syndrome*, Yellowhead Disease*, infection with Bonamia exitiosa, infection with Perkinsus marinus and infection with Microcytos mackini. 3. The diseases listed as non-exotic are: Koi Herpes Virus (KHV)*, White Spot Disease*, Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA), Viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemia (VHS), Infectious Haematopoietic Necrosis (IHN), Infection with Bonamia ostreae and Infection with Marteilia refringens. 4. Those marked with an asterisk* are newly listed under the Directive and were not listed under the current EU aquatic animal health regime established by Council Directive 91/67/EEC. 5. Gyrodactylus salaris is one of the diseases no longer listed at EU level. However there will continue to be recognition of the Additional Guarantees which Member States have already in place to guard against certain diseases of importance to them as a nation. This will be done by continuing with the provisions of Commission Decision 2004/453/EC. Under our Additional Guarantees, Ireland will continue to be recognised as free of Gyrodactylus salaris (Gs), SVC and BKD. The same eradication measures will apply to these diseases

13

as apply to the non-exotic diseases listed in Part II of Annex IV of the Directive. 6. The Additional Guarantees mentioned above are scheduled for review in 2009. 7. The status of Ireland in relation to the diseases covered by the Directive and the Additional Guarantees is set out below.

Disease Status Fish Epizootic Haematopoietic Necrosis, Epizootic Ulcerative Syndrome, Molluscs Bonamia exitiosa, Perkinsus marinus, Microcytos mackini, Crustaceans Taura Syndrome, Yellowhead disease

These diseases are exotic to the EU. Ireland is therefore recognised as disease-free. If outbreaks occur anywhere in the Community, they must be eradicated.

Fish Viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemia, Infectious Haematopoietic Necrosis, Infectious Salmon Anaemia, Molluscs Marteilia refringens, Bonamia ostreae1

Ireland is declared disease-free. In order to retain disease free-status, outbreaks must be eradicated.

Fish Gyrodactylus salaris Spring Viraemia of Carp Bacterial Kidney Disease

Ireland is declared disease-free under the Additional Guarantees granted under Decision 2004/453/EC. In order to retain disease free-status, outbreaks must be eradicated.

Crustaceans White Spot Disease Fish Koi Herpes Virus

Ireland’s status with respect to these diseases is undetermined, to date.

1 Excluding Lough Foyle, Lough Swilly, Blacksod, Achill, Clew Bay, Ballinakill, Galway Bay and Cork Harbour, where areas of infection have been controlled * Consult Part II of Annex IV of Directive 2006/88/EC for the full list of species which are susceptible to the diseases listed above. This is available at http://www.marine.ie/home/services/operational/fishhealth/

14

Recognition of Disease Status Zones and Compartments 1. Under the Directive, a Member State, zone or compartment, may be declared free in respect of non exotic diseases. Where an area is less than 75 per cent of its territory, a Member State may self-declare a zone or compartment free of a certain disease providing the criteria for disease free status under the Directive are met, subject to the right of objection by another Member State. 2. Ireland will be a disease free Member State in respect of the exotic diseases EHN, EUS, B.exitiosa, P.marinus, M.mackini and the non-exotic diseases ISA, IHN, VHS (excluding Cape Clear, for the moment), GS, SVC, BKD, Marteilia refringens and Bonamia ostreae (excluding the areas mentioned above). Aquaculture Production Businesses Register of Businesses An implementing proposal was put forward by the European Commission and recently accepted by Member States, that in 2009 each Aquaculture Production Business will be listed on a public website showing its disease status. The format for the published register is outlined in Commission Decision 2008/392/EC. Control of Diseases 1. The Regulations require that on notification of suspicion of one of the listed diseases in aquatic animals in a fish farm or other facility, the initial control measures will be implemented. These measures will include the immediate introduction of movement controls in respect of the suspect facility and the surrounding area and the taking of samples. Where disease is identified in the wild, the situation will be monitored and measures taken to reduce and, as far as possible, to prevent, further spread. These measures may involve controls on, for example, farms or angling waters and will depend on the precise nature of the disease situation. Movement controls mean that live or dead aquatic animals may only be moved out of the facility with the written consent of the Marine Institute. 2. Investigations will also be undertaken to establish whether the disease is in fact present. Possible sources of the disease and any other sites potentially implicated will also be investigated.

15

3. In the case of aquatic animals kept in a fish farm or other facility, where disease is confirmed by the appropriate test, further action will be taken by the Marine Institute to reduce the risk of disease spread by establishing control and surveillance zones around the facility, in accordance with the relevant legislation. The facility will be officially declared infected. Appropriate eradication or containment measures, including movement controls, will be put in place and will remain there until it is determined that there is no further risk of disease spread. Dead and clinically affected animals must be disposed of as animal by-products in accordance with the Animal By-Products Regulations 2003.

4. SI 261 of 2008 allows the Marine Institute to permit the harvesting of aquaculture animals which have reached commercial size and show no clinical signs of disease. In such cases, the Marine Institute will supervise any such movements with the objective of ensuring that the pathogen which causes the disease does not spread. Dispatch centres, purification centres and similar facilities which handle animals from an infected site must be equipped with suitable effluent treatment systems and processors must be authorised under the Regulations.

16

~ OPparunentof

~I~ Agriculture, Fisheries and Foodl II AnRoinn

~ Talmhaiochta, lascalgh agus Bia

Monitoring Protocol No.1

for

Offshore Finfish Farms Benthic Monitoring

(subject to revision from time to time)

Revised December, 2008

I. Monitoring Regime Required

All finfi sh farms shall carry out an annual benth ic survey in accordance with the protocol setout below. Th e benth ic monitoring requ irements at a fish farm are dependent on the level ofbiomass held at the site and the local hydrography. Table 1 below sets out the level ofbenthic monitoring required based on tonnage produced and mean current speeds at the fishfarm

Table 1. Matrix of production ton nage vs. current speed to d eter mine level of ben thic. dmonttcrtna reuurre .

Mean Cur re nt Speed (em/sec)

To nna ae (MTl <5 5 - 10 >10

0 -499 Level I Level I Level I

500 - 999 Level II Level I Level [

> 1000 Level II Level II Level I

The current speed is a mean value calculated from maximum current measurements overspring and neap tidal cycles at the surface and near the bottom . The tonnage refers to themaximum biomass pred icted for each site. An annua l survey must be carried out at each site(production and smolt) operated by a company. All sites will be subject to one of the twolevels of survey.

Leve l I: Video/photographic and visual observations (see Section 6) and recordings shall bemade at the following stations:

• At a minimum of 2 sites direct ly beneath the cages

• At the edges of the eages

• T wo transects at right an gles to each other. Along each tran sect sa mp ling stationsat +/- 10m, +/- 20m, +1- 50m a nd + 100m from the cages (see Figure 1)

• At a control site (see criteria in Section 4 below)

In addition to the above, the following samples 1 measurements shall be taken at the samestations as above . These will be used to calculate sediment quality parameters.

• A minimum of one Redox potential readings sha ll be mad e at each sampling station(Section 7).

• A single sedi ment sa mple for Organic Carbon measurement (Sect ion 8).

Level II : In addition to the above three replicates gra b samples sha ll be captured at eac h o fthe sample sta tions. The exact locations of sampling points should be agreed in advance withthe Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (DAFF). The ident ification and abundanceof macro-faunal invertebrates shall be estimated and tabu lated. Identification of fauna to thelevel of species will be required.

2. Timing of surveys

An annual env ironmental survey wi ll have to be con ducted for each finfish culture site so thatan assessment can be made of the impact of the far ming ope rat ions on the seabed . Theannual survey shall be carr ied out on behalf of the farme rs by any consultant from a pool ofapproved consultants.

2

The survey shall be carried out during peak biomass periods or at least within 30 days afterthe end of harvesting of a year class. However, it is appreciated that all sites requiringsurveys at the farm most likely will be carried out in one visit therefore, the timing of thesurveys should by dictated by grower sites (with greater biomass) with concurrent surveys atsmolt or harvest sites. A similar timing schedule applies to each of the three survey types.

3. Consultant Selection

A consultant, at the expense of the licensee, will undertake these surveys. The MarineInstitute, on behalf of the Department Agriculture Fisheries and Food, will set up anapproved list of consultants to carry out these environmental surveys. The Marine Institutewill periodically advertise for consultants to be assessed for inclusion in the list. Theconsultants must demonstrate that they have the necessary skills base and technical capabilityavailable to them to carry out such surveys. Sites may be subject to random independentverification by the DAFF.

4. Transect selection

As already outlined in Section 1, the sites should be chosen such that sampling the benthos atany one location should provide a comprehensive overview of the general benthic conditionsof the site. This will provide a useful management tool for the fann er and a comprehensiveoverview of conditions for the managers. Through each array of cages, two transects(perpendicular to each other) shall be run with each incorporating sites, directly beneath thecages, at the edge of the cages, and 10m, 20m, SOm and 100m in the direction of theprevailing current or seaward direction from the cages and at 10m, 20m, SOm in the oppositedirection (see Figure 1). In the case of single cages set apart from each other (as experiencedin more exposed locations) a pair of transects shall be run through one of the cages (involvedin the production cycle). This will be taken to be representative of the others.

In addition, a control station must be situated at least SOOm away from the cage sites andshow similar benthic and hydrographic characteristics as the farm location. If a suitablecontrol site cannot be located (for whatever reason) a location within SOOm will beacceptable, the selection of the control site will be at the discretion of the consultantscarrying out the surveys. Reasons for locating a control location within 500m could be, interalia, embayment too small, heterogeneous environment or different depths. Justification forthe control site selection must be detailed in the survey report.

3

o oUnder-Cal" Stadoll

"'.

PreYailina; Cwnnl

>ro.

Figure l , Exam ple of sampling transects th rough a cage system at a site. Not drawn to scale.

5. Position Fixing

The start and end-point of any transect shall be logged using a Differential GeographicPosition ing System (DGPS) with an accuracy of +1- Sm. The coordinates of the controllocation and cages relevant to the survey must also be recorded. Th is information must bestated in the report and retained.

Control sites and transect sampling stations must be marked by tags which shall be clearlyvisible in photographic or video images. Each tag shall reflect the appropriate samplinglocation at the designated sampling sites e.g. +/-10, +/-20, +1-50, + lOOm and controllocations point s.

6. Video and Photographic Surveys

Video

The video shall be in VHS or d igital format, in colour and viewable on standard videoplayers (inel. pe s). The following deta ils shall appear at the start o f eac h video:

• Name of site and bay• Name of fish farm company• Date of survey• Number and biomass of fish on site• Direction of transect and the starting station

The illuminat ion of the video shall be sufficient for features on the seabed to be easilydiscerned, including Beggiatoa sp. patches, different iate between food and faecal mater ialand identify faunal features, e.g. tube openings.

Photograp hs

These shall be taken at each station with the number on the tag clearly visible. Thephotogra phs shall show at least Jm2 of seabed and be in focus. Photographs shall be in colourand printed to at least 100mm X 150mm size or of sufficie nt reso lution to discern features on

4

the seabed, including inter alia, Beggiatoa sp. patches, differentiate between food and faecalmaterial and identify faunal features, e.g. tube openings.

Reports

The video or photographic survey shall be accompanied by a written report of each samplingtransect and a location map showing the transects in relation to the cages. The report shallinclude the following information:

• Name of licensed fish farm operator• Name of site• Type of survey earricd out• Date of survey• Stocking date and/or harvest date for each cage• Maximum biomass on site (tonnes or fish no. and mean weight)• Maximum biomass in each cage• Mean current speed at site• Other site descriptors (depth, degree of exposure, etc..)• Length of fallowing period (if applicable)• Direction of transect and location of control station (D-GPS coordinates)• Description of each sampling station shall include,• Presence of bacterial mats and uneaten food pellets• Presence of litter derived from farming activity e.g. feed bags• Presence of gas bubbles or anoxic areas• Animals visible or evidence of prescnce (e.g. tubes)• Macroalgae visible• Sediment colour and texture among other things• Redox Potential results• Organic Carbon results• Biological results (Level II only).• Interpretation of the findings• Recommended mitigation measures, if necessary• Any technical difficulties encountered.

7. Redox Polenlial

Redox potential shall be measured at the time of collection of the sediment sample. Profilesshall be measured in at least three (3) replicate samples within a 5m radius of each other. Theredox potential shall be measured at depths of 0 cm (sediment surface) to 5em depth, at Iemintervals. A platinum electrode shall be used with a double-junction rcferenee electrode,linked to a portable ph/Eh meter. The platinum electrode shall be calibrated using Zobell'ssolution (potential +430 mY) and the measurements made in mV when the meter readings arestable.

Sediment Profile Imagery (SPI) can also be used to measure the depth of the redoxdiscontinuity layer. In this case, replicate images (3) shall be taken at each station within a5m radius of each other.

8. Total Organic Carbon

At each sampling location, one sub-sample (50mI) of sediment shall be collected from thesample surface (0-2em). The sample is stored in an airtight container and deep frozen, orfrozen then freeze dried, for later analysis. Total organic carbon can be measured bycombustion, wet oxidation or using an elemental analyser (the method used must be

5

specified) and quality assurance details provided. The method of organic carbondetermination should be decided in consultation with the Marinc Institute prior to sampling.

9. Biologica l Samples

Biological samples shall be collected using grabs or cores. Samples shall be sieved using a1rnm-rnesh sieve. The residue shall be placed in clearly labelled containers and preservedusing buffered formalin or some other suitable fixative solution and stained. Specimens shallbe identified to species level.

The number of species and abundance at each station shall be reported. Where appropriate,diversity indices shall be calculated and multivariate analysis shall be carried out on thefaunal data.

The goal of this requirement is to provide a detailed database of biological information in thevicinity of the cages, which can be used to monitoring the health of the system and the longterm influence of the cages on the benthic environment.

10. Submission of Report

The completed benthic monitoring reports must be submitted to the Coastal ZoneManagement Division of the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food by registeredpost no later than the end of November in any given year. This will allow for a process ofassessment and decisions to be taken on proposals for increased production in subsequentyears. Allowances will be made for varying production cycles and the influence of adverseweather on the survey process.

In addition all raw data must be retained by the consultants and be available on request fordetailed examination by agents for the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food or itsagents.

11. Random Verification of tbe Environmental Reports

The Marine Institute, on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, willundertake an independent environmental audit of a proportion of the submitted reports everyyear. Sites to be selected for verification of environmental audits will be chosen at random.The selection criteria and timing of verification surveys will be undertaken at the beginningofeach year and reported to the selected farms as soon as a decision is made.

12. Guideline Impa ct Criteria

The Allowable Zone of Effect (AZE) will be determined on a site-by-site basis and will takeinto consideration the direction and strength of the residual flow and any modellinginformation available for the site in question. The exact extent of the AZE will be determinedby consultation between the producer, the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food andthe Marine Institute.

In terms of impact criteria the sampling stations beneath or among the cages shall not haveexcessive mounding .of food on the bottom, outgassing and extensive anoxic conditionsthroughout. At the sampling points from beneath the cage site to thc boundary of the AZEalong the transect, the Actions Levels highlighted below will apply. Beyond the AZE, to theend of the transects (100m or SOm), the Action levels for this zone will apply. Table 2 setsout thc basket of parameters, which will be used generally to define the acceptable levels ofimpact on the sediments for a Level I survey. The conditions at the control station must alsobe reported. These data will provide context against which the action levels should becalculated, e.g. high organic carbon values at the control site may explain higher levelsobserved inside the impact zone.

6

Table 2: Sediment qua lity crite r ia applied to Level I benthic surveys (subject to rev isionfrom time to time).

C riteri a

Visual observation

Action Levels with in AZE*

Accumulated feed pellets

Action Levels outs ide AZE*to edge of sa mpling point

Feed pellets present

Redox

Bacterial Ma t

Organic Carbon

Extensive mats present

(>50% cover)Values lower than -150mV(as a depth average profile)

orValues Lower than -125 mV

(in surface sediments 0-3 em)

100% above control value(averaged within zone)

* AZE - Allowable Zone of Effect

Patches present

Control values

Control + 25%(averaged within zone)

The Action levels for the biological samples (Level II) will be based primarily on theconditions at the control location. The models describ ed by Pearson Rosenberg (1978) 1 andfurther developed by Borj a et al. (2003)2 and Muixia et al. (2005)3 will inform the actionlevels at each the zones of asses sment.

13. Remedial Action

In the event of the report indicating a breach of the required parameters of benthic impaction,the following actions will be required:

Within 30 days from the submission of the origina l Environmental Report the licensee shallsubmit to the Coastal Zone Management Division of the Department of Agriculture Fisheriesand Food a Benthic Amelio ration Plan with the aim of achieving an acceptable benthicstandard in the licensed area as soon as possible. A subsequent survey of the impacted areawill determine if the amelioration plan has been successful. The plan may include, inter alia,the following act ions:

(i) In any event the licensee shall put in place in each cage a feed waste control plan (ifsuch a plan is not already in place) and shall arrange for a reduction in thedocumented volumes of fish feed into the licensed area in question. If the benthicconditions in the impacted zone do not show signs of recovery , a further reductionin feed inputs will be required (and perhaps in subsequent years) until a follow-upenvironmental report indicates that an acceptable benthic condition has beenachieved.

I Pearson, T., Rosenberg. R., 1978, Macrobenthic succession in relat ion to organic enrichment and pollution of the marincenvironment. Oceanogr. Mar. Bicl. Ann. Rev. 16, 229- 311.

2 Borja, A. Muxika. I., Franco. 1.• 2003. The application of a Marine Biotic Index to different impact sources affecting sonbottom benthic communities along European coasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46, 835-845.

J Muxikae. I., A. Borja. W. Bonne. 2005. The suitability of the marine biotic index (AMBI) 10 new impact sources alongEuropean coasts. Ecological 1ndicators 5: 19-31

7

(ii) If the site area and characteristics permit and a reduction in fish feed in the licensedarea in question or other measures would be insufficient to achieve an acceptablebenthic standard, the plan much provide for movement of all production cageswithin the licensed area coupled with as 5% reduction in production tonnage overthe next cycle in comparison with the output from the previous growing cycle.Where production cages have been moved, the impacted area from the reported sitemust continue to be monitored annually until a subsequent environmental reportindicates that an acceptable benthic condition has been achieved.

The licensee shall be obliged to furnish audited information (i.e. certified by a charteredaccountant), in relation to production and feed input in each of the years in question for thelicensed area concerned.

The detai ls of the Benthic Amelioration Plan shall be agreed between the licensee andth e Department of Agriculture Fish eries and Food.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Department reserves the right to prescribe specificremedial action in any particular case in the light of the relevant benthic monitoring report.In the event of the emergence of new proven techniques in feed formulation, wastemanagement or other relevant developments to allow for an immediate recovery of theimpaction zone, the Department may allow the licensee to maintain or increase production, ina particular year, in the licensed area where the permitted parameters of benthic impactionhad been breached in the preecding year.

8

Monitoring Protocol No. 2

for

Offshore Finfish Farms-Water Column Monitoring


11 May, 2000

Leeson Lane, Dublin 2 Tel +353 1 619 9200 e-mail [email protected]ána Chill Mochargán LoCall 1890 44 99 00 GTN +1 18Baile Átha Cliath 2 Fax +353 1 661 8214

Monitoring Protocol No. 2.For

Offshore Finfish FarmsWater Column Monitoring

1. Monitoring Regime Required

All finfish farms shall carry out water column nutrient monitoring surveys inaccordance with the protocol set out below.

2. Timing of surveys

Nutrient monitoring surveys shall be carried out monthly during the period December- March each year. The surveys shall be carried out on behalf of the farmers by anyconsultant drawn from a pool of approved consultants.

3. Consultant Selection

A consultant, at the expense of the licensee, will undertake these surveys. The MarineInstitute, on behalf of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, will setup an approved list of consultants to carry out these environmental surveys. TheMarine Institute will periodically advertise for consultants to be assessed for inclusionin the list. The consultants must demonstrate that they have the necessary skills baseand technical capability available to them to carry out such surveys. All consultantswill be subject to random verification auditing by the Marine Institute.

4. Transect selection

The location of the transect and number of stations on the transect shall be agreedfollowing consultation with the Marine Environment and Health Services Division ofthe Marine Institute. Existing and proposed Single Bay Management (SBM) and Co-ordinated Local Aquaculture Management Systems (CLAMS) plans will beconsidered in the transect selection process.

5. Position Fixing

AJA station positions should be logged using a Differential Geographic PositioningSystem (DGPS) with an accuracy of +/- 0.5m. This information must be stated in thereport.

1.

6. Sample Collection and Analysis

Water samples for nutrient analysis shall be taken at each station on the agreedtransect. Samples shall be taken at the surface, mid-depth and lm above the bottom.Analysis should include ammonia, nitrite, nitrate and phosphate. Water temperatureand salinity shall also be measured. The Department of the Marine and NaturalResources reserves the right to specify other nutrients to be covered by monitoring.

7. Reports

A report containing the results of the nutrient monitoring surveys accompanied by alocation plan showing the transect in relation to the cages shall be prepared by theconsultant. The report shall include a commentary on the concentrations observed.

8. Submission of Report

The completed nutrient monitoring reports must be submitted to the Coastal ZoneAdministration Division of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources byregistered post no later than 30 April in any given year.

In addition all raw data must be retained by the consultants and be available, in digitalformat if appropriate on request for detailed examination by agents for theDepartment of Marine and Natural Resources.

2.


for

Offshore Finfish Farms-Sea Lice Monitoring and Control


11 May, 2000


Monitoring Protocol No. 3for

Offshore Finfish Farms -Sea Lice Monitoring and Control

1. Monitoring Regime Required

All finfish farms are obliged to monitor for sealice on an ongoing basis and to takeremedial action. This involves the inspection and sampling of each year class of fishat all fish farm sites fourteen times per annum, twice per month during March, Apriland May and monthly for the remainder of the year except December-January. Onlyone inspection is carried out during this period.

2. Purpose of Monitoring

The four purposes of the National Sea Lice-Monitoring Plan are:

• To provide an objective measurement of infestation levels on farms• To investigate the nature of the infestations• To provide management information to drive implementation of the control and management strategies• To facilitate further development and refinement of the control and management strategies.

3. Monitoring and Control Strategy

The sea lice monitoring and control strategy has five principal components:

• Separation of generations• Annual following of sites• Early harvest of two sea-winter fish• Targeted treatment regimes, including synchronous treatments• Agreed husbandry practices

Together, these components work to reduce the development of infestations and toensure the most effective treatment of developing infestations. They minimise licelevels whilst controlling reliance on, and reducing use of, veterinary medicines. Theseparation of generations and annual following prevent the vertical transmission ofinfestations from one generation to the next, thus retarding the development ofinfestations. The early harvest of two sea winter fish removes a potential reservoir oflice infestation and the agreed practices and targeted treatments enhance the efficacy

2

of treatment regimes. One important aspect of targeted treatments is the carrying outof autumn / winter treatments to reduce lice burdens to as close to zero as practicableon all fish, which are to be over-wintered. This is fundamental to achieving zero / nearzero egg bearing lice in spring. The agreed husbandry practices cover a range ofrelated fish health, quality and environmental issues in addition to those specificallyrelated to lice control.

4. Trigger Levels for Treatment

The setting of appropriate treatment triggers is an integral part of implementing atargeted treatment regime. Treatment triggers during the spring period are set close tozero in the range of from 0.3 to 0.5 egg bearing females per fish and are also informedby the numbers of mobile lice on the fish. Where numbers of mobile lice are high,treatments are triggered even in the absence of egg bearing females. Outside of thecritical spring period, a level of 2.0 egg bearing lice acts as a trigger for treatments.This is only relaxed where fish are under harvest and with the agreement with theDepartment of Marine and Natural Resources or its agent.

Over the period since the initiation of SBM, treatment triggers have beenprogressively reduced from a starting point of 2.0 per fish during the spring period tothe current levels which are the optimal sustainable at present. These trigger levelswill be kept under review in the light of advances in lice control strategies. Triggeredtreatments are underpinned by follow up inspections and, where the Department or itsagent considers it to be necessary, by sanctions. Sanctions employed include, peerreview under the SBM process, conditional fish movement orders and acceleratedharvests.

5. Synchronous Sea Lice Treatment and Control in Bays

All fish farms operating in a particular bay will be required to undertake appropriatesynchronous sea lice treatment and control strategies through the Single BayManagement/CLAMS process. The Department of Marine and Natural Resources orits agent reserves the right to devise appropriate strategies for synchronous action byfish farms in any bay.

6. Sampling Strategy

The Irish sampling strategy methodology is designed to:

• Provide a robust and reliable objective measure of lice numbers on farmed fish• Operate within a framework which is cost effective and capable of being carried

out over the range of installations which are in use in offshore farming• Take account of weather conditions, fish health issues, environmental effects and animal welfare considerations.

There are four key components to this sampling strategy: the sampling method, thesampling frequency, the sample size and reporting mechanisms.

3

6.2 Sampling Method

The full methodology is laid out in Appendix 1. It is essentially a non-destructivesampling method. Fish are removed at random from the cages and anaesthetised, toreduce stress and risk of injury. All adult and sub-adult mobile lice are then removedfrom the fish and retained for examination before the fish are allowed to recover andreturned to the cage. Lice which become detached from the fish in the anaesthetic arecollected and included in the lice count for the sample to ensure that lice numbers arenot under reported. As it involves the handling of live animals and as there are animalwelfare issues involved, the sampling process is subject to peer review and a licensingprocess. Strict limits are imposed on the number of fish which may be sampled andchanges to these limits must be justified.

6.3 Frequency Sampling

The sampling frequency will fourteen inspections per year, plus any follow-upinspections required where instructions to reduce lice levels have been issued or suchother frequency as may be determined by the Department or its agent.

6.4 Sample Size

The target number of fish sampled is sixty per inspection, comprising two samples ofthirty fish. One sample is taken from a standard cage, inspected at each inspection,and one from a cage selected at random. Where there are difficulties in obtaining thefull sample size, every effort will be made to obtain a minimum of ten fish in eachsample. (This sample size is statistically robust and also takes into consideration thepracticalities and animal welfare issues involved in carrying out the programme. Thestandard cage allows for the monitoring of within cage trends and the random cageacts as a spot check).

6.5 Reporting of Lice Monitoring

Monthly reports are compiled for each site of mean numbers of egg bearing lice andtotal mobile lice of each species. These reports are circulated to the farms, theDepartment of the Marine and Natural Resources, the Marine Institute, the CentralFisheries Board, the Regional Fisheries Boards, Save Our Sea Trout, the WesternGamefishing Association and the Irish Salmon Growers’ Association. This ensuresthat detailed information on the levels pertaining on farms is available to all interestedparties. These reports are designed to give a clear, unambiguous measure of theinfestation level at each site and to act as a basis for management decisions.

4

APPENDIX 1.

Sampling Methodology

This protocol is followed in the carrying out of sea lice inspections on all salmon andrainbow trout farms.

Disinfection

Due to the real risk of transmitting disease from one site to the next the DisinfectionProtocol should be rigidly adhered to.

It is especially important to ensure that your hands and protective clothing are keptclean and disinfected by washing with the Iodophor disinfectant provided.Disinfection of dirty clothing or equipment is not possible as the dirt reduces theeffectiveness of the disinfectants.

Cages to be sampled

The standard cage (i.e. the selected cage which is sampled at each sampling session).

A random cage: To be selected by the inspector on the day. This cage may benominated at the start of the inspection or on the morning of the inspection so that itcan be left un-fed to facilitate the catching of fish. The inspector may, at his/herdiscretion, consult with the Fisheries Board's observer on the selection of the randomcage.

Fish to he sampled

A sample of thirty fish is to be taken from a standard and random cage for each yearclass of fish on site.

Where there are only two cages of fish on site only one cage need be sampled.

Where fish are on starve for immediate harvest they need not be sampled.

5

Methods of Sampling

Fish may be caught by any of the following methods:

1. With a hand net (with or without the use of feed to attract fish).2. By seining the cage.3. By the use of a brailer.4. By the use of a box net.5. By pulling the net and removing fish using a net or brailer.6. By use of a draw net.7. By sampling fish being removed for harvesting.

Limitations to sampling

Sampling should not be attempted where weather conditions are such as to put thesafety of personnel or the health of the fish at significant risk.

Where there is difficulty in obtaining a full sample of thirty fish every effort should bemade to obtain a minimum of ten fish.

Where it is not possible to obtain a representative sample the sampling of damaged ormoribund fish only should be avoided, as this will not give a representative measureof lice infestation levels within the cage and will skew the results for the site as awhole.

Difficulties in obtaining samples should be noted.

Registration of lice from fish sampled

All mobile stages of lice should be removed from the fish and placed in a bottlecontaining alcohol.

Attached stages may be removed, at the discretion of the inspector, for researchpurposes.

All lice remaining on the sampling tray or in the bin of anaesthetic should be collectedand placed in a bottle containing alcohol and labelled “Bin”.

All sample bottles including the “Bin” bottle are to be placed in a plastic bag togetherwith a waterproof label containing the following minimum information:

1. Date2. Year Class of Fish3. Site sampled4. Number of fish sampled5. Cage number

6

Inspection Forms

An inspection form should be completed for each inspection. The farm representative,the RFB observer and the inspector should sign the form.

Water Samples

A 30ml water sample should be taken at each inspection and preserved by the additionof 3-4 drops of Lugols Iodine.This sample should be forwarded to the Phytoplankton section at the FRC at theearliest opportunity.

Disinfection Protocol for Sea Lice Inspections

1. All protective clothing, footwear, containers and equipment to be dipped/washed in iodophor (0.5%) on return to shore.2. All observer from RFB's to be advised to disinfect before entering and on

leaving Dip and/or wash all footwear and protective clothing in iodophor (0.5%) prior to leaving the shore base for the sea site.3. All bins, containers and equipment to be dipped/washed in iodophor (0.5%) prior to leaving the shore base for the sea site.4. All instruments and work surfaces to be washed in Virkon (2%) prior to use.5. All observers from RFB's to be advised to disinfect before entering and on leaving

site, as per above protocol.

7


for

Offshore Finfish Farms-Audit of Operations (subject to revision from time to time)

11 May, 2000


Monitoring Protocol No. 4for

Offshore Finfish Farms - Audit of Operations

1. Purpose of audit

The purpose of the audit set out below is to provide for an integrated assessment offinfish farm operations, based on a number of key monitoring programmes, so as toenable the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources to

• Establish whether the terms and conditions of aquaculture licences are being complied with;

• Inform decisions on proposals for increased farm production;

• Advise farm operators of changes in environmental parameters or other factors which need to be taken into account in their operations, and

• Make information from monitoring programmes readily available to interested parties and the public.

2. Scope of audit

The audit will assess in an integrated way a wide range of data from the followingprimary sources:

- Benthic monitoring (in accordance with Monitoring Protocol No. 1 forOffshore Finfish Farms);

- Water column monitoring (in accordance with Monitoring Protocol No. 2 forOffshore Finfish Farms);

- Sea lice monitoring (in accordance with Monitoring Protocol No. 3 forOffshore Finfish Farms);

- Annual finfish farm surveys by Engineering Division of the Department of theMarine and Natural Resources (see checklist at Appendix 1);

- Fish Health Monitoring by the Marine Institute (see checklist at Appendix 2);- Product Monitoring by the Marine Institute;- Monitoring of escaped fish by the Marine Institute;- Other relevant surveys by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources

or the Marine Institute in relation to finfish operations or aquaculturegenerally.

2

3. Implementation

The data referred to will be collated and reviewed by the Marine Institute andforwarded to the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources for publication andany necessary action, on the following basis:

- Annually, in the case of data relating to mean sea lice figures, fish healthstatus and escaped fish;

- Triennially, in the case of other data.

3

APPENDIX 1

Appendix 1

INSPECTION CHECKLIST FOR MARINE FIN-FISH FARMS

NAME OF FARM: -

INSPECTED BY:–

DATE: -

FILE NO: -

SITE:-

LAND BASE:-

Tel:-

TIME:-

WIND FORCE: - WIND DIRECTION: -

SEA CONDITION:-

TIME OF HIGH TIDE: -

4

FARM PERSONNEL MET:-

NAME STATUS

RECORDSAre Records of:

Smolts brought on to the farm Good Ave PoorAmount of fish harvestedMortalities.

MANAGEMENT

Are chemicals stored properly Yes / NoIs food stored properly Yes / No

Is the Pier used:

Public Private

Name of pier:If pier is public is its usecausing an obstruction:- Yes / No

If Yes is obstructionMajor Intermediate Minor

Is there equipment/supplies on the shore Yes / NoIf yes, is it stacked neatly Yes / NoIs there any litter or debris on the shore orpublic pier, that may have come from the farm Yes / NoIs there provision for litter collection and removal Yes / NoAre land based facilities kept tidy Yes / No

Are disinfection facilities readily accessibleFootbath (1) Yes / NoHand Wash (2) Yes / NoWheelbath (3) Yes / No

5

CAGES:

Type Number Depth (Net) Volume No. of Fish* Fish Size Wt. Fish

*State source of information

Are cages in licensed area:-

Yes No

Checked by Visual Insp. Inst. Survey

Are cages configured as specified* Yes / No*If no give details

Are the cages moored as specified (no. and direction of mooring ropes) Yes / NoAre cages tidily arranged:- Yes / No

Main colour of structures:-

Visual impact of farm:-

Major Intermediate Minor

Are navigation lights installed Yes / NoAre navigation lights installed as specified Yes / NoAre navigation lights working Yes / NoAre navigation buoys installed as specified Yes / NoAre Radar reflectors fitted Yes / NoAre walkways non-slip Yes / NoAre walkways of adequate width Yes / No

Wear or fatigue on:Major Intermediate Minor

Mooring ropesShackles/EyesJoint / HingesNetsFouling on the nets

6

Are there top predator nets. Yes / NoAre there underwater predator nets. Yes / No

Is there a seal scarer. Yes / NoDo cages carry Life-belts(with lines). Yes / No

HARVESTING

How are fish killed ___________

Did you observe this Yes / No

How is blood being disposed of ___________


How is offal disposed of ___________


MORTALITIES

How are dead fish disposed of ___________


GENERAL VISUAL OBSERVATIONS

Is there any increase in the turbidity ofthe water Yes / NoIs there any visible trace of oil. fat orgrease on the water or on the shoreline Yes / NoIs there any evidence of scum, frothor foam on the water Yes / NoIs there any litter or debris in the water Yes / No

BOATSList boats used on the farm: -

Type Length Reg No.

7

Do boats used appear to be to be sea worthy and appropriateto the site conditions Yes / NoIf no please specify:Did all persons seen at sea wear life-jackets Yes / No

OTHER COMMENTS: -

/Overall assessment

8

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

9

APPENDIX 2

FISH FARM INSPECTION REPORT Part 1

Farm:- Lab. Ref. No.:-F

Address:- Site:-

Tel:- Fax:- Main Activity:-

Contact Name:- Inspector:-

Fish species:- Date:-

License detailsLicensed:- License No.Under Review Y/N License Applied for-

Site information

Site Information

Water Supply:- Temperature:- °C Type of Site:-Spring Y/N Stream Y/NBore Hole Y/N River Catchment:-

Site Species Licensed Production Actual Population/Nos.

Current Stocks TypeCages/Tanks

NumberCages/Tanks

NumberEmpty

BroodstockNumber Mortality Disease

Female Y/N
Male Y/N
Details / Reason For Morts.

Main activity Annual Produce Ann.Produ.
Species Tonnes Species TonnesFry Production OngrowingOva Production RestockingParr Production Table Product.Smolt Production
MovementsPermits in use:- Y/N Permits available for inspection:- Y/N
From

Fallowin

Reason

Transfer To Age & Species Number

of Fish

AssociatedMortalitiesY/N & Nos.

Date

g:- Y/N Harvesting:- Y/N

From To Date TonnesAssociatedMortality

Chemicals and Treatments in use/or used prior to harvesting on farm.

ANTIBIOTICS DISINFECTANTS INSECTICIDES VACCINES CHEMICALSAmoxycillin Tri Hyd.MetasulOxolonic AcidOxytetracyclineSulfatrim

BuffodineChloramine TCopper sulphateIosan (Vanodine)RoccalSodium Hydroxide

CypermethrinIvermectinNuvan

Biojec 1500Biojec 1800AVL

FormalinMalach. Green

Product/ Quantity Reason for use Result Datetreated

Storage:-

FeedType in use:- Specify
Unmedicated:-

Medicated:-

Storage:-

Recent Health History Farm Veterinary Surgeon:-

Record keeping

Chemicals &Medicine

Fishmovements

Mortalityrecords

Records books in useRecords available for inspectionRecords unavailable

Other comments

General assessmentFood

StorageChemicals &

MedicineStorage

Management Health RecordKeeping

fairgoodpoor

Other comments


Future plans Lab. Ref. No.:-

Additional NotesRoutine Testing Body:-

Signed:- Date:-

Sampling History & Details Part IILab. Ref. No.:-S

Marine Fresh water Aquaria Other

Temp. °C Water Quality:- ]

Sample History & Information EU Directive 91/67

EU Directive

Current Treatments

AlfaAmBufChloCopCypFormFormMalMetNuvRes

SamSa

TySta

Compound Fishtreated

Reason Date Compound Fishtreated

Reason Date

cron Ivermectinoxycillin Tri Hyd Oxolinic Acidfodine Oxyteracyclineramine T Roccal

per sulphate Sodium Hydroxideermethrin

alinalin & Mal. G Vaccines

achite Greenasulanult of Treatment.

ple Detailsmple

No.Type ofsample

Age Species State ofFish

No. ofFish

No’s. Fish tested per category:-Parasit. Bacti. Histo. Viro.

pe of sample:- fresh =F, frozen = Fn, fixed =Fd, unsuitable = U.te of fish:- alive = A, moribund = M, dead = D.

CDM Field Data.xls

Post Mortem Part IILab. Ref. No.:-S

Macroscopic Observations

Swimming Behaviour Feeding Behaviour

Y N yesY NY NY N

FlashingJumpingSpirallingSurface swimmingNormal Y N

J

External Examination No. fish Other Details

Colour:- Dark Normal Pale

Excessive mucus (gills) Y NExcessive mucus (skin) Y NEyes Normal AbnGills Normal AbnMouth Normal AbnSkin:-Scale loss Y NFin rot Y NTail rot Y NLesions Y NUlcers Y NTrailing casts Y N

Internal Examination No. fish Other DetailsGall Bladder Normal Pale Haem. EnlargedStomach & Intestine Normal Pale Haem. EnlargedHeart Normal Pale Haem. EnlargedKidney Normal Pale Haem. EnlargedLiver Normal Pale Haem. EnlargedPancreas & PC Normal Pale Haem. EnlargedSpleen Normal Pale Haem. EnlargedSwim Bladder Normal Pale Haem. EnlargedGonads Yes NoFood in gut Yes NoFlashing

i

s

Comments

CMD Field Data.xl

Post Mortem Part IILab. Ref. No.:-S

Microscopic Observations

Parasitology No. fish Severity Parasitology No. fish SeverityAnisakis LepeophtheriusArgulus Myxosoma cerebralisCaligus PKDChilodonella SaprolegniaCostia ScyphidiaDactylogyrus TrichodinaDiphyllobothrium TrichophyraEubothrium OtherGyrodactylus salarisGyrodactylus sp.Hexamita No parasites observedIchtyophonusIchthyophthirius Total no. of fish sampledG = Gills, S = Skin, GT = Gut, K = Kidney, B = Brain, F = FinSeverity:- L = Light, M = Moderate, H = Heavy.

Additional Notes

Signed:- Date:-

CDM Field Data xls

Protocol

for

Fallowing at Offshore Fin fish Farms


11 May, 2000


Protocolfor

Fallowing at Offshore Finfish Farms

1. Requirement to Fallow

All finfish farms are obliged to undertake appropriate following which is a recognisedtechnique for the control of disease and parasite problems (including sea liceinfestation).

2. Description of Fallowing

Fallowing involves the separation of generations of farmed fish. Each generation offish is maintained on a site, which is geographically separate. This separation preventsthe transmission of disease organisms or parasites from older to younger generationsof fish, thus reducing the level of infection in the younger generation. To effectivelyprevent the vertical transmission of disease and parasites, as this process is called,requires that, at the end of each production cycle at a site, it is left fallow for a periodto ensure that all infective stages are dead, or gone, before restocking the site. For thisprocess to be effective, the separation between sites must be sufficient to preventlateral transfer of infective material between sites, the fallow period must be of anappropriate length and adjacent sites must fallow at the same time.

3. Current Best Practices

The best results are obtained from following regimes which incorporate the followingelements:

• Smolts are stocked into designated smolt sites, which are not used to hold older fish.• Smolt sites are high-energy sites (exposed sites with -good water exchange),

which are fallowed annually over the winter months.• Production sites are distant from smolt sites.• All production sites are fallowed annually for a minimum of 30 continuous days and all equipment on site cleared and disinfected.• Adjacent production sites are fallowed synchronously.

Where there is more than one finfish farm in a particular bay, fallowing shall bepursued in the context of the Single Bay Management/CLAMS process. TheDepartment of the Marine and Natural Resources reserves the right to prescribespecific fallowing requirements in particular cases if necessary.

2

APPENDIX 5 Some recent information on escapees in Irish catches (see 2.1 above)

Information derives from the : NATIONAL REPORT FOR IRELAND - The 2008 Salmon Season, N. Ó Maoiléidigh, A. Cullen, T. McDermott, N. Bond, D. McLaughlin, G. Rogan, D. Cotter, J. White, K. O’Higgins, P. Gargan. Working Paper 30, ICES Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon, April 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark

1.4.1 Fish farm escapees in the catch Identification of fish farm escapees in the commercial catch Catches are examined on a routine basis from fish dealers premises, commercial and recreational landings in Ireland (Figure 9). Up to 2006, the catch examined comprised principally of drift net catches from the major salmon fishing areas of Donegal, Mayo, Galway and Limerick and the South West (Cork and Kerry). With the closure of the mixed stock fisheries at sea in 2007, the scanning now takes place within the estuaries and rivers (catches, traps and broodstock collections) except for the Foyle area where commercial fish dealers premises are still scanned for tags. The identification of all escapees is based on a combination of the following external characteristics. Fin rays - All fin rays are examined by hand. Fins may be shortened, thickened with fused rays which are difficult to spread. The fin rays may not be straight or evenly curved but may appear to be 'wavy'. 1 Pectoral fins can have all of the above effects and fins are frequently of different

form and size on either side of the body. 2 Dorsal fins are often extremely eroded or badly formed. 3 Caudal fin rays may have severe erosion of the outermost edge of the fins rays

such that the tips of the fins appear rounded off and often thickened. 4 Pelvic and anal fins may not be as deformed as other fins. 5 Operculum - A proportion of the reared fish will have foreshortening of the

operculum i.e. the operculum may not reach the posterior edge of the gills. 6 Nose - The nose may be shorter or blunter than that of a wild salmon. Limitations of the data - The number of escapees in this analysis must be considered to be an underestimate for a number of reasons. The catch examined is limited to summertime

commercial fisheries. Therefore, the analysis gives no indication of the number of escapees which may enter rivers. Escapees are generally regarded as damaged fish and may be identified and sold separately. This often means that these fish are not included in the main catches being examined. In some areas, catches may be examined by the salmon dealer’s staff and the main emphasis may be on identifying fin clipped fish. While the identification features are standardised for all tag scanning operators, the level of expertise and consistency of scanning may be variable. It should be noted that the identification features themselves are subjective and differing interpretations may occur. Many of these features could be common to adult fish originating from ranching or enhancement programmes, so the number of escapees identified in the catch could be overestimated in this regard. Following the examination of over 10,000 fish in 2007 from all capture methods i.e. Foyle drift nets, draft nets, rod catches, traps and broodstock returns (Table 3), only a single escapee salmon was identified for the trap operated on the River Screebe in Connemara. Therefore the overall proportion of escapees is thought to be very small in 2007. No escapees were recovered in the catch scanning in 2008. Overall the rate of escapees in Irish catches is usually less than 0.5%, (Figure 10) but this increased slightly to 0.84% in 2006. It is not possible to derive an equivalent figure for 2008 in the absence of escapees in the catches sampled. There is no systematic reporting of fish farm escapees in riverine catches in Ireland and the returns of escapees to the Burrishoole River total trapping facility rarely exceed two or three fish per year. Therefore there is a severe lack of information on the incidence of escapees in river catches or more importantly in spawning stocks.

Screebe - broodCong - brood anglingLimerickParteen brood

51

51.5

52

52.5

53

53.5

54

54.5

55

55.5

56

-12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5

Longitude west

Latit

ude

Donegal

Mayo

Galway/Clare

West Cork

SouthEast Kerry

South

R

R

RR

R

R

R

R

RR

R

R

R

R

R

Inver Bay

Burrishoole

Donegal Mayo Galway/Limerick KerryBurtonport Killary - draft Renvyle Dingle

Ballina LisdoonvarnaGreencastle Killala Cleggan Cork

Westport Carrigaholt CastletownbereBallyshannon - trap Mayo areas Galway area - bay city YoughalBallyshannon - brood Cong Ballyconneely Carrigadrohid - brood

Louisburg RossavealDelphi - angling Ballynahinch - angling DublinBurrishoole - angling trap brood Screebe - angling Samples mainly Delphi - brood Galway - angling from Donegal areaAchill Erriff angling

Erriff - brood

Figure 9 Scanning locations R for coded wire tags and escapees from 1980 to 2006. With the closure of the mixed stock fisheries at sea in 2007, the scanning now takes place within the estuaries and rivers (catches, traps and broodstock collections)

ote : Introduction of carcass tagging and logbooks has resulted in more fish being declared in the Ncommercial catch and results in an apparent reduction in percentage of the catch being examined.

Figure 10 Occurrence of escapees in Irish commercial catches

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50


Perc

ent (

%)

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Table 4a Estimate (t) of wild, farmed and ranched in Irish catch

Weight in Tonnes Percentage %Fishery Year Wild Farmed Ranched Total Wild Farmed Ranched

1991 399 1.73 2.4 404 99.0 0.4 0.61992 615 3.80 12.0 631 97.5 0.6 1.91993 530 1.86 9.3 541 97.9 0.3 1.71994 790 2.64 12.1 804 98.2 0.3 1.51995 771 0.72 18.3 790 97.6 0.1 2.31996 678 1.74 7.9 687 98.6 0.3 1.21997 565 1.06 4.5 570 99.0 0.2 0.81998 613 2.09 8.7 624 98.3 0.3 1.41999 509 2.26 3.6 515 98.9 0.4 0.72000 611 3.33 6.6 621 98.4 0.5 1.12001 715 5.39 9.3 730 98.0 0.7 1.32002 674 2.82 5.3 682 98.8 0.4 0.82003 547 0.71 3.7 551 99.2 0.1 0.72004 480 1.01 7.5 489 98.3 0.2 1.52005 417 0.99 4.2 422 98.8 0.2 1.02006 320 2.42 4.2 326 98.0 0.7 1.32007 83 0.00 0.3 84 99.6 0.0 0.42008 88 0.00 0.3 88 99.7 0.0 0.3

ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63: 1201e1210 (2006)doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2006.04.018

Monitoring the incidence of escaped farmed Atlanticsalmon, Salmo salar L., in rivers and fisheries of theUnited Kingdom and Ireland: current progress andrecommendations for future programmes

Alan M. Walker, Malcolm C. M. Beveridge, Walter Crozier,Niall O Maoileidigh, and Nigel Milner

Walker, A. M., Beveridge, M. C. M., Crozier, W., O Maoileidigh, N., and Milner, N. 2006.Monitoring the incidence of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in rivers andfisheries of the United Kingdom and Ireland: current progress and recommendations forfuture programmes. e ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63: 1201e1210.

An inevitable consequence of the development of the Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., farm-ing industry in coastal waters of the British Isles has been the loss of farmed salmon to thewild, their occurrence in inshore waters and rivers, and their appearance in coastal and fresh-water fisheries. Monitoring programmes have been developed throughout the British Isles,variously using scientific sampling, catch records from coastal or freshwater fisheries orboth, and scientific sampling of catches from in-river traps. We compare the results of thesemonitoring programmes with regional production and the numbers of escapees reportedfrom marine fish farms. We also consider the effectiveness of the programmes for assessingthe prevalence of farmed salmon that escape from marine cages. Finally, we make recom-mendations for improvements to these programmes and for the development of best practice,including the scientific sampling of in-river spawning stocks through fishery-independentsources, identification of fish origin based on at least two methods, assessment of the degreeof incorrect classification, and the timely and accurate reporting of all escapes.

Crown Copyright � 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Council for the Exploration of

the Sea. All rights reserved.

Keywords: aquaculture, Atlantic salmon, escapee, monitoring programmes, stock assess-ment, wild stocks.

Received 28 October 2005; accepted 15 April 2006.

A. M. Walker: Centre for Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, SuffolkNR33 0HT, England, UK. M. C. M. Beveridge: FRS Freshwater Laboratory, Faskally, Pitlochry,Perthshire PH16 5LB, Scotland, UK. W. Crozier: Department of Agriculture and Rural Develop-ment (DARD), Agriculture and Food Science Centre, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, NorthernIreland, UK. N. O Maoileidigh: Marine Institute, Abbotstown Laboratory Complex, SnugboroRoad, Abbotstown, Dublin 15, Ireland. N. Milner: National Fisheries Technical Team, Environ-ment Agency, Institute of Environmental Science, University of Bangor, Robinson Building,Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, Wales, UK. Correspondence to A. M. Walker:tel: þ44 1502 524351; fax: þ44 1502 526351; e-mail: [email protected].

Introduction

Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., aquaculture in the coastal

waters of the British Isles began in Scotland in the late

1960s and extended to Ireland in the 1980s. Production in-

creased exponentially from the 1980s onward, reaching a total

of approximately 170 000 t in 2004 (ICES, 2005; Figure 1).

Currently, there are approximately 50 times as many farmed

salmon harvested from coastal waters as wild salmon return-

ing to UK and Irish rivers each year (ICES, 2005).

1054-3139/$32.00 Crown Copyright � 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd on

Typically, farmed salmon are lost to the surrounding en-

vironment through damage to the nets, during routine han-

dling, e.g. grading, treatments, and the transfer of fish to or

between cages and at harvesting, or as the result of vandal-

ism (Beveridge, 2004). Escapee adult salmon may spawn

with other escapees and wild salmon (Lura and Saegrov,

1991; Webb et al., 1991, 1993a, b; Fleming et al., 1996;

Crozier, 1998; Butler et al., 2005). Evidence clearly dem-

onstrates the risks posed to wild stocks by escaped farmed

fish (see Naylor et al., 2005 and references therein) and,

behalf of International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. All rights reserved.

mailto:[email protected]

1202 A. M. Walker et al.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland, indicating the Fisheries Regions of the Republic of

Ireland, some of England and Wales, and Scottish Farm Production Areas (ALL CAPS), subareas (Strathclyde, Solway, East) of the Scottish

Southwest Area; regional marine farmed salmon production (t) in 2004 for Scottish regions and for Northern Ireland and the Republic of

Ireland as a whole; the distribution of in-river traps where catches are (triangles) or are not scanned (inverted triangles) for escapee salmon

by Government Agencies; and rivers designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) with salmon as an Annex II qualifying species

(circles). The distribution of SACs was adapted from information for the UK, available from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Website (www.jncc.gov.uk) and information made available to AMW by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Republic of Ireland.

http://www.jncc.gov.uk

1203Monitoring of escaped farmed salmon in the UK and Ireland

therefore, the importance of assessing the prevalence of es-

caped farmed salmon in in-river spawning stocks of the

British Isles. Escaped farmed salmon may inflate catch-

based spawning stock estimates to such an extent that the

stock appears either to be healthy or recovering, the conse-

quences of which are that conservation measures are either

relaxed or not strengthened, or new measures not being

introduced.

The incidence of escapees in salmon catches in the Brit-

ish Isles has been reported previously: for various coastal

and freshwater fisheries in Scotland between 1981 and

1996 (Youngson et al., 1997); for coastal fisheries and an

in-river trap in the River Bush in Northern Ireland between

1991 and 1995 (Crozier, 1998); and for English and Welsh

freshwater fisheries in 2001 (Milner and Evans, 2003). In

this paper, ‘‘coastal fishery’’ refers to fixed (e.g. bag nets

or trapnets) and mobile nets (drift, excluding Scotland,

and estuary seine nets), whereas ‘‘freshwater fishery’’ refers

to rod-and-line fisheries and fish sampled in traps for scien-

tific or management purposes.

In this paper, we extend these time-series to 2004 and

summarize new data on the prevalence of escapees from

catches reported by Scottish coastal and freshwater fisheries

(1994e2004), from the coastal fisheries of the Republic of

Ireland (1991e2004), and from coastal fisheries and in-

river traps in England and Wales (2003e2004). We con-

sider how effective the various monitoring programmes

are for assessing the prevalence of farmed salmon that es-

cape after transfer to marine cages, and how these pro-

grammes could be improved through an examination of,

first, how escapes are reported from marine fish farms

and second, how escapees are monitored in coastal waters

and rivers. We also examine current data sets with regard

to the regional prevalence of escapees and suggest priority

areas for future programmes.

Reporting of escapes by fish farms

Marine salmon farms are sited along the west coast of

mainland Scotland, around the Western, Orkney, and Shet-

land Isles, and along the west and north coasts of Ireland

(Figure 1), while wild salmon are present in rivers through-

out these countries, apart from the Orkney and Shetland

Isles. Wild salmon inhabit rivers in the northeast, south,

and west of England, and throughout Wales.

Fish farm operators in the Republic of Ireland have been

required by law to report losses of salmon from their

sites since 1996. Information is provided to the Department

of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources

(DCMNR) about the site location; the number, age, time

at sea, and average weight of escaped fish; the reason for

the escape; and measures taken to reduce the impact of

the escape (Anon., 2004a). Official statistics indicate that

approximately 415 000 salmon were reported to have es-

caped from salmon farms in coastal waters of the Republic

of Ireland in the period 1996e2004 (Table 1) with an an-

nual range of 0e160 000. Typically, the numbers of fish

lost in an escape event will be an estimate because farms

rarely know exactly how many fish were in a sea cage

before the event.

Scottish salmon farmers have been required to report

escapes to the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural

Affairs Department (SEERAD) since 2002, providing

similar information to farmers in the Republic of Ireland

(Anon., 2002a). As with the Irish reports, however, the

number of salmon declared may be an estimate.

Before the introduction of mandatory reporting by Scot-

tish farms, the increased Fisheries Inspectorate monitoring,

in response to the outbreak of Infectious Salmon Anaemia

(ISA) among Scottish marine farms in the late 1990s, facil-

itated improved voluntary reporting of losses. Conse-

quently, SEERAD data are considered to have provided

a reasonably accurate indication of losses from Scottish

farms since 1998 (D. Pendrey, pers. comm.), with the total

loss from 1998 to 2004 estimated at almost 1.4 million

salmon (Table 1) and an annual range of between 67 000

and 430 000 in this case. Some escape incidents were also

voluntarily reported by fish farm operators to some local

District Salmon Fishery Boards, e.g. from Loch Ewe in

1993 and 1997 (Butler, 2000; Butler et al., 2005; Table

1). Scottish national data are published annually (Anon.,

2001a, 2002b, 2003a, 2005a, b), but have been disaggre-

gated and are presented here (Table 1) by adult salmon

Production Areas (Anon., 2001a; Figure 1).

In Northern Ireland, it has always been a condition of the

operating licence that marine salmon farms report escape

incidents to the Fisheries Division of the Department of

Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). However,

these data may be commercially sensitive and, therefore,

are not available to the public. There are no salmon farms

operating in the coastal waters of England and Wales.

Monitoring of escapees in coastal watersand rivers

Table 2 lists the escapee monitoring programmes coordi-

nated by government agencies and others throughout the

British Isles and provides summary details of the regions

sampled, methods of capture and identification of fish ori-

gin, those responsible for scanning catches, whether scan-

ning is of whole catch or subsamples, and sources of

published data.

In Scotland, Fisheries Research Services (FRS) person-

nel have sampled catches from coastal and freshwater fish-

eries for the presence of escapees since 1981 (Youngson

et al., 1997). Daily catches are sampled periodically

throughout the fishing season, from late spring to the begin-

ning of the close seasons, the end of August for the netting

operations, and typically the end of October for freshwater

fisheries. In addition, since 1994, fishery proprietors


Table 1. Numbers of escaped adult farmed Atlantic salmon from cage sites reported from Scottish salmon farming sites since 1998 (from

official reports to SEERAD) and 1993 (from other sources), and from the Republic of Ireland since 1996 (from official reports to

DCMNR).

Year

Northwest

Southwest Western Isles Orkney Shetland Scotland Republic of

IrelandSEERAD Other SEERAD SEERAD SEERAD SEERAD SEERAD

1993 67 000y1994

1995

1996 24 000

1997 57 000) 40 000

1998 27 000 40 000 0 0 0 67 000 73 732

1999 26 000 20 000y 16 000 32 000 57 000 127 000 258 000 11 500

2000 57 000 3 000 0 320 000 48 000 428 000 159 000

2001 4 000 15 000 7 000 15 000 25 000 66 000 104 623

2002 8 000 20 000 6 000 20 000 313 000 367 000 0

2003 46 000 5 000 1 000 51 000 2 000 105 000 2 780

2004 1 000 1 000 26 000 0 56 000 84 000 0

)From Butler (2000).

yFrom Butler et al. (2005).

throughout Scotland have been required to report their

catches of escapee salmon through statutory catch returns

to FRS.

Catches from coastal fisheries in the Republic of Ireland

have been examined routinely since 1991 as part of micro-

tag recovery programmes. Catch sampling focuses princi-

pally on the fisheries off Donegal, Mayo, Galway, and

Limerick, and the Southwest region (Cork and Kerry), but

also some fisheries from the South and East region

(Figure 1). These fisheries operate between March and

August, with extensions into September in some years. In

Northern Ireland, catches have been sampled from the

coastal fishery off County Antrim (Figure 1), which extends

for approximately 70 km along the north and northeast

coasts and operates between March and September. Crozier

(1998) provides further details of the study area, fishery,

and sampling regime. There is no systematic reporting of

escapees in riverine catches throughout Ireland, but data

are presented here from the daily sampling of fish caught

in an adult trap on the River Bush (Northern Ireland: as

described in Crozier and Kennedy, 1991).

There is no formal requirement for fisheries to report

escapees in England and Wales. A Cefas/Environment

Agency study in 2003 targeted coastal fishing operations

with large annual catches (Northeast coast and Severn

Estuary) and fish caught in Environment Agency (EA) traps

on four monitored rivers (Lune, Dee, Tamar, and Tyne).

Coastal catches are examined by netsmen or fish merchants

and trap-caught salmon by EA scientists. This programme

was extended to include additional coastal fisheries (North-

west) and all other EA traps in 2004 (Figure 1).

Putative escapees are identified in all monitoring and

reporting programmes according to abnormalities of the

snout, opercula and fins (Lund et al., 1989). Typically,

origin is authenticated by scale reading for all FRS samples

(wild and escapees) and, for England and Wales, of suspect

escapees plus five wild salmon sampled from the same

catch, following the approach of Lund and Hansen

(1991). Irish samples are not subject to secondary examina-

tion of fish origin.

Prevalence of escapees in spawning stocks

The results of the various monitoring programmes are sum-

marized in Tables 3 and 4, which provide the average, max-

imum, and minimum incidences of escapee salmon in

coastal and freshwater fisheries, across years, summarized

by region. Scottish data are analysed and presented for

SEERAD adult salmon Production Areas (Anon., 2001a).

However, as much of the Southwest Production Area has

no marine farms, fisheries statistics for this area have been

disaggregated to allow analyses appropriate to those sub-

areas with (Strathclyde) and without (Solway, East) farms.

There is only one marine farm site in Northern Ireland, so

the data are presented for Northern Ireland as a whole.

For the Republic of Ireland, the prevalence of escapees in

catches is presented separately for Fishery Regions, but ma-

rine farm production and the number of escapees reported

from farms are presented for the nation as a whole.

Escapees have occurred, though at varying frequencies

and intervals, in coastal and freshwater fisheries throughout

Scotland and Ireland and in northwest Wales and England

during the study period (Tables 3 and 4). When compared

across Scottish Farm Production Areas, escapees occur, on

average, at low to very low frequencies in coastal and


Table 2. Summary details of escapee salmon monitoring programmes across the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland, 1981e2004,

and sources of published data.

Country

Areas/

regions

sampled

Sample

method

Years

sampled

Confirmation

method Sampler % Sample References

Scotland All N 1981e2004 S, P Ne, Sc Whole catch,

subsamples

Webb and Youngson (1992);

Webb (1995);

Youngson et al. (1997)

East T 1980e2004 S Sc Spawning runs Youngson et al. (1997)

All R 1986e2004 S Sc Day-catches,

part season

Youngson et al. (1997)

Northwest E 1990 S Sc Subsample Webb et al. (1993b)

All Nr 1994e2004 N Ne Whole catch Anon. (1995, 1996, 1997, 1998,

1999, 2000, 2001b, 2002c, 2003b,

2004b, 2005c)

All Rr 1994e2004 N An Whole catch Anon. (1995, 1996, 1997, 1998,

1999, 2000, 2001b, 2002c, 2003b,

2004b, 2005c)

Northwest R 1990e2001þ N An Whole catch Butler and Watt (2003)

Northwest R 1978e2001þ S (1997e2001) An Whole catch Butler et al. (2005)

Northern

Ireland

Northern

Ireland

T 1991e2004 N Sc Whole catch Crozier (1993, 1998)

N 1992e2004 N Ne, Sc w1/3 licenses Crozier (1993, 1998)

Republic

of Ireland

All N 1991e2004 N Ne Subsample

England and

Wales

Wales and

Northwest

Nr,

Rr, T

2001 N An, Sc Subsamples Milner and Evans (2003)

All Nr, T 2003e2004 S Ne, Sc Whole catch

Notes: All programmes managed by government fishery agencies, except those marked þ. Area/regions and codes as depicted in Figure 1.

Sample methods are coastal and estuary nets (N), in-river trap (T), in-river electric fishing (E), reported net catch (Nr), reported rod catch

(Rr), and sampled rod catch (R). All fish initially classified according to external morphology, with confirmation by scales (S), pigment

analysis (P), or not at all (N). Fish examined by netsmen (Ne), scientists (Sc) or anglers (An). Subsamples may include total day-catch. The

closure of various net fisheries in Scotland and Northern Ireland meant that scientific sampling in Scotland and Northern Ireland was not

consistent throughout the periods reported above.

freshwater fisheries: <5% in the Northwest and <1% in the

Western Isles and Southwest Areas. Note, however, that es-

capees have been reported at far higher frequencies in the

Northwest Area in some years, both in coastal (22%) and

freshwater (19%) fisheries. Furthermore, when data for the

Southwest Area are disaggregated to subareas, it is apparent

that escapees occur at higher frequencies in the coastal fish-

eries of Strathclyde, where farms are sited, than those of Sol-

way and the East where there are no farms. A similar pattern

is shown for freshwater fisheries, with the exception of the

FRS study in the Solway subarea (Table 3).

In Northern Ireland, escapees have occurred in coastal

catches across years at an average level of 4.2% and at

a maximum of 13.8% (Table 4). In contrast, escapees occur

at very low frequencies in the coastal fisheries of all regions

in the Republic of Ireland, with the average ranging from

<0.1% to 0.6% and a maximum frequency of 2.2% (Table 4).

No escapees were reported from surveyed fisheries in

England and Wales in 2003 or 2004, but were reported

at up to 19.4% in coastal and 30% in freshwater fisheries

in 2001 (Table 4) following an escape in Northern Ire-

land (Milner and Evans, 2003).

Pearson Product Moment Correlation (PPMC) was used

to test for any association across years between farm pro-

duction and the numbers of escaped salmon reported by

farms, farm production and the incidence of escapees in

coastal or freshwater fisheries, and the numbers of escaped

farmed salmon reported by farms and the incidence of es-

capees in coastal or freshwater fisheries. These analyses

were applied to data for Scottish regions separately, but

to the data for the Republic of Ireland as a whole, where

only national production and reported numbers of escaped

farmed salmon were available. PPMC was also used to

test for any association within regions between the inci-

dences of escapees in Scottish coastal and freshwater

fisheries.


Table 3. Summary statistics for the prevalence of escapee salmon in the Scottish area coastal and freshwater fisheries, and marine farm

production, 1991e2004 (or as sampling data allow), and the numbers of escaped salmon reported by marine fish farms, 1998e2004.

Country Area Subarea

Sample

method

Sample

period

Marine

production

(’000 t)

Reported

escapees

(’000s)

Escapee incidence (%)

Coastal Fresh water

Avg Max Min Avg Max Min

Scotland Northwest Catch reports 1994e2004 396 169 1.6 3.5 <0.1 0.1 0.4 <0.1

Scientific 1990e2004 460 4.6 22.0 0.3

Scientific 1990,

1997e2002,

2004

275 4.4 19.0 0

Western

Isles

Catch reports 1994e2004 211 72 0.6 2.7 0 0.6 1.6 0.1

Scientific None

Southwest Catch reports 1994e2004 242 100 0.5 1.6 <0.1 0.1 0.8 <0.1

Scientific 1991e2004 265 <0.1 0.1 0

Scientific 1990e2004 270 0.3 0.9 0

Strathclyde Catch reports 1994e2004 242 100 14.7 43.1 0.8 1.5 9.1 0.2

Scientific None

Scientific 2004 24 1) d 4.7 d

Southwest Solway Catch reports 1994e2004 0.6 3.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0

Scientific 2001 d 5.6 d

Scientific 1999e2001,

2004

4.3 10.0 0

East Catch reports 1994e2004 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 0.1 0

Scientific 1991e2004 <0.1 0.1 0

Scientific 1990e2004 <0.1 0.3 0

)For 2004 only.

Comparison between the average incidence of escapees

in coastal and freshwater fisheries within regions was ana-

lysed by paired t-test. Before statistical analysis, data were

normalized by log (salmon production), log(xþ1) (escapees

reported), or arcsine (proportions of escapees in catches)

transformation. Statistical analyses were conducted using

SigmaStat for Windows, version 3.10.

Analyses of the data do not support any association be-

tween the prevalence of escapees in coastal or freshwater

fisheries and the reported number of salmon that have

escaped from farms. Evidence for any association between

escapee prevalence and farm production is weak, with sig-

nificant positive correlations only for the Republic of Ire-

land, County Mayo coastal fishery survey data (r¼ 0.605,

n¼ 14, p¼ 0.022) and for the reported coastal fishery data

from the Scottish Southwest Production Area (r¼ 0.817,

n¼ 11, p< 0.01). Indeed, comparisons between farm

production in the Scottish Northwest Area and the incidence

of escapees in fisheries, obtained from FRS studies,

yielded significant negative correlations for both coastal

(r¼�0.842, n¼ 13, p< 0.001) and freshwater (r¼�0.874, n¼ 13, p< 0.01) fisheries.

The only significant correlations between the incidence

of escapees in coastal and adjacent freshwater fisheries

arose from data reported by fishery proprietors in the Scot-

tish Solway Subarea (r¼ 0.910, n¼ 11, p< 0.001) and

from FRS data for the Scottish Northwest Area

(r¼ 0.842, n¼ 9, p< 0.01). Escapees were present at

significantly greater frequencies in coastal than freshwater

fisheries in the Scottish Northwest Area (t¼ 4.225,

d.f.¼ 10, p< 0.01) and Strathclyde Subarea (t¼ 2.637,

d.f.¼ 10, p¼ 0.03), based on data from fishery proprietors,

and in Northern Ireland (t¼ 2.539, d.f.¼ 13, p¼ 0.03). In

contrast, the FRS study of fisheries in the Southwest Area

yielded significantly greater escapee frequencies in fresh

water than in coastal fisheries (t¼�2.713, d.f.¼ 13,

p¼ 0.02).

Discussion

Our data and those reported previously (Youngson et al.,

1997; Crozier, 1998) indicate that escapee salmon are

rare in regions of the British Isles without salmon farms,

occurring irregularly and typically at frequencies <0.5%

and occurring, on average, at relatively low frequencies

in fisheries in regions with farms (typically <5%). As

such, the impact of escapees on wild populations is not


Table 4. Summary statistics for the prevalence of escapee salmon in coastal and freshwater fisheries of Northern Ireland, and fishery

regions of the Republic of Ireland and England and Wales, 1991e2004 (or as data allow), along with national marine salmon farm pro-

duction for the sample periods (Ireland only).

Country Region Sample method Sample period

Marine

production

(’000 t)

Escapee incidence (%)

Coastal Fresh water

Avg Max Min Avg Max Min

Northern

Ireland

Scientific 1992e1995,

1997e2004

2.5 4.2 13.8 0.2

1991e2004 2.9 0.5 2.4 0.1

Republic

of Ireland

Donegal Scientific 1991e2004 210 <0.1 0.3 0

Mayo Scientific 1991e2004 210 0.6 1.7 0.1

Galway/

Limerick

Scientific 1991e2004 210 0.4 2.2 0

Southwest Scientific 1991e2004 210 0.4 1.1 0

South & East Scientific 1996,

2000e2004

107 <0.1 0.3 0

England

and Wales

Wales and

Northwest

Catch reports 2001) d 19.4 d 15.1 30.0 1.0

Northeast,

Northwest,

Severn Estuary

Catch reports 2003e2004 0 0 0

All Scientific 2003e2004 0 0 0

)Milner and Evans (2003) only report results from those Northwest and Welsh fisheries (nine rods and two traps) that reported catching

escapee salmon, but it must be assumed that other fisheries did not catch any escapees; % escapees among catches are for September and

October only, the two months immediately following the loss of salmon from a farm in Northern Ireland.

currently considered in catch-based assessment of stock sta-

tus. However, the limited impact of such low background

levels on both the management and conservation of the

stocks throughout a region may be of relatively little impor-

tance compared with the occasional high incidence of es-

capees contributing to single river stocks (Crozier, 1998),

especially those with small spawning stocks. Escapees

have been reported by fishery proprietors at much higher

annual frequencies (up to 86%) in some freshwater fisheries

of western Scotland (SEERAD, unpublished data) and in

northwest England and Wales for short periods (Milner

and Evans, 2003).

Our analyses yielded only weak evidence for any associ-

ation between the incidence of escaped farmed salmon in

fisheries and the numbers of salmon being reared in marine

cage sites in Scotland and Ireland. However, the analysis of

data averaged across a region may obscure significant rela-

tionships apparent at more local levels, e.g. if escapes occur

at considerable distances from the nearest monitored river.

As such, data should be collected and analysed at a finer

spatial scale, i.e. for rivers. This, and the ability to instigate

ad hoc monitoring in response to escape incidents, would

facilitate analyses designed to answer questions such as,

given an escape of X salmon of Y age in season Z, what

spawning contribution would the farmed salmon be

expected to make to a stock of A fish in a river B km

from the farm site.

Although the results presented here provide rudimentary

support but little statistical evidence to maintain the hy-

pothesis, presumably because of the limited availability of

data and perhaps because the analyses were applied at the

regional scale, it is commonly assumed that escapees are

more prevalent in fisheries in regions where farms are sited

and, therefore, monitoring should be focused primarily in

these regions. Probability of river entry must be related

a priori to the availability of escapees, notwithstanding

other factors. The incidence of escapee salmon in coastal

and freshwater fisheries of Wales and northwest England

was related ( p¼ 0.035) to distance from the farm site in

Northern Ireland from which the fish were lost (Milner

and Evans, 2003). This was probably the result of the scale

of the escape and the comparatively long distance over

which their incidence was recorded.

There are a number of issues with current monitoring

programmes that may prevent them from being fully effec-

tive as tools with which to assess the frequency of escapees

among spawning salmon and, hence, egg deposition, which

is a key index of risk to the wild stocks. These issues, which

are more or less important for the various programmes

around the nations of the British Isles, concern the methods


used to identify escapee salmon and the reliance, to a greater

or lesser extent, on data derived from fisheries.

Identification and authenticationof farm origin

Except for most FRS samples, escapees were identified

using external morphology alone, either because of the

practicalities of examining large numbers of fish (Ireland)

or of relying on anglers and netsmen to examine their own

catches (Scotland: reported catches). Although the origin

of putative escapees caught in England and Wales is val-

idated by scale reading, no assessment is made of how

many escapees are wrongly classified as wild fish and,

therefore, not sampled. External morphology is an effec-

tive identification criterion for recently escaped fish

(Crozier, 1998), but is less suitable for fish that escaped

long enough before capture to allow regeneration of the

fins and operculae. For example, 36% of salmon escapees

caught in waters north of the Faroes bore no fin damage

(Hansen et al., 1993), and three of ten escapees caught

in the River Ewe, Scotland, were identified by anglers

as wild fish (Butler et al., 2005). In contrast, assessments

based solely on eroded fins can classify wild salmon as

farmed (Hansen et al., 1993): two putative escapee salmon

caught in the coastal fishery of Northeast England were

subsequently classified as wild fish based on scale reading.

Furthermore, the use of external morphological criteria

does not allow an assessment of the spawning contribution

of those farm fish that escape as juveniles from freshwater

facilities: more than 76 000 juvenile salmon were reported

to have escaped from Scottish freshwater farms during the

period 2000e2004 (Anon., 2001a, 2002b, 2003a, 2005a,

b). The origin of such fish might be confirmed using mo-

lecular genetics, image analysis techniques (Stokesbury

et al., 2001), or trace-metalsestable-isotopes analysis (C.

Trueman, pers. comm.), and the contribution of these

fish should be better understood.

In addition to mistaken identity, fish may be wrongly

classified on purpose, either to allow the retention of

salmon from a fishery where wild fish must be returned

to the water alive, or where less obvious farmed fish might

be classed as wild to increase their market value. In Ireland,

escapees are generally regarded as damaged fish and,

before the introduction of mandatory carcass tags and

logbooks, may have been retained or sold privately. These

fish may not have been included in the catch being

examined, leading to some underestimation of the actual

number of these fish in catches.

Reliance on fisheries data

In-river trap catches are monitored throughout the British

Isles, but most of the fish scanned for the presence of es-

capee salmon are caught by coastal or freshwater rod-

and-line fisheries. Unfortunately, this reliance on fisheries

for data introduces potential problems of geographical

and seasonal bias in the collection of appropriate data.

Geographical bias, stemming from the mismatch between

the distribution of farming and fisheries, is likely to have the

greatest influence in the FRS studies, which have relied, to

a large extent, on sampling coastal fisheries. The decline

in net fishing effort in recent years as netting stations closed,

especially on the north and west coasts of Scotland, means

that FRS sampling is numerically dominated by fisheries

on the east coast, farthest from marine fish farms. For exam-

ple, even in 2004, when FRS sampling included rod catches

from the southwest coast round to the east coast, and coastal

catches from the north and east coasts, 77% of sampled

salmon had been caught in east coast fisheries. This limita-

tion extends to the catch reports made by the coastal fisher-

ies themselves, although the reports from rod fisheries go

some way to addressing this bias. However, the use of fish-

ery catch statistics is not ideal for the present purpose, owing

to the concerns highlighted above regarding reliance on

identifications that are not subject to later confirmation.

Geographical mismatch between fisheries and farms may

also be significant in Ireland. Typically, escapees are far

less common in the coastal fisheries of the Republic of Ire-

land than in those of Northern Ireland, although salmon

farming in Northern Ireland accounts for less than 1.5%

of the total Irish production (ICES, 2005). The Republic

of Ireland catch, however, is derived primarily from drift-

nets set up to 9.7 km offshore (19.3 km before 1997). Per-

haps escapees from farms on the west coast of Ireland

migrate northward closer inshore and are less susceptible

to the driftnets, but do not survive to return to Irish rivers,

or enter Scottish or Norwegian rivers instead (L. P. Hansen,

pers. comm.).

Another concern is whether or not the presence of

escapee salmon coincides with seasonal fisheries. Examina-

tion of the SEERAD Record of Escapes (unpublished data)

for the period July 1998eMarch 2003 indicates that 76% of

the 1.2 million fish lost from marine cage sites escaped dur-

ing NovembereMarch. Most escapees do not enter rivers

immediately (Webb et al., 1993a), and their subsequent sur-

vival is relatively poor (Gausen and Moen, 1991). It is pos-

sible, therefore, that fish lost from farms during the closed

seasons for fisheries will disperse widely and die or just die

per se, and that relatively few become available to fisheries.

In addition, the behaviour of the fish that escape from farm

sites from spring to autumn indicates that they may be more

or less susceptible to exploitation by different fishery types.

Coastal netting operations typically cease fishing in August

or September and will not intercept escapees returning to in-

shore waters thereafter. Escapees tend to enter rivers later

than wild salmon (Gausen and Moen, 1991; Gudjonsson,

1991; Carr et al., 1997; Crozier, 1998), so some escapees

may not enter rivers before the close of the freshwater fish-

eries (Carr et al., 1997; Youngson et al., 1997; Butler et al.,

2005). This may explain, in part, the relatively low fre-

quency of escapees in freshwater catches compared with


those of some adjacent coastal fisheries in the UK and Ire-

land (Crozier, 1998; this paper). In Norwegian rivers, es-

capees occurred at similar frequencies (w29%) in summer

coastal fisheries and among fish collected for broodstock

in the autumn, but at far lower frequencies (5.8%) in summer

freshwater catches (Lund et al., 1991). Data from the UK and

Ireland showed few significant correlations between the fre-

quencies of escapees in catches of coastal and freshwater

fisheries. This topic requires further investigation, especially

given the reliance on coastal fishery monitoring alone in the

Republic of Ireland and the possibility of significant effort

reductions in this fishery in the future.

Recommendations for future monitoringprogrammes

In this paper, we have examined the programmes designed

to monitor the incidence of escaped farmed salmon in wild

salmon stocks throughout the British Isles and considered

their current limitations. As such, this paper could form

the basis upon which to develop a guide to best practice

for these and other monitoring programmes. Common use

of best practice would facilitate better and more revealing

comparison of results between areas and nations and, in

turn, strengthen the scientific evidence base required to sup-

port improvements in farming practices designed to reduce

the numbers of fish of all ages lost from production facili-

ties. Elements of best practice would include the use of fish-

ery-independent sources of data, identification of fish origin

based on at least two methods, a quantitative assessment of

the degree of incorrect classification, and the timely and ac-

curate reporting of all escapes.

Given the issues raised above, we would recommend the

following as the key principles by which to modify existing

monitoring programmes and design future programmes in

the British Isles:

(i) Scientific sampling of in-river stocks should be the prin-

cipal method for collecting data and ideally be from

fishery-independent sources. The identification of ori-

gin should be based on at least two methods, and a sam-

ple of ‘‘wild’’ fish should be examined using these

methods to assess the rate of incorrect classification as

wild. At present, it is unlikely that resources would al-

low additional validation of all catches throughout the

UK and Ireland, and the low frequencies of escapees

in many catches do not warrant greater accuracy.

Nevertheless, it may be appropriate to validate subsam-

ples and assess the rate of incorrect classification.

(ii) Monitoring efforts should be targeted primarily in

those regions where farms are sited. However, given

the occurrence of escapee salmon in fisheries through-

out Scotland and Ireland and occasionally England

and Wales, programmes should also include a network

of sampling in regions without farms. To broaden the

geographical distribution of sampling, monitoring

programmes should make better use of in-river traps

not operated by Agencies (Figure 1) and the many

broodstock collections, and should include rivers

that have been designated as Special Areas of Conser-

vation (SAC) with salmon listed as one of the primary

reasons for this designation (Figure 1).

(iii) The reporting of escapes should be a requirement for

all production facilities, both in the freshwater and

marine environments, and there should be better coor-

dination between the timely and accurate reporting of

escapes and ad hoc monitoring of in-river stocks

within the area.

(iv) There should be an increased awareness of the distri-

bution of restocking programmes to highlight those

fisheries where discrimination between reared fish

that are purposefully or mistakenly released to the

wild will be required.

In making these recommendations, we recognize that

some would require considerable investment in resources.

However, it should be noted that, although continuing

efforts to minimize escapes, including the Code of Good

Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture, storm damage ac-

counted for 74% of the losses from Scottish salmon farms

between July 1998 and March 2003 (SEERAD, unpub-

lished data). The frequency and severity of autumn/winter

storms has increased during the past 50 years, and this trend

is predicted to continue into the twenty-first century be-

cause of climate change (Hulme et al., 2002). Thus, numer-

ically significant loss events from farms may become more

frequent in the future.

Acknowledgements

We thank those staff of the Fisheries Research Services,

Marine Institute, Department of Agriculture and Rural De-

velopment, Environment Agency and Centre of Environ-

ment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science who contributed

to the various monitoring programmes, as well as anglers,

netsmen and merchants who provided assistance in the

sampling of fish. Our thanks also to Daniel Pendrey, Julian

MacLean, and Gordon Smith of FRS and Rob Evans of the

Environment Agency for their assistance in collating the

data reported here. The manuscript benefited from the com-

ments of two anonymous referees, to whom we are grateful.

References

Anon. 1995. Statistical bulletin: Scottish salmon and sea troutcatches, 1994. Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory Fis/1995/1.Aberdeen, Scotland. 29 pp.




Anon. 1998. Statistical bulletin: Scottish salmon and sea troutcatches, 1997. Fisheries Research Services Fis/1998/1. Aber-deen, Scotland. 28 pp.



Anon. 2001a. Scottish fish farms: annual production survey, 2000.Fisheries Research Services. Aberdeen, Scotland. 32 pp.

Anon. 2001b. Statistical bulletin: Scottish salmon and sea troutcatches, 2000. Fisheries Research Services Fis/2001/1. Aber-deen, Scotland. 28 pp.

Anon. 2002a. What to do in the event of an escape of fish froma fish farm. Guidance on The Registration of Fish Farmingand Shellfish Farming Business (Amendment) (Scotland) Order2002. Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Depart-ment, Edinburgh, Scotland. 8 pp.

Anon. 2002b. Scottish fish farms: annual production survey, 2001.Fisheries Research Services. Aberdeen, Scotland. 47 pp.

Anon. 2002c. Statistical bulletin: Scottish salmon and sea troutcatches, 2001. Fisheries Research Services Fis/2002/1. Aber-deen, Scotland. 28 pp.



Anon. 2004a. Status of Irish Aquaculture, 2003. Marine Institute,Bord Iascaigh Mhara and Taighde Mara Teo. Rinville, Oran-more, Co. Galway, Ireland. 51 pp.



Anon. 2005b. Scottish fish farms: annual production survey, 2004.Fisheries Research Services. Aberdeen, Scotland. 48 pp.

Anon. 2005c. Statistical Bulletin: Scottish salmon and sea troutcatches, 2004. Fisheries Research Services Fis/2005/1. Aber-deen, Scotland. 28 pp.

Beveridge, M. C. M. 2004. Cage Aquaculture, 3rd edn. BlackwellPublishing, Oxford. 376 pp.

Butler, J. R. A. 2000. Wester Ross Fisheries Trust Annual Review,1999e2000. Wester Ross Fisheries Trust.

Butler, J. R. A., Cunningham, P. D., and Starr, K. 2005. The prevalenceof escaped farmed salmon, Salmo salar L., in the River Ewe, west-ern Scotland, with notes on their ages, weights and spawning distri-bution. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 12: 149e159.

Butler, J. R. A., and Watt, J. 2003. Assessing and managing the im-pacts of marine salmon farms on wild Atlantic salmon in westernScotland: identifying priority rivers for conservation. In Salmonat the Edge, pp. 93e118. Ed. by D. H. Mills. Blackwell Scien-tific Publications, Oxford.

Carr, J. W., Anderson, J. M., Whoriskey, F. G., and Dilworth, T.1997. The occurrence and spawning of cultured Atlantic salmon(Salmo salar) in a Canadian River. ICES Journal of Marine Sci-ence, 54: 1064e1073.

Crozier, W. W. 1993. Evidence of genetic interaction betweenescaped farmed salmon and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L)in a Northern Irish river. Aquaculture, 113: 19e29.

Crozier, W. W. 1998. Incidence of escaped farmed salmon, Salmosalar L., in commercial salmon catches and fresh water in North-ern Ireland. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 5: 23e29.

Crozier, W. W., and Kennedy, G. J. A. 1991. Salmon research inthe River Bush. In Irish Rivers: Biology and Management, pp.29e46. Ed. by M. W. Steer. Irish Royal Academy, Dublin.

Fleming, I. A., Jonsson, B., Gross, M. R., and Lamberg, A. 1996.An experimental study of the reproductive behaviour and suc-cess of farmed and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Journalof Applied Ecology, 33: 893e905.

Gausen, D., and Moen, V. 1991. Large-scale escapes of farmedAtlantic salmon (Salmo salar) into Norwegian rivers threatennatural populations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and AquaticSciences, 48: 426e428.

Gudjonsson, S. 1991. Occurrence of reared salmon in naturalsalmon rivers in Iceland. Aquaculture, 98: 133e142.

Hansen, L. P., Jacobsen, J. A., and Lund, R. A. 1993. High num-bers of farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., observed in oce-anic waters north of the Faroe Islands. Aquaculture and FisheriesManagement, 24: 777e781.

Hulme, M., Jenkins, G. J., Lu, X., Turnpenny, J. R., Mitchell, T. D.,Jones, R. G., Lowe, J., Murphy, J. M., Hassell, D., Boorman, P.,McDonald, R., and Hill, S. 2002. Climate Change Scenarios forthe United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Scientific Report. TyndallCentre for Climate Change Research, School of EnvironmentalSciences, University of East Anglia. 120 pp.

ICES. 2005. Report of the Working Group on North AtlanticSalmon (WGNAS). 5e14 April, Nuuk, Greenland. ICES CM2005/ACFM:17.

Lund, R. A., and Hansen, L. P. 1991. Identification of wild andreared Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., using scale characteris-tics. Aquaculture and Fisheries Management, 22: 499e508.

Lund, R. A., Hansen, L. P., and Jarvi, T. 1989. Identifisering avoppdrettslaks og vill-laks ved ytre morfoligi, finnestrorrelse orskjellkarakterer. NINA Forskningsrapport, 1. 54 pp.

Lund, R. A., Økland, F., and Hansen, L. P. 1991. Farmed Atlanticsalmon (Salmo salar) in fisheries and rivers in Norway. Aquacul-ture, 98: 143e150.

Lura, H., and Saegrov, H. 1991. Documentation of successfulspawning of escaped farmed female Atlantic salmon, Salmosalar, in Norwegian rivers. Aquaculture, 98: 151e159.

Milner, N. J., and Evans, R. 2003. The incidence of escaped Irishfarmed salmon in English and Welsh rivers. Fisheries Manage-ment and Ecology, 10: 403e406.

Naylor, R., Hindar, K., Fleming, I. A., Goldburg, R., Williams, S.,Volpe, J., Whoriskey, F., Eagle, J., Kelso, D., and Mangel, M.2005. Fugitive salmon: assessing the risks of escaped fish fromnet-pen aquaculture. BioScience, 55: 427e437.

Stokesbury, M. J. W., Lacroix, G. L., Price, E. L., Knox, D., and Dad-swell, M. J. 2001. Identification by scale analysis of farmed Atlan-tic salmon juveniles in southwestern New Brunswick rivers.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 130: 815e822.

Webb, J. H. 1995. Escaped farmed salmon in Scottish waters.SAMS Newsletter, 11: 4e5.

Webb, J. H., Hay, D. W., Cunningham, P. D., and Youngson, A. F.1991. The spawning behaviour of escaped farmed and wild adultsalmon (Salmo salar L.) in a northern Scottish river. Aquacul-ture, 98: 97e110.

Webb, J. H., McLaren, I. S., Donaghy, M. J., and Youngson, A. F.1993a. Spawning of farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., inthe second year after their escape. Aquaculture and FisheriesManagement, 24: 557e561.

Webb, J. H., and Youngson, A. F. 1992. Reared Atlantic salmon(Salmo salar L.) in catches of a salmon fishery on the westerncoast of Scotland. Aquaculture and Fisheries Management, 23:393e397.

Webb, J. H., Youngson, A. F., Thompson, C. E., Hay, D. W.,Donaghy, M. J., and McLaren, I. S. 1993b. Spawning of escapedfarmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in western and northernScottish rivers: egg deposition by females. Aquaculture andFisheries Management, 24: 663e670.

Youngson, A. F., Webb, J. H., MacLean, J. C., and Whyte, B. M. 1997.Frequency of occurrence of reared Atlantic salmon in Scottishsalmon fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 54: 1216e1220.

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

�

��

�� !��"��# $�%��

��$��#��&��'��

��

�(��

�(��$�)��*��"�*��# ��

�� +��

, �# ��

��*��

)�'�-�� '

+� �� .�� '�/��

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

�

%�7��0�)��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��!��"��#

$��%�&��"��#

��%�&��'��(

��"��

��

��

��

� ��!��"#$�%"#�&'("�&")"&%�*$�%#&+*$',�-#.+%�'$�� /

�

+� �� .�� '�/��

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

1 �

��

��* �"��0��*�� $�� +� �� 8�9��$��$��99�� *��/��$� ��

��#��:;<'��* �� 2.�� 64'��0��"��"��0�� "�+� ��

0 �� 0��* �"� �� '� �� 9�� *�� 0 �� $ $�'��

%�� *� �� 9�� 0� �� +��$� �� !�!%�%�� 3�� $� ��

��$*��'��0�� 9�� 0�� 0��$��$��*�� $�� +��$��

��9�� #��6��$ 00��9��0�*�� 0 �� 0��

��*�� $�� *�� $�'� �� "��$�$�� *�� 9�� 0� ��

� �� 9�� $��7�� 0��$� �� *�� 0��(�� 0��*�$� �� *��

2&��$�� <�=�&��;4'�� #��$�*�" �"��00�� #��

�0� ��*��>��$�� "�� =��$�� 0�*��7 � ��=��$��0��?� � ��

��#��0 ��9��$�� 0�� 2@��<6�4'�

��0� ��$�*�"��$�7�� 9�� "�� 7��*�� $��

$�� "��0��*��$�0��$ �"�2��7��<8A=�.��$��'��<8B=�&��

��'��<�4'�+�0��**�� $��9��9�� #��7��$�$� �� *�� 9��

�� 0�� 2&��'��<�=�&��$�� '��<�=��'��4'�

+�� *��$�7�� 0�� "��

��9� 7 � ��0�0 �� 0�� $ ��2�� <64'��#�� $��

��$��$�7��#�� 0�� 0��7��$�$�9��# ��2 ��<6=�

.��$�� </4'� C��#�� 0�� 7�� 0� �� 99�� 0� *��

��$�7��*��?�� $�$�� " ��2��'��<4'�+��9�� *��$�

0 ��$� �#�� "�� $� �� #�� 0�� 0��$� �� 0 ��

*�� 2� ��$��'��4'��

��$ �� 0�?��2 '�'�� "��4��*9� ��0��"��2� "��<4'�

�� "�� "�0��*�9� ��$��""?�� "�� 0��?� # �"��9� ��"��$ �9��$� ��

��9��'�%�� "�� 0�� $�7��9�9�$ $��"�� *��

��9��'�%��9�9�$ $��*��"��0��$�� *��"��7�0��

7��* �"��*�7 ��9��?�$��*�� 0�*��'�%�� 9��?�$�� "�� $� ��

0�� $�7�� 0�� *�� $��9��'� %�� $�� 0�*��9��$�� *7�� 0�

7��0�9� ��$��""?�� "�� *��" #��

��"�� 2��7��<8=��*��</4'��

�

�

+� �� .�� '�/��

2

�

Diagram not to scale

D��*9��0��9� ��9��$��$��$��*��E��# "��0�*��

� "��'�%��*��"��0��$��0�*�� 6**?<<**��$��$��*�� ;**?

B**�2��*��</4'��

�

�� 9�� 0 �� $�9�� "�� 0� *�� 0 ��

2��7�� <84'�%� ��*7 ��$� �� * "�� "�9��0� �� "��

��0�� "��#�� 7��#��0��*�$��*�� $��$ 00�� *��0��'� ��

�� *�� $��#��"�� 99�� *��B?6**� ��"��

2C�"��E�%��$��<64'�

A. Nauplius – stage II B. Preadult male I, Preadult male II and an adult male C. Preadult female I, Preadult female II and an ovigerous female

Photographs not to scale

Nauplius I & II Copepodid Chalimus I, II, III & IV

Adult Female

Preadult I & II

Adult Male

Larval Stages

Free swimming planktonic Almost translucent in colour

Mean Length c 0.5mm – 0.6mm

Younger is free swimming and older

is attached Slender and oval-

shaped Mean Length c

0.7mm – 0.8mm

Four stages that are broader and more pear shaped than

the copepodid stages Increasing in length from c

1.1mm at stage I to c 2.3mm at stage IV

Free moving on the host

Genital complex under-developed

Mean length c 3.6mm to 5.2mm at I and II stages respectively

Similar to 2nd preadult male. Genital complex is fully developed. Colour varies from light to very dark brown Mean length c5-6mm

Genital complex is fully developed, varying in size

with age of female Generally dark brown

in colour Mean length c 8 – 11

mm In younger females the egg strings are

shorter.

�'01."��'-"�(2(&"�*-��#-3".��(4.#+5��/��

A B C

�'01."�� 4*3*0.#64%�*-�%3#0"%�*-��

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

3 �

+��<<��9��*��0�� "��$��1 �� "��"��**��

0��0 �0 ��0��*�� +��$�� </� ��7��*�� $��9��"��**�'�+��

9�� 0�� *�� "� �� 0��*��9�7� ��$� 2�� "��'/� 0��

�00�� 0 ��*��5��1 �� "��$�)��4'��

%��9��9��0�� *�� "�9��"��**�� >�

� %��9��# $��7F�� #��*��*��0� �0�� #��0��*�'�

� %�� #�� "��0�� 0�� '�

� %�� 9��# $�� *��"�*�� 0��*�� $� #�� *9��*�� 0� �� $�*��"�*��" ��'�

� %��0�� 0��$�#��9*��$��0 ��*��0�� "�'�

%�� $�*��"�*��"��0 #��9� �� 9��*9��>�

� ��9�� 0�"�� '�

� ��0�� "��0�� '�

� D��#��0�� ?��? ��0 ��'�

� %��"��$��*��" *�� $ �"��*��'�

� �"��$��7��$��9�� '�

%�"��*9�� $��$�#��9*��0�� 0�� $�

��*��00�� #��*��0�� "��'�%��* � * �� #��

� �� "�� $��$�� "��0��#�� *�$ � ��'�%��9��

�0�"�� $��0�� "�9��#��#�� * �� 0� �0�� 0��*�

��"�� $ �"�� $�#��9*��'�%��#��0�� ?

��? ��0 ��*�#��9�� #� ��0�� "��$�9�� $��"��$�

��*��00 ��0��*��" *��'�� *9��9��0��"��$�

��*�� "��0�� $��*��G� ��*��$��

� ��7��$��9�� 7��0 �� 7��#��? ��$'�

%� �� 0��$�*�� # �"� �� ""?7�� "� �� 9� �"'� %�� "��$�

��7��$��9�� #��"��0��$�0 ��(�� $��# ��*��

�� $$ � �� 9�� 0 ��$� �� '� %�� "��.��"�*��

9��"��**�� 2�.�4� ��#�� 0�� $� 9��# $�� 0��*� 0�� "�� 0�

�0��*�� $��#��*��"�*��9�� 7�� 0��*��'�

%�� "� �0� �99��9� �� *�� ""��#�� "��9�� 0� *9��*�� "� ��

��"��$��*�� " *�'�%��*�� ""��$�� "� ��9� �"�9�� $��

�� "��0��'/��';��""�7�� "�0�*��9��0 ��$�� 0��*�$�

+� �� .�� '�/��

4

7��*7��0�*�7 �� 9��0 ��'�@��*7��0�*�7 ��

�� "��*�� ""��$��#�� 7��0��""�7�� "�0�*��'�� $��0�

��9� �"�9�� $��#��0��'��# "��0�*��9��0 �� ""��0��

��*��'� �#�� 9�� $� � �� 0� � �"�� .�� "�*�� *��

�� ""��#��7��9��"�� #��$��$�0��*�� "�9� ��0��'��# "��0�*��

��9��0 ��$�� "��9� �"�9�� $��#��'�

+�� $� �� 9� �"� �� *9�� * � *�*� ��$� ��

$�#��9*�� 0� �� $��$'�%��*9�� $��

$�#��9*��0� �� #��'��" ��*�� *��7��0�

�0�� '� �# "�� 0�*�� 9��$�� 0�� #��#�� $�

��*�� *�$��*�#��$��0�*��7�0��#��'�� "��

��*�� ""��';��# "�� 9��0 �� 9� �"��*��

�� $�� *�� *�*��0��0��0��0 ��* ��$��#��# "�� '�%� ��

��9� *�*�� *�� 9�� $�#��9*��'�1�� $�#��9*��

�0�� "�� $��$��*�� #�� #��

�0��';��# "��7�� 0��*�� F�� 0 �$'��#��0��'��# "�� 9��

0 ��7�� 7��9��"*�� #�� #�� 7�� 0��*��

�$# ��7��'�1�#��0�*�7 �� F�#�� *9�� $# � �"�0 ��

9��0�� $�#��9 �"� �� "�'� C� �#�� 0�

��*��#��99��9� ��*��9�� ""��*��$��*��'�

,��0� ��*�� "�9��"��**�� #�� 0��*� �� ;?<��$��0�

�� 9�� '��*��9��0�� $�� $�9�� $��$��

��9�7� ��$��2��6=��8=��

��B=��;=��A=��/=��)��

��=�)�9��<4'�

%�7��<�� 0�� *��*�$ � ��$��*�$ ��#� ��7��

��0�� '�

�

�

�

�

�

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

5 �

)� ��'�!��*�� %��'��

Compound Trade Name

Licensing status

Delivery Method

Group Mode of action Stages targeted Withdrawal period

Azamethiphos Salmosan® AR-16 Bath Organo- phosphate

Interferes with nerve transmission by blocking acetylcholinesterase at synapse

Adults, Preadults 24 hours

Cypermethrin Excis® Full MA Bath Pyrethroid Interferes with nerve transmission by blocking sodium channels in nerve cells

Adults, Preadults, Chalimus III-IV

24 hours

Deltamethrin Alphamax® AR-16 Bath Pyrethroid Interferes with nerve transmission by blocking sodium channels in nerve cells

Adults, Preadults. Chalimus unknown

3 days (2 days for pen within 100m of treatment)

Emamectin benzoate

Slice® Full MA In-feed Avermectin Interferes with neurotranmission disrupting nerve cells causing paralysis and death. Effective at 3- 15°C. Protects fish for up to 11 weeks post treatment.

All stages Zero

Teflubenzuron Ektobann® AR-16 In-feed Insect Growth Regulator

Inhibits chitin synthesis preventing moulting and growth. Limited efficacy beyond medication period. Not authorized for use below 9°C

Moulting stages - Chalimus, Preadults only

7 days

Hydrogen peroxide

Bath Oxidizer Formation of gas bubbles on and within the sea lice.

Adults, Preadults

Ergosan® In-feed Seaweed extract

Immuno-stimulant

Ecoboost® In-feed Blend of aromatic herbs

Immuno-stimulant

Bioemitters In cage Electromagnetic signalBio-mos® In-feed Extract from

yeast wallIncreases mucus production

Wrasse In cage Cleaner fish. Issues with wrasse availability and efficacy

Adults, Preadults

Animal medicines

Immuno-stimulants

Disinfectants

Others

��?�*�� "�� '�

��,<B�� *9��$��9�� 0 ��0��*�$�� $�(�� '�

+� �� .�� '�/��

6

��

��0��*�� $��0��*�� +��$��# � ��$��<A�� "��

�� 9��'�� *�� $�0��9�� 0��"��$�(�� '�� ?�9�

��9�� *��7�� $�� (� ��$'�� 9�� 9��*��

�� 9�� "�9��*��$�� "��9� ��$��=��0��$��

��9� �"�9�� $'�� 9�� $��0��*7��?&��9�� $'��

��9�� *9�� 0�� "�� 0� 0 �� *9�� 0��*� ��

��$��$� ��"�� *9��$� �� 7��(�� 9�� $� �� *9�� 0��*� ��

��$�*��"�� $��$��0�� 9�� '�%� ��0 ��* ��$�0��

��*9��7�� "��*� �� 0� �� '�%�� #�$�

0�� $��0��*9��'�D��0 �� * ��$� �$ # $��0��*�7 �� '�

1 ��*�#�$��$�9��$� ��7�� "�8�H��7��9��0 ��'�+��

��7��9�� (�� $�� 0��"��0�� $��* ��$��$��$�$'�

%��*��*7��0�� 9��0 �� $�7��$$ �"��*7��0��

0��*��0 �� *7��0��*�� #�$�� $ # $ �"�7��*7��0�

0 ��* ��$'�

,��9��$��*��# "�� #��$�*��*�7 �� #��0��

�� $� �� '� %�� *�7 �� #�� *�� 0�� 0�� #��'�

�# "�� #�� *��7��$ �"�0�*��9�9�� '�%�� 0��*�� "��$�

� *�� #��#��0�� 0 ��$�� 0��*��0��*��

��"��7��$# � �"��*�� 0��'�D00�� #��9�� $�7��

$��9� �� #��7��(�� 9�� '�

+��6��*�� $�0��*��$�;�$ 00��0�0 ��'�%�� >��8�� 7� �

�� $��%&��%�� &+�� 2@��7��*4� 2�� 7� � �� 0 �� 9��$� �� 84=� ��6�

�� 7� ��2�� 7� ��0 �� 9��$� ��64=��B�� *��1' �

2� �?��? ��*��4=��8�� *��2��?��? ��*��4��$��6��

��*��2�*��4'�

%��$ �� " �� +��$� ��*�� $�0��* �"� �� $��=��

@��2)�� $�-�� 4�� 2)�'��"��4��$��

2)�� )��$��4'�%��" ��"��"��9� ��9��0��*��

��$ ��7�� " ��0��<B��*�0��*�� @��$��*�0��*�

@�� '�+��6��*7��0�/�� 9��$��$�

+��$��0 "��/?;'

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

7 �

�

�'01."�/��*(#3'*$%�*-�-'%4�-#.+�%'3"%�'$��*.347"%3�."0'*$��

�

�'01."� 8#�� *(#3'*$%� *-� -'%4� -#.+� %'3"%� '$� 34"� 9"%3� ."0'*$� ��#2*� :� ��*$$"+#.#��

+� �� .�� '�/��

8

��'01."�8;��*(#3'*$%�*-�-'%4�-#.+�%'3"%�'$�34"�9"%3�."0'*$��*$$"+#.#��

��'01."�<��*(#3'*$%�*-�-'%4�-#.+�%'3"%�'$�34"��*1347"%3�."0'*$��

Sites stocked in 2008

Sites fallow in 2008

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

9 �

��

�� !!"�#�$�%��%$��&�

�� 7�" �� "� �0� ��6�� ?��? �� *�� $� �� A� � ��>� .��

2. 0��$�1�$'4��.�� C��7��=��*�+��2)��+��$��0��*��1�$'4��)�� .��=�

� ��.��$�1��"�� 2�� C��#��4'�%�7�� *7��0�

��9�� 9�� $� �� *7�� 0� ��9�� $ �"� �� *�� ""��

��#��'�

)� ��,�� +"��'��!��'��'��%��'��%�'��

Company Site Samples in Spring

Over in Spring

Samples outside Spring

Over outside Spring

Total Samples

Total Over

% over in Spring

% over outside Spring

% over total

Bifand Ltd Ballinakill 4 3 2 1 6 4 75% 50% 67%

Clare Island Seafarms Ltd. Seastream Inner 5 3 2 0 7 3 60% 0% 43%

West Totals 9 6 4 1 13 7 67% 25% 54%

Marine Harvest Millstone 0 0 1 0 1 0 0% 0% 0%Lough Swilly 0 0 1 0 1 0 0% 0% 0%

Northwest Totals 0 0 2 0 2 0 0% 0% 0%

National Totals 9 6 6 1 15 7 67% 17% 47%

��0�<;�# � �� $�� 7�0��#�� "� ��*9��$��

A8H��0� ��9�� $ �"��*�� ""��#��'��

�� !!'�#��%��%$��&�

��?��? ��*�� $� ��0�</�� 7�� 6'��$��$�

��$� 0��# � �� $�� "�� 0� 0 ��'� %�� /�7��

�� $��?��? ��*�� #�*7��6'�

�# "�� #��"�� *�� ""��#�� $�$� ��

�� 0� A� ��9�� 2A/H4� �� ?��? �� 0 �� 2�� %�7�� /4'�@ ��

�9� �"� 9�� $�� #�� 0� �';� �# "�� 0�*�� 9�� 0 ��

��9�� 2A6H4��$�� $��0��9� �"�9�� $�� 9�� 2/6H4� �� 0�

�'��# "��0�*�� 9��0 ��'�

)� ��#��,�� +"��'��!��'��'��%��'��%�'��

Samples in Spring

Over in Spring


Over outside Spring

Total Samples

Total Over

% over in Spring


% over total

National Totals 61 29 53 20 114 49 48% 38% 43% �

��#�� $�$�� #��"��'�

��%��

%�� 8�� *��0 ��$� �� " �� 6'�

+� �� .�� '�/��

10

-��

+�� @�� " �� 0�� #�� "�� *�� ""��

��$�$�� 0� /8� ��9�� 2;AH4� �� 9� �"�9�� $� ��$�� <;� �� 0� ��

��9�� 2;�H4�� $��9� �"�9�� $�2��%�7��A4'��

)� ��.��/��+"��'��!��'��'��%��-��


Over in Spring


Over outside Spring

Total Samples

Total Over

% over in Spring


% over total

Muirachmhainni Teo Daonish 6 3 4 3 10 6 50% 75% 60%

Muir Gheal Teo Cnoc 4 2 2 0 6 2 50% 0% 33%

Eisc Ui Flathartha Teo Ardmore 6 3 4 2 10 5 50% 50% 50%

Mannin Bay Salmon Co Ltd Corhounagh 6 6 2 2 8 8 100% 100% 100%Hawk's nest 0 0 2 2 2 2 0% 100% 100%

Bifand Ltd Fraochoilean 4 4 2 1 6 5 100% 50% 83%

Celtic Atlantic Salmon (Killary) Co ltd Rosroe 5 1 5 3 10 4 20% 60% 40%

Clare Island Seafarms Ltd Seastream Inner 0 0 2 1 2 1 0% 50% 50%Portlea 6 1 6 1 12 2 17% 17% 17%

West Totals 37 20 29 15 66 35 54% 52% 53% �

��)��"��2�� .��*��)�'�1�$'4�� .�� $�$��*��

�� ""��#��0��B� ��9�� 9� �"��$�0��7��0�� 9�� $��

�� 9� �"'� .�� 9�� C� �� &�� $��7�� 0�

��*�� ""��#��'�

�� 2. 0��$�1�$'4��.�� .��$�$��*�� ""��#��0��A��9� �"�

��9�� $�<��0�� 9�� $��9� �"�9�� $'�

1�#�� 2�� *�� %��4�� .�� 0� ��*��

�� ""��#�� 0�� /� ��0� B� ��9�� 9� �"�9�� $��$�/��0� ��A� ��9��

�� $��9� �"�9�� $'��

��$*��2D ��I ��%��4�� .�� 7�#��*�� ""��#��0��/�

�0��B��9� �"� ��9�� $��0��A� ��9�� $��9� �"�9�� $'�

�� #��,�� 2)�� *�� 2� ��4�1�$'4�� C��7��

�� 0� ��*�� ""��#�� 0�� <� �0� �� ;� ��9�� 9� �"� ��$� /� �0� �� ;�

��9�� $��9� �"�9�� $'��

)��2�� -��%��'4�� .�� 7�#��*�� ""��#��0��0��A�

�9� �"� ��9�� $��0�� 9�� $��9� �"'�

�

�

�

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

11 �

�

,��%��

%�� *�� ""�� #�� $�$� �� 0� �A� ��9�� 2/6H4� ��

�� " ��$�� "��9� �"�9�� $��$��;��0��A� ��9�� 2�<H4�� $��

��9�� $�2��%�7��;4'�

)� ��(��/��+"��'��!��'��'��%��,��%��


Over in Spring


Over outside Spring

Total Samples

Total Over

% over in Spring


% over total

Marine Harvest McSwyne's Bay 6 3 8 0 14 3 50% 0% 21%Moross I 6 3 2 0 8 3 50% 0% 38%Millstone 6 1 8 3 14 4 17% 38% 29%Lough Swilly 6 2 6 2 12 4 33% 33% 33%

Northwest Totals 24 9 24 5 48 14 38% 21% 29% �

�� .��2�� C��#��4��"��.��$�� #�� 0��*��

�� ""�� #�� 0�� $� ��9�� $� 7�� 9� �� 9�� 7�0��

�� # �"��'��

��+�2�� C��#��4��.��$��#��$�� #��0��$��9� ��

��9�� $�7�� 9�� 7�0�� 0�� .��

��#�� #��$� ��&��$��"� �� 9��*7��$��7��'�

+� �� .�� '�/��

12

�� !!(�#��&�

��0�<;��# � �� $�� <� � �� "��<� ��$��J��*��$�� "� ��

�� 6'� �� #�� *� �� $�7�� *�� ""��#�� 0��';�

�# "�� 0�*�� 9�� 0 �� 0�� 7�� <� �0� �� ;6� ��9�� 9� �"�9�� $'�

�� $��0�� 9�� $��#��$�$��'��# "��0�*�� 9��0 ��</��0��

��9�� 2��%�7��B4'��

)� ��,�� +"��'��!��'��'��%��'��%�'��


Over in Spring


Over outside Spring

Total Samples

Total Over

% over in Spring


% over total

Fastnet Mussels Ltd Cuan Baoi 6 0 8 0 14 0 0% 0% 0%

Silver King Seafoods Ltd Roancarraig 6 0 8 0 14 0 0% 0% 0%Inishfarnard 2 0 6 0 8 0 0% 0% 0%

Southwest Totals 14 0 22 0 36 0 0% 0% 0%

Muirachmhainni Teo Carraroe 2 0 5 1 7 1 0% 20% 14%Cuigeal 3 0 4 0 7 0 0% 0% 0%Daonish 0 0 3 2 3 2 0% 67% 67%Golam 5 0 2 0 7 0 0% 0% 0%Red Flag 1 0 3 1 4 1 0% 33% 25%

Muir Gheal Teo Cnoc 0 0 2 2 2 2 0% 100% 100%Lettercallow 5 0 2 0 7 0 0% 0% 0%The Gurrig 4 0 2 0 6 0 0% 0% 0%Birbeag 2 1 3 0 5 1 50% 0% 20%Carraig na Meachain 1 0 3 2 4 2 0% 67% 50%Ardmore 0 0 2 2 2 2 0% 100% 100%

Mannin Bay Salmon Co Ltd Hawk's nest 2 0 6 0 8 0 0% 0% 0%


Celtic Atlantic Salmon (Killary) Co ltd Inishdeighil 2 0 5 0 7 0 0% 0% 0%

Clare Island Seafarms Ltd. C.I. smolt site 2 0 5 0 7 0 0% 0% 0%Portlea 0 0 1 0 1 0 0% 0% 0%

West Totals 35 1 56 12 91 13 3% 21% 14%

Marine Harvest OceanInver 6 0 8 0 14 0 0% 0% 0%Glinsk 3 0 6 1 9 1 0% 17% 11%


National Totals 58 1 92 13 150 14 2% 14% 9% �

��#��*� ��$�� "��6��*��'�

��)�$��

+��6�� 8�� 7� ��$��6�� 7� ��$�7�� /��

��/��" ��'�%�� 0�/6� ��9�� $��8�� 7� ��'�

�� #��$��*�� ""��#�� 9�� '�

� �� 9�� $��6�� 7� ��$� ��.��"��

.��$��"��.��'��0�� 9�� 7�#��*�� ""��#��'�

��#��*� ��$�� "�� 7� ��'�

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

13 �

�#+6&'$0�."(*.,�

��#�� 9�� * ��$�$�� $ 00 �� 6'��

�9� �� 0�� "��$��$�� "� ��$� ��9��7��*��$�

�� 7��'��*��#��0��0��*�# � ��7�� 99��$ ��<'��

�$"=%"#=7'$3".�%#&+*$�+*$34&2�3."$,�

��# "��$�*��*�7 ��$� ��#��0��7��

��%�7��8�0��?��? ��*��"��'��# "��

��#�� "��*�� ""��#��0��';��# "�� 9��0 ��<��

�0��/�� $�� "��9� �"�9�� $��7��7�� '�%��$� �� .��

2/4�� .��2�4��.�� C��7��2�4�� C��7��2<4��.��2<4��"��

.��2<4��1��"�� 2<4��$�)�� .��2<4'��<8��0�A;� ��9�� $��0��

�9� �"�9�� $��*�� # "��#�� 0� �'�� # "�� 0�*��9�� 0 �� "��

��$�$'�%��$� ��.��2/4�� C��7��2/4�� .��2�4��1��"��

� ��2�4�� .��2�4��)�� .��2�4��)� 0$��.��2�4��$�.�� C��7��2<4'��

��*�7 ��#�� 0�<��9��0 �� $�$��A�� $�

</��0��$�*��0�"��*�7 �� 9��0 ��'�%��0�� #��

A��*�7 �� 9��0 �� <��$ �"�<��*�7 �� 9��0 �� C��7��

��"��'�%� �� "��#��$�$� ��6��<<6'<<�*�7 �� 9�� 0 ��

� ��*9��*�� *�*��#��0�<A�';��*�7 �� 9��0 �� 8'�

+� �� .�� '�/��

14

)� ��0��*��"�� 1�9��9�� *�� "�)�� "��"��!��%1�'��'��%� �&��!��"��%��&�� Mean ovigerous L. salmonis Dec/Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Ballinakill Harbour 0.92 2.93 2.94 3.28 HO Clew Bay 0.04 0.38 1.40 0.18 0.23 1.00 0.97 1.04 2.23 0.03 5.00 Clifden Bay 6.29 3.00 TO Donegal Bay 0.19 0.03 0.40 1.66 0.01 1.71 0.14 0.74 0.90 0.00 0.02 Kilkieran Bay 1.21 0.88 0.88 0.62 0.49 4.54 8.40 HO Killary Harbour 0.12 0.29 0.26 0.17 0.77 3.61 3.18 7.84 HO Lough Swilly 0.20 0.00 0.67 0.49 0.00 1.38 1.03 5.22 3.50 HO Mannin Bay 0.83 10.46 2.21 5.69 7.42 HO Mulroy Bay 0.83 0.44 0.11 0.48 0.96 2.15 0.38 1.91 5.12 4.59 1.10

Mean mobile L. salmonis Dec/Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov


Mean ovigerous C. elongatus Dec/Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov


Mean mobile C. elongatus Dec/Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov


C��K�C��#��$��%��K�%��0��$��

�

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

15 �

"0'*$#&�+*$34&2�+"#$%�-*.�*$"=%"#=7'$3".�%#&+*$�

��*��*��0 "��0��?��? ��*�� "��B��$�8�

0��" ��'�%�� ?��? ��*��$� �� 6'�

,�" ��*��*��'��#�� 0��*�� ""��#��0��

/��9� �"�*�� 6� ��@��" ��$�0��*��0��9� �� '�

+�� @�� *��*�� # "��#�� 0� ��*�� ""��#��

�� $�� 0� �� 9� �"� 9�� $� �� &�� &�� "�� 9��*7�� $� ��#�*7��'� +��

�� *��*��# "��#��$�$��*�� ""��#�� 9� ��

��"��9��*7��$��7��7�0��$�� "� ��#�*7��'�

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

2008

Mea

n ov

iger

ous

L.sa

lmon

is

Treatment trigger level

Northwest

West

�'01."��"#$��*)'0".*1%��6".�+*$34�6".�."0'*$�'$��*$�*$"=%"#=7'$3".�-'%4��

�

+� �� .�� '�/��

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


2008

Mea

n m

obile

L.

salm

onis

Northwest

West

�'01."�>��"#$��+*;'&"��6".�+*$34�6".�."0'*$�'$��*$�*$"=%"#=7'$3".�-'%4��

�

%��*�7 �� #��$�$�<�� 9��0 �� &��7��9� ��

&��"��9��*7��$��#�*7�� @��" ��'�+�� *�7 ��

��#��$�$�<��9��0 �� 9��*7��$��7��'�

�

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

17 �

�$$1#&�3."$,%�

%�� $� �0� �� # "�� $� *�7 �� #�� *9��$� ��

� "��6��$��0��?��? ��*�� *��0��0��*�<<��6'�%��

*��*7��0��# "��$��*�7 �� 9��0 ��9��$'��

Ovigerous Sea lice levels Nationally (May)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Treatment trigger Level

Mean ovigerous sea lice

�'01."��$$1#&�3."$,��#2�+"#$��*)'0".*1%��*$�*$"=%"#=7'$3".�%#&+*$��

Mobile Sea lice levels Nationally (May)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

�'01."��$$1#&�3."$,��#2�+"#$��+*;'&"��*$�*$"=%"#=7'$3".�%#&+*$��

�� #�� $� ��<�0��7��# "��$��*�7 ��

� ��'�� # "�� #��#�� $� ��$ �� A�7�� $� ��

� "� 0 ��$��9� ��6�0 "��'B6��# "��1'��*�� 9��0 ��'��

��*�7 ��#�� * ��9�� #��$�$� ��<'�%��

��7�� *�7 �� #��0��*��A��8��$��"� �� "� 0 ��

$��9� ��6�0 "��'�

+� �� .�� '�/��

18

��

+��6��0��///�� 9�� $��*�� $��8A'H��0�� *��

��*9�� $� B'/H� �0� �� 7� � �� *9�� 7�� *�� ""��#��

�� $� �� "��'/�0��00�� 0 ��*��5��1 �� "�

��$�)��9��*��0�� $��,��2��4'��

+��*��'8H��0� ��9�� 7�� *�� ""��#��

86'AH� �0� ��9�� ?��? �� *�� $� ;/'/H� �0� ��9�� ?��?

��*��'�

�� ?��? �� *�� #�� $�$� ��*�� ""��#�� 0�� ;/H��0�

��9�� @��$�0��'<H��0� ��9�� '�� "��9� �"�

9�� $� ;A'<H� ��$� /8';H� �0� ��9�� $�$� �� *�� ""�� 0� �';�

�# "�� 9��0 �� @��$�� 9�� #��'�%�� ?

��? ��0 ��$� �� 6'�%��*��$��0�� #��

��?��? ��*�� " ��*�� #�� @��?��?

�� *�� #��$� 0�� 9� �"� 9�� $�� $� �"� �� &�� &�� "��

��9��*7��$�� #�*7��'�+�� #�� #��$��

�9� �"�� 7� �"� �� #�$��#�� **��*��'� �� 1 ��#�� $�

0��*��"�� 7�� *7�� #�*7��$��99 �"�7�� *�� ""��

��#��'�%��*�7 �� #��$��$��0��*��0��7��$��" ��

9�� 0� A<'AA� ��*�7 �� 9�� 0 �� "�� @�� $� �;'/<� ��

*�7 ��9��0 �� 7�� '�

�0��<;� ��9�� $�� ?��? ��0 ��7�� G&��6��$��

��9�� 9� ��*9�� 0��#��*�� *�*��0�8<';�*�7 �� 9��

0 �� $�$� �� @�� $� ��*�� *�*��0� <<'AA�*�7 �� 9�� 0 ��

�� '� %� �� 9��$� �� $�� *�� *�*� �0�� #�� $�$� ��

��8'�%��*�� *�*��#��$�$�0�� $ # $�� <<6'<<�*�7 ��9��

0 �� 6��*9��$��<A�';� ��8'�

%��*��$��"��9��0��?��? ��0 ��20 "��6�E�4��

�� $�� 7��*��# "��#��$��*��*�7 ��

��#�� *9��$��8'�%� ��$ 00�� *7��*��9��9��7��

��0�� 0�� $��00�� '�

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

19 �

�� #�� 6��#�� #�� *9��#�*�� *9��$��

��8��#��9�� " ��'�%� ��0�� 9��

��7��00��$�0��0��00��'�� *7��7�#��*�� ""��#��

��@�� * �� 8�� #�� #�� #�� 6� ��$�

�� #�� 7 � ��'�� 0�� "��9��$� �� *��"�*��

��7��9� �� $��#��7��0 ��$� �� #��'��

%�� 9�� 0� 9�� $ �� $� ��"�� 0��*� �� 7��

F��0 ��$�� 9�� 0�9��9��'"'�2��+��#��$�� *��

�00��0 ��$ �"�� $�$ 00 �� 0�� 9��

��**��*��'�

�� *9�� 0�� *��"�*��0� �� '�+��

��*9��$�� 0��0��$��

�� 9��$�� #�� 9�� 2C�"�� $�%��$�� <64'�+�� *7�� 0��*��

*��*9��#��7�� #�� "�� #��"��*9��

��8�7� �"��';A�)�� "�� /��*�� 2 ��$� 0��*� ��$�� 0��*��

L ��?� '*��' �4'��

+��6��9��*��0��"� �� $��$�9�7� ��$�M��"��0��

�� *9��#�$� 9�� +� �� *�� 0��*�N'� %� �� "�� "�� 0�

*��0�� '�%��*�� $�� "� �"�� "��.��

��"�*�� 9�� $� �� "�� *9�� #�� 9�� $� � �� 0�

��**��$�� $#�� 0� �� 0�� *9��#�$� ��

��0��*�'�

+� �� .�� '�/��

20

��

3��4� �� 0 �� 7�� 0�� *9�� "��'�

5&!��!�� D��"�*��$�7��7��*�� *7��0�� "�� '�

0 ��4� �� *�7 �� 5� *�� $� 0�*�� 29��?�$�� $��$�� "��4� �� #�� $�#��9�$� 7��$� ��$��#��"��'�

$*��4� � �� ""�7�� "��$��0�*�� '�

��"�� 4� �� "�� $�7�� 9�� $�� 0� ��9�� '�

��"��"��"�� 4� � %��$��"�� *9��$�� 9�� '�

��4� %� ��9�� "�� 0��0��*�� "�� 0��*�7� �"� �� 0�� 0 �� 0 �� 9�� *�� 0 �� '�%�� 0 �� 9��$�� # ��*�� 9� �"�� 99�� *��<;�*��0�� $'�

��6��4� %�� 0 �� 9��$� �� *�� 9��$� 9��9�� $�� 0� �*�� 0 �� '�C�� <G�� *�� $�� "�� $�� "� �� *�G@ ��99�� *��<<�*�� 0�� "'�� 2��4��*��'�

�74� ��$��$� �� 2�� 7�� "��9��4� �� $��$�� 0� �� *�� 0� �� *9�� 0��*� �� 9�9�� *��$ �� 7�� (��$��$�$�# �� 0��*��$ �� 7�� $ # $�$�7��(��0��*9�� '�

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

21 �

��

?".&#$,5�?�� </'� ��*�� $� ��*�� 2�� 1'4� �� '�8�4�.��-'��'�E��0��'� 2�$�4��9��%��'��"��"�'��"�'��%4� �� 99'�<8?<68'�D�� C�� $�1�$'��@��I� ��$�� "$�*'�

?.#$,#&5� ��5��0','1%5��:��*+%&*��<8B'�C��7��$>��*�F��0��$��*9��0�� 9�� 9�9�$� ��!�!%�%�� O�� <6/6� 2)��>�)�� " $��4'�,��:��'�;��&1��8@�/A<?/A/'�

?.*7$"5� �5� �""0#$5� ?�5� �A�#..*&&5� ��5� �*.+#$5� ��5� :� �� A�'$$"',"��8'��0�+� ��(��B'�� +�� ,�9��'�

�*6&"25��5� �(�#.$"25� �5� B#(C%*$5��5� �#%%"35��5� �"$$",25��5� :��1&32��<'� %�� 0� �� 2��!�!%�%�� 3��4� �� *�$��*�� +��$2<;��4'�0��1�,��0��8��'�

�"6#.3+"$3� *-� �*++1$'(#3'*$%5� 34"� �#.'$"� #$,� �#31.#&� "%*1.("%�� '�� "� �� '� />� �00�� 0 �0 �� 0��*�� P� �� *�� "� ��$��'��

�'$%3#,5�?�5�?D*.$5� ��5��.'+$"%5��:��)',%3"$��'�1�7��$�0 ��$� �#�� "�� 0� ��*�� Q��!�!%�%�� 2��3��4R� �0�� *��2��1'4�9��?�*��'��<��%��/�@�8;?6�/'�

�*0#$%5�9 ��:��B��.1,"#1��<6'�� * ��$ ��7 ��"��0�� $� ��!�!%�%�� 2)�9�9�$�>�)�� "� $�4�9�� "�?��$��*�� $�� 1� ��.��0��$�'� ��"��)��%��!��'�=��%��"��<��*��>�<@�<A�99'�

B#(C%*$5��5��*6&"25��5��#$"5��5��#1043*$5��5��"$$",25��5�:� ��A�*$*4*"��;'� %� �� 0� *�� "� �� 0��*�$� ��*�� $�'�8�� S��>�-%&1�-%��1�-%��1�-%��?�5�@A��D$ ��$�7��&��7T1�9��"��'�B)%��!��'��'��%��*��A��'��%��+��8��"�0��1�8��"��99��?<�;'�

B#(C%*$5��:��'$(4'$�� <�'� ��9�� 0� �� 9��$�� #�� 9�� 0� � �� " $��9�9�$� �9�� #��$� ��*��'�8�*�� !�"��*��C�*��!��@�68?�'�

B*$"%5��9 �5��*++".)'&&"5��:�B��?.*$��<�'�%�� 9��"�� $� ��F�#�� "��0��!�!%�%�� *��1'�:��'�=��%�C��/@�/�/?/<�'�

B*$%,*33'.5��5�?.*$5�B��5�9**33"$5��:�B��1.$;1&&��<�'�%�� 9��"�� $� �� 9��?�$�� $� �$�� "�� 0� ��!�!%�%�� *��1'�:��'�=��%�C��<@�;�<?;�8'�

�#;#3#5�E��<8A'��$�*�$��0�0��$ �"��0�)�� " $��2)�9�9�$�4��9�� 0�0 ��$��* ��$�7�� "�� $� �� "� �� * ��9�'�:��'� �%��=��%��%�/��"�'� ��"��/��@�<;6/?<;66'�

�#;#3#5�E��<8'�9�� !�!"��'�/��%�=��%��'�%��,�� 1��$��'�

�#(�'$$*$5�?�� <6'�C�� 0�� *9�� 0�� '�8 7��:��'�0��<<@�<66?<�'�

+� �� .�� '�/��

22

�(�#.$"25� �5��*6&"25��5��"$$",25��5��1&325��:��B#(C%*$�� '�� #��0�� 2��!�!%�%��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�?��<'�=��%��'��1�0��8��'�

�*&#$5��5�"'&&25� ��:��9"$,"&##.�?*$0#��<'�+�0�� *7��0� �� !�!%�%�� 2��3��4� �$�� ?��$��00�� 9��?�*�� *��2��1'4'� ��"��:��'�=��%��"��<��1�<�@�A8?;'�

�*&#$5��5�1#$"5��5�)#$�,".��"'D,"$5� �5�F1#;'1%5��5��*%3"&&*"5�B��:��9"$,"&##.�?*$0#�� '� &�#�� !�!%�%�� 2��3��4� �00�� $� " ��0� �� 7� � ��$��%&��%��&+�� 2@��7��*4� ��$� ��9��$� �"�9��$��'��<��%��/�@�6�/?6//'�

�A�*$*4*"5� �5��#$"5��5��"&&25��5��'G*$5� �5� *7".5��5��#1043*$5��:��B#(C%*$�� 6'�� #�� 0� �� 2��!�!%�%�� 3�� $� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�?��8'�8��%�=��%��/��,�#�1�0��8��'�

�A�*$*4*"5� �5��"$$",25��5��#$"5��5��#1043*$5��5��'G*$5� �5� *7".5��:��B#(C%*$�� 8'�� #�� 0� �� 2��!�!%�%�� 3�� $� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�?��B'�8��%�=��%��/��,��1�0��8��'�

�A�*$*4*"5� �5��"$$",25��5��#$"5��5��#1043*$5��5��'G*$5� �5� *7".5��:��B#(C%*$�� B'�� #�� 0� �� 2��!�!%�%�� 3�� $� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�?��;'�8��%�=��%��/��,��.1�0��8��'�

�A�*$*4*"5� �5��"$$",25��5��#$"5��5��#1043*$5��5��'".$"25��:��B#(C%*$��;'� �� #�� 0� �� 2��!�!%�%�� 3�� $� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�?��A'�8��%�=��%��/��,��1�0��8��'�

�A�*$*4*"5� �5��"$$",25��5��#$"5��5��#1043*$5��5��'".$"25��5��*6&"25��:��B#(C%*$��A'�� #��0�� 2��!�!%�%��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�?��/'�=��%��'��.1�0��8��'�

�A�*$*4*"5� �5��"$$",25��5��*6&"25��5��#$"5��5��#1043*$5��:��B#(C%*$��/'� �� #�� 0� �� 2��!�!%�%�� 3�� $� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�?��'�=��%��'��#1�0��8��'�

'C"5��9 �� <6'� �� ?� *�F��9��"�� 0� 0��*�$� �� *��'�9��&�)"�&��<@��<?�8'�

�(4.#+5� �� </'� ��99��*�� $�� 9� �� 0� �� $�#��9*�� "�� 0��!�!%�%��2��3��<6/84�2)�9�9�$�>�)�� " $��4'�8�4�.��-'��'�E��0��'�2�$�4��9��%��'��"��"�'��"�'��%4��99'�/�?A8'�D�� C�� $�1�$'��@��I� ��$�� "$�*'�

9**3"$5��5��+'345�B��9 ��:��"",4#+�� <6�'��9��0� ��7 ��"��0� ��9�� 9�9�$�� !�!%�%�� $� �� 0��*�$��*�� $�� $� �� *��'�9��"��'��%��&��&�'�7"�� %1��?>�<6;?<8'��

�

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

23 �

� ��!��"#$�%"#�&'("�&")"&%�*$�%#&+*$',�-#.+%�'$��

Date L.salmonis C.elongatus

F + eggs Total F + eggs Total

BANTRY BAY

JOHN POWER LTD.

Waterfall

Rainbow Trout, 2007 (1) 15/01/2008 0.95 3.95 2.57 3.81

06/02/2008 0.33 1.54 0.77 0.92

04/03/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

19/03/2008 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03

02/04/2008 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00

15/04/2008 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.17

08/05/2008 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.02

22/05/2008 0.00 0.13 0.15 0.25

13/06/2008 0.03 0.12 0.02 0.10

18/07/2008 0.03 0.21 0.06 0.11

20/08/2008 0.07 0.22 0.07 0.14

Harvested out

MURPHYS IRISH SEAFOOD

Cuan Baoi

Atlantic Salmon, 2008 S1/2 16/01/2008 0.00 0.12 1.20 2.80

06/02/2008 0.00 0.07 0.96 1.22

04/03/2008 0.00 0.07 1.28 4.07

18/03/2008 0.03 0.13 2.37 5.13

02/04/2008 0.00 0.35 2.19 3.46

15/04/2008 0.00 0.15 0.76 2.18

08/05/2008 0.06 0.29 0.77 2.35

21/05/2008 0.03 0.16 0.84 2.55

12/06/2008 0.00 0.00 0.45 1.00

17/07/2008 0.03 0.10 0.13 0.33

20/08/2008 0.00 0.08 0.15 0.23

08/09/2008 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00

14/10/2008 0.20 0.20 0.48 0.76

04/11/2008 0.07 0.21 0.62 1.00

+� �� .�� '�/��

24

SILVER KING SEAFOODS LTD.

Roancarraig

Atlantic Salmon, 2007 16/01/2008 Harvested out


06/02/2008 0.02 0.27 0.44 1.23

04/03/2008 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00

19/03/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

02/04/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

15/04/2008 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00

08/05/2008 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.10

22/05/2008 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.65

13/06/2008 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.16

18/07/2008 0.03 0.16 0.38 0.70

20/08/2008 0.09 0.64 0.91 1.36

08/09/2008 0.08 0.42 0.93 1.72

14/10/2008 0.25 0.61 0.28 0.79

05/11/2008 0.17 0.40 0.20 0.40

KENMARE BAY

SILVER KING SEAFOODS LTD.

Inishfarnard

Atlantic Salmon, 2008 08/05/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

22/05/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

13/06/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

18/07/2008 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.19

20/08/2008 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03

08/09/2008 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00

14/10/2008 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.14

05/11/2008 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

25 �

GREATMAN'S BAY

MUIR GHAEL TEO.

Carraroe

Atlantic Salmon, 2008 30/04/2008 Missed due to technical difficulties

07/05/2008 0.00 0.57 0.14 0.35

20/05/2008 0.00 0.59 0.29 0.71

10/06/2008 0.00 0.04 0.27 0.53

08/07/2008 0.14 0.88 1.03 1.14

19/08/2008 0.27 1.73 0.03 0.05

17/09/2008 1.82 14.24 0.23 0.39

31/10/2008 2.59 5.82 0.00 0.00

Transferred to Cnoc

MUIRACHMHAINNI TEO.

Cuigeal


01/05/2008 0.00 1.29 0.13 0.26

15/05/2008 0.02 0.64 0.15 0.25

17/06/2008 0.74 3.05 0.85 1.50

17/07/2008 0.12 2.10 0.13 0.17

07/08/2008 0.85 6.00 0.22 0.30

03/09/2008 0.29 2.84 0.00 0.00

Transferred to Daonish

+� �� .�� '�/��

26

KILKIERAN BAY

EISC UI FLATHARTHA TEO.

Ardmore


27/02/2008 0.45 2.64 0.00 0.00

13/03/2008 1.00 10.64 0.02 0.02

27/03/2008 0.91 13.00 0.00 0.23

10/04/2008 0.18 1.15 0.03 0.03

22/04/2008 0.19 3.18 0.02 0.02

13/05/2008 0.22 2.90 0.00 0.00

28/05/2008 1.39 15.28 0.19 0.35

19/06/2008 4.15 9.90 0.00 0.02

22/07/2008 9.36 19.68 0.00 0.00

Harvested Out


12/11/2008 7.41 21.50 0.02 0.04

MUIR GHAEL TEO.

Birbeag


27/05/2008 1.61 7.28 0.16 0.23

27/06/2008 0.27 7.41 0.02 0.17

16/07/2008 0.83 8.44 0.08 0.10

31/08/2008 Missed due to technical difficulties and weather

01/09/2008 0.49 16.91 0.00 0.00

Transferred to Ardmore

Cnoc


27/02/2008 1.06 7.21 0.00 0.00

13/03/2008 1.49 8.09 0.00 0.02

27/03/2008 0.94 23.33 0.00 0.00

09/04/2008 0.17 2.17 0.00 0.00

25/04/2008 0.15 11.63 0.07 0.07



20/11/2008 2.03 21.01 0.00 0.00

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

27 �

Lettercallow


27/02/2008 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00

13/03/2008 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00

27/03/2008 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00

09/04/2008 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00

25/04/2008 0.02 1.48 0.00 0.00

13/05/2008 0.14 2.97 0.00 0.02

Transferred to Carraig na Meachain

The Gurrig


05/02/2008 0.31 7.51 0.00 0.00

05/03/2008 0.20 2.83 0.00 0.00

20/03/2008 0.25 3.30 0.00 0.00

03/04/2008 0.21 7.11 0.00 0.00

18/04/2008 0.07 2.96 0.00 0.02

Transferred to Birbeag

Carraig na Meachain


30/06/2008 1.79 13.09 0.78 1.70

16/07/2008 3.94 14.67 0.05 0.19

31/08/2008 Missed due to technical difficulties and weather

01/09/2008 7.98 30.02 0.10 0.15

Transferred to Cnoc

MUIRACHMHAINNI TEO.

Daonish


12/02/2008 1.13 23.00 0.00 0.02

06/03/2008 0.35 3.67 0.00 0.00

19/03/2008 0.63 10.08 0.02 0.12

02/04/2008 0.54 9.47 0.03 0.08

15/04/2008 2.02 7.55 0.07 0.10

08/05/2008 0.18 5.82 0.03 0.13

22/05/2008 0.17 16.35 0.10 0.22

24/06/2008 4.93 11.87 0.00 0.04

23/07/2008 7.44 27.77 0.00 0.00

Harvested out

+� �� .�� '�/��

28


22/10/2008 2.97 13.54 0.00 0.02

20/11/2008 3.16 17.02 0.00 0.21

Golam


12/02/2008 0.14 2.66 0.05 0.06

05/03/2008 0.14 1.76 0.04 0.04

20/03/2008 0.12 1.67 0.02 0.02

03/04/2008 0.04 1.22 0.02 0.02

15/04/2008 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00

01/05/2008 0.00 1.20 0.07 0.20

Transferred to Red Flag

Red Flag


20/06/2008 0.36 6.70 1.20 2.44

17/07/2008 0.88 4.62 0.38 0.60

07/08/2008 5.11 35.43 0.11 0.18


��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

29 �

MANNIN BAY

MANNIN BAY SALMON COMPANY LTD.

Corhounagh

Atlantic Salmon, 2006 15/01/2008 Transferred to Ballinakill

Atlantic Salmon, 2007 18/03/2008 0.82 28.09 0.00 0.00

27/03/2008 0.84 29.90 0.10 0.10

15/04/2008 9.63 26.57 0.03 0.10

29/04/2008 11.28 23.93 0.10 0.38

15/05/2008 1.39 4.74 0.00 0.00

30/05/2008 3.03 10.16 0.00 0.00

18/06/2008 5.69 17.88 0.00 0.03

28/07/2008 7.42 17.55 0.00 0.00

Harvested Out

CLIFDEN BAY

MANNIN BAY SALMON COMPANY LTD.

Hawks Nest

Atlantic Salmon, 2007 15/01/2008 6.29 28.35 0.05 0.07

15/02/2008 3.00 31.65 0.00 0.00

Transferred to Corhounagh


15/05/2008 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00

30/05/2008 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00

18/06/2008 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00

01/07/2008 0.02 0.65 0.00 0.02

22/08/2008 0.87 5.05 0.00 0.02

17/09/2008 1.90 13.23 0.00 0.00

08/10/2008 0.02 2.10 0.00 0.02

04/11/2008 0.14 1.11 0.02 0.02

+� �� .�� '�/��

30

BALLINAKILL HARBOUR

BIFAND LTD.

Fraochoilean


21/02/2008 2.93 6.83 0.33 0.43

04/03/2008 3.40 8.73 0.13 0.17

25/03/2008 2.48 9.63 0.26 0.52

10/04/2008 2.22 28.22 0.31 0.50

24/04/2008 4.33 59.33 0.07 0.07

Transferred to Corhounagh


21/02/2008 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.02

04/03/2008 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00

25/03/2008 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.02

10/04/2008 0.05 4.89 0.00 0.03

24/04/2008 0.23 18.05 0.00 0.00

16/05/2008 0.15 6.25 0.00 0.00

30/05/2008 0.06 0.69 0.00 0.00

20/06/2008 0.04 3.06 0.20 0.34

10/07/2008 0.36 1.52 0.00 0.00

13/08/2008 0.56 1.87 0.00 0.00

17/09/2008 1.26 7.34 0.00 0.00

08/10/2008 2.25 7.24 0.02 0.02

04/11/2008 4.52 45.97 0.02 0.10

Ballinakill

Atlantic Salmon, 2006 22/01/2008 0.86 7.87 0.00 0.00

21/02/2008 6.59 18.09 0.00 0.00

04/03/2008 4.78 11.89 0.11 0.11

25/03/2008 7.88 40.38 0.19 0.25

10/04/2008 12.50 71.50 0.00 0.10

30/04/2008 0.10 0.70 0.00 0.00

Harvested out

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

31 �

KILLARY HARBOUR

CELTIC ATLANTIC SALMON (KILLARY) LTD.

Inishdeighil

Atlantic Salmon, 2007 22/01/2008 Transferred to Rosroe


01/05/2008 0.00 5.01 0.00 0.00

20/05/2008 0.02 2.22 0.00 0.00

19/06/2008 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00

10/07/2008 0.00 4.92 0.00 0.03

22/08/2008 1.75 10.09 0.00 0.00

18/09/2008 0.74 6.05 0.04 0.06

31/10/2008 Missed due to technical reasons

13/11/2008 0.90 8.53 0.07 0.08

Rosroe

Atlantic Salmon, 2007 22/01/2008 0.12 0.92 0.00 0.00

12/02/2008 0.29 5.37 0.02 0.02

14/03/2008 0.39 1.75 0.00 0.00

28/03/2008 0.14 1.00 0.04 0.04

11/04/2008 0.17 35.36 0.04 0.17

30/04/2008 Missed due to technical difficulties

01/05/2008 0.11 5.09 0.06 0.06

20/05/2008 1.44 67.36 0.07 0.16

19/06/2008 3.61 5.47 0.00 0.00

10/07/2008 3.18 25.43 0.09 0.29

22/08/2008 7.84 118.11 0.05 0.05

Harvested out

+� �� .�� '�/��

32

CLEW BAY

CLARE ISLAND SEAFARMS LTD.

Clare Island Smolt Site

Atlantic Salmon, 2008 13/05/2008 0.00 0.70 0.02 0.02

27/05/2008 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00

19/06/2008 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.12

25/07/2008 0.07 0.21 0.18 0.28

19/08/2008 0.20 0.73 0.15 0.23

12/09/2008 0.24 1.14 0.10 0.20

15/10/2008 0.45 3.53 0.04 0.09

Transferred to Portlea

Portlea

Atlantic Salmon, 2007 16/01/2008 0.04 4.87 0.02 0.02

06/02/2008 0.38 6.44 0.09 0.18

06/03/2008 2.31 6.57 0.23 0.37

25/03/2008 0.49 1.50 0.02 0.02

04/04/2008 0.20 0.49 0.02 0.02

21/04/2008 0.17 6.27 0.02 0.22

13/05/2008 0.08 1.34 0.02 0.15

27/05/2008 0.39 2.90 0.21 0.31

19/06/2008 1.00 1.65 0.14 0.25

25/07/2008 0.97 3.09 0.02 0.07

19/08/2008 1.04 3.11 0.05 0.13

12/09/2008 2.23 11.23 0.37 0.73

Transferred to Seastream Inner

Atlantic Salmon, 2008 19/11/2008 0.28 1.00 0.04 0.04

Seastream Inner

Atlantic Salmon, 2006 16/01/2008 1.02 1.64 0.04 0.05

06/02/2008 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00

06/03/2008 0.23 2.22 0.06 0.06

20/03/2008 0.35 3.04 0.08 0.11

04/04/2008 0.90 1.97 0.17 0.27

17/04/2008 0.97 5.93 0.10 0.14

13/05/2008 1.54 12.42 0.13 0.13

Harvested out

Atlantic Salmon, 2007 15/10/2008 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00

19/11/2008 5.00 12.62 0.37 0.44

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

33 �

BEALACRAGHER BAY

CURRAN FISHERIES LTD.

Curraun

Rainbow Trout, 2007 (2) 15/01/2008 0.77 5.35 0.00 0.03

06/02/2008 0.13 1.47 0.00 0.00

06/03/2008 0.06 0.35 0.00 0.00

20/03/2008 0.04 0.36 0.00 0.00

03/04/2008 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00

17/04/2008 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00

13/05/2008 Harvested out

Rainbow Trout, 2007 (3) 15/01/2008 0.17 4.00 0.00 0.00

06/02/2008 0.15 0.59 0.00 0.00

06/03/2008 0.04 0.41 0.00 0.00

20/03/2008 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00

03/04/2008 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00

17/04/2008 0.03 0.27 0.00 0.00

13/05/2008 0.06 0.84 0.00 0.00

27/05/2008 0.10 0.70 0.00 0.00

19/06/2008 1.60 3.50 0.00 0.00

25/07/2008 0.57 3.13 0.00 0.00

25/08/2008 9.00 29.11 0.00 0.00

25/09/2008 21.63 62.31 0.00 0.00

15/10/2008 1.28 3.86 0.00 0.00

Harvested out

Rainbow Trout, 2008 (1) 13/05/2008 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00

27/05/2008 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.03

19/06/2008 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00

25/07/2008 0.47 8.50 0.00 0.00

25/08/2008 0.81 18.97 0.00 0.00

25/09/2008 1.80 30.13 0.00 0.00

15/10/2008 0.38 2.34 0.00 0.00

20/11/2008 0.77 8.08 0.00 0.00

Rainbow Trout, 2008 (2) 20/11/2008 0.00 4.46 0.00 0.00

+� �� .�� '�/��

34

DONEGAL BAY

EANY FISH PRODUCTS LTD.

Inver Bay

Rainbow Trout, 2007 (1) 18/12/2007 Harvested out

Rainbow Trout, 2007 (2) 18/12/2007 0.29 1.29 0.03 0.05

06/02/2008 0.04 0.58 0.00 0.00

14/03/2008 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00

27/03/2008 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.04

09/04/2008 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.03

23/04/2008 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00

08/05/2008 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.03

20/05/2008 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00

18/06/2008 0.05 0.38 0.29 0.52

Harvested out

Rainbow Trout, 2007 (3) 18/12/2007 0.05 0.44 0.00 0.06

06/02/2008 0.07 3.07 0.00 0.00

14/03/2008 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00

27/03/2008 0.05 0.80 0.00 0.10

09/04/2008 0.00 0.28 0.04 0.04

23/04/2008 0.03 0.24 0.13 0.15

08/05/2008 0.02 0.25 0.13 0.13

20/05/2008 0.00 0.65 0.05 0.05

18/06/2008 0.04 0.27 0.44 0.72

08/07/2008 0.00 0.13 0.14 0.14

12/08/2008 0.02 0.20 0.02 0.04

09/09/2008 0.06 0.44 0.03 0.03

08/10/2008 1.03 5.93 0.13 0.13

13/11/2008 1.27 9.21 0.02 0.13

Rainbow Trout, 2008 (1) 08/05/2008 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00

20/05/2008 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00

18/06/2008 0.00 0.02 0.68 1.17

08/07/2008 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.75

12/08/2008 0.02 0.20 0.10 0.19

09/09/2008 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.06

08/10/2008 0.07 1.41 0.06 0.09

13/11/2008 0.40 4.38 0.03 0.06

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

35 �

MARINE HARVEST

Mc Swynes

Atlantic Salmon, 2007 18/12/2007 0.19 0.45 0.61 0.88

06/02/2008 0.03 0.13 0.16 0.31

14/03/2008 0.05 2.77 1.22 2.21

27/03/2008 0.75 3.06 1.04 2.35

10/04/2008 1.26 3.04 1.75 3.07

24/04/2008 2.06 4.22 1.94 3.97

08/05/2008 0.02 0.10 0.49 0.99

20/05/2008 0.00 0.45 0.04 0.16

18/06/2008 1.71 2.62 0.36 0.44

08/07/2008 0.14 0.25 0.00 0.00

12/08/2008 0.74 1.52 0.00 0.00

09/09/2008 0.90 2.36 0.00 0.00

08/10/2008 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00

13/11/2008 0.02 1.33 0.00 0.00

Ocean Inver


06/02/2008 0.11 1.51 0.05 0.13

14/03/2008 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00

27/03/2008 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00

10/04/2008 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00

24/04/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

08/05/2008 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02

20/05/2008 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00

18/06/2008 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.07

08/07/2008 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00

12/08/2008 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.22

09/09/2008 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.03

08/10/2008 0.07 0.25 0.02 0.02

13/11/2008 0.33 1.16 0.02 0.03

+� �� .�� '�/��

36

MULROY BAY

MARINE HARVEST

Glinsk

Atlantic Salmon, 2008 16/04/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

08/05/2008 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00

20/05/2008 0.00 0.75 0.03 0.06

10/06/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

15/07/2008 0.17 1.11 0.18 0.22

06/08/2008 0.03 1.97 0.22 0.26

11/09/2008 1.71 15.51 0.20 0.24

07/10/2008 3.86 15.83 0.32 0.48

13/11/2008 0.07 8.15 0.17 0.27

Millstone

Atlantic Salmon, 2006 08/01/2008 0.33 2.40 0.00 0.00

Harvested out

Atlantic Salmon, 2007 10/06/2008 2.15 7.22 0.22 0.24

15/07/2008 0.38 3.17 0.00 0.00

06/08/2008 1.91 6.44 0.02 0.04

11/09/2008 5.12 21.95 0.02 0.04

07/10/2008 4.59 50.44 0.02 0.22

13/11/2008 1.10 6.87 0.03 0.17


05/02/2008 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.04

04/03/2008 0.00 4.48 0.04 0.04

19/03/2008 0.05 3.09 0.02 0.07

02/04/2008 0.14 3.60 0.07 0.15

16/04/2008 0.07 1.92 0.05 0.05

08/05/2008 0.15 4.40 0.17 0.40

20/05/2008 1.34 11.78 0.48 0.92

Harvested out

��'�� #��0��1 ��2��3��$� ��$*��4�� *�� +��$�5��6�

37 �

Moross 1

Atlantic Salmon, 2007 08/01/2008 1.40 21.38 0.04 0.22

05/02/2008 0.88 6.60 0.00 0.00

04/03/2008 0.14 5.05 0.00 0.02

19/03/2008 0.25 7.70 0.00 0.02

02/04/2008 0.42 7.45 0.03 0.05

16/04/2008 1.31 4.71 0.02 0.07

08/05/2008 1.35 4.52 0.04 0.05

21/05/2008 0.99 3.72 0.00 0.00

Transferred to Millstone

LOUGH SWILLY

MARINE HARVEST

Lough Swilly

Atlantic Salmon, 2006 08/01/2008 0.98 11.44 0.00 0.07

Harvested out


06/02/2008 0.00 1.78 0.00 0.00

04/03/2008 0.25 10.77 0.37 1.54

19/03/2008 1.09 13.45 0.88 2.60

02/04/2008 0.57 1.72 0.28 0.37

16/04/2008 0.42 1.20 0.14 0.20

08/05/2008 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00

20/05/2008 0.00 1.63 0.05 0.22

10/06/2008 1.38 2.34 0.24 0.34

15/07/2008 1.03 3.95 0.02 0.02

06/08/2008 5.22 11.92 0.02 0.07

11/09/2008 3.50 20.73 0.00 0.00

Harvested out

A strategy for improved pest control on Irish salmon farms

May 2008

Executive Summary Marine finfish production in Ireland grew steadily throughout the 1990s;

production in 2001 reached a high point of 24,000 tonnes but declined to

13,318 tonnes by 2006, due in some part to a lack of profitability and

consequent liquidity in the sector. 2007 saw a small increase in production

levels to 13,800 tonnes. The Minimum Import Price (MIP), a trade correction

measure introduced by the European Union in 2005, has stabilised farmed

salmon prices in a market which was being distorted by below-cost-selling in

the European market. The MIP has provided the Irish industry with an

opportunity to trade its way back to prosperity and to a position where it can

once again increase output. The Irish industry acts as an important socio-

economic driver in a number of rural and coastal communities by providing a

source of local employment both full time and seasonal.

Farmed salmon is now the most commonly eaten fish in Europe, because of

its year round availability and its versatility from a culinary perspective.

The ecto-parasitic sea louse, a tiny crustacean, is an economically significant

pest of the farmed salmon industry worldwide. It is important, both from a farm

management point of view and in the context of possible negative interactions

with wild migratory salmonid populations, that this pest be tightly controlled.

Accordingly, a mandatory national sea lice monitoring and control regime

regime which features so-called ‘treatment-trigger-levels’ has been put in

place, which aims to keep the level of infestation on marine salmon farms as

low as possible. Achieving the desired level of control of this parasite has

proved to be a challenging proposition in some areas in recent years

The pest has shown itself to be very resilient and it has the ability to rapidly

develop resistance to the limited range of veterinary medicines that are

available to treat it. Levels of infestation were successfully controlled, by and

large, through the 1990s, but since 2002/2003 it has been more difficult for

the salmon farmers, despite their best efforts, to achieve the very low levels of

infestation required by the national control programme. The causes of this

difficulty are multifactorial and include: a succession of warm winter sea

temperatures, resistance by the pest to the veterinary medicines, limited

access to ‘fallowing sites’ for temporal and spatial separation of stocks and

other complicating fish health problems.

The control of sea lice has been afforded a high priority by the State since

1991 and Irish salmon farms are the subject of a rigorous and transparent

inspection regime carried out by the Marine Institute on behalf of the

Government. This monitoring programme is backed up by mandatory

licensing requirements imposed on fin-fish farmers through a protocol on

management and control.

A Sea Lice Monitoring and Control Working Group was established by the

then Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in 2005,

comprised of representatives of the Department, the Fisheries Boards, Marine

Institute and an Bord Iascaigh Mhara to examine/review the systems and

processes for controlling sea lice levels at marine finfish farms. The Group’s

deliberations were wholly inconclusive and it was unable to reach any

consensus on the way forward at the time of the transfer of aquaculture

licensing functions to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Since the establishment of the new Department of Fisheries, Agriculture and

Food (DAFF) the Department and the Marine Institute have continued to work

on the issue of enhanced sea lice control.

The following report outlines a comprehensive range of measures to provide

for enhanced sea lice control.

The report makes the following recommendations:

1. A joint DAFF/industry working group to be established to identify

“break out” site options in areas which have persistent sea lice problems.

These options would include the possibility of using redundant sites, to

optimise fallowing and separation of generations.

2. Effective and appropriate use of chemical intervention to be reviewed

to take ongoing account of changing environmental conditions, developing

farming practices, sensitivity of lice to treatments and fish health issues.

3. The increased availability of well boat capacity coming on stream in the

industry to be utilised for controlled bath treatments.

4. The optimisation of product rotation for strategic treatments should be

given further consideration as a matter of urgency.

5. BIM and the Marine Institute to engage in intensive consultation with

the fish farming industry, both with individual fish farmers and representative

organisations, to ensure ongoing optimisation of management practices and

to report back to the Minister within four months.

6. BIM and the Marine Institute to immediately establish a working group

to report in three months on the potential of alternative treatment approaches

and to set out the steps necessary to introduce these approaches.

7. A national implementation group to be established comprising

appropriate representation from:

The Coastal Zone Management, Veterinary and Seafood Policy Divisions of

the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food;

An Bord Iascaigh Mhara;

Marine Institute; and

Industry representatives.

The group is to provide the Minister, within six months of it’s establishment,

with a full update of the actual situation on the ground, the progress made to

reduce sea lice levels and the further steps required, if any, to redress the

situation.

8. A New role for SBM (Single Bay Management) as a focus for

management cells to manage sea lice control at a local and regional level

reporting to the national implementation group.

Table of Contents

Section 1: Background.................................................................................1

1.1. ................................................1 Marine Finfish Aquaculture in Ireland

1.2 ...........................5 An Overview of the Challenges facing the industry

1.3 ...........................................................................6 What are Sea Lice?

1.4 ............................................................6 What effect do sea lice have?

Section 2: .................................................................8 Sea Lice Monitoring2.1 .......................................................................................8 Background

2.2 ........................................................................9 Purpose of Monitoring

2.3 ....................................................................................10 2007 Trends

2.4 .................................................................................12 Annual Trends

2.5 .....................................................................13 Management Strategy

2.6 ...........................................................14 Trigger Levels for Treatment

2.7 ...........................................................................15 Sampling Strategy

Section 3: .....................................17 Co-ordinated Management Systems3.1. ..................................................................17 Single Bay Management

3.2. ............................................................................................17 CLAMS

3.3 .........................................................................................18 Fallowing

Section 4: .........................................................21 The Problem in Context4.1 ...................................................................................21 Best Practice

4.2 .............................................................22 Causes of Current Difficulty

4.3 .......................................22 Potential Alternative Method of Treatment

4.4 Review of lice control methods........................................................24

4.5 .........................................................26 Solutions / Response Options

Section 5: ............................................................................27 ConclusionsSection 6. Recommendations and Action Plan ........................................28

Appendices...................................................................................................33

Section 1: Background

1.1. Marine Finfish Aquaculture in Ireland

In the global context, aquaculture has grown significantly over recent

decades, with annual growth of the order of 10% since 1990. It is the fastest

growing area of food production. The industry is also characterised by

ongoing diversification and innovation, including the cultivation of new

species.

Salmon farming started in Ireland commercially in or around 1978. The first

significant company was Curraun Fisheries Ltd (at the time a wholly owned

subsidiary of Guinnesss Ireland Plc). There was a debate for a few years as to

which species (Atlantic salmon or Rainbow trout) would be the more suitable

for cultivation, with salmon winning out eventually as their survival at sea was

better and they fetched a higher price. Roughly 350 tonnes of farmed salmon

were produced in 1980 at a value of about €2.6million (prices were very high

at that time as the fish were a rarity).

Since its initial trial development in the early 1970s, the Irish industry has

grown to become a significant contributor to local economies. The Irish

aquaculture industry provides fulltime and part time employment for some

2,000 people and had a value in 2007 of €131m. Production of farmed

salmon in 2007was estimated at 13,800 tonnes. BIM estimated that 410

people were employed in finfish farming during 2005, of which 247 were full-

time.

Irish output, however, is tiny by international standards. By way of

comparison the two main world producers of farmed salmon, Norway and

Chile, accounted for production of approximately 670,000 tonnes RWE1 and

approximately 660,000 tonnes RWE respectively, in 2006. Scotland the

nearest salmon farming country had an output of about 150,000 tonnes RWE

in 2006. Thus the Irish sector is less than one eleventh the size of its nearest

neighbour and about one fiftieth the size of its main competitors.

1 Salmon production is given as Round Weight Equivalent – i.e. the harvest weight of the fish after is has been starved and bled.

- 1 -

There are three distinct regions in Ireland where marine salmonid farming is

carried out, illustrated on the maps (courtesy of the Marine Institute)

below:

The West (Counties Mayo and Galway),

Salmon farm sites in south Connemara

Sites used in 2006= red

Sites not used in 2006= orange

- 2 -

Salmon farm sites in Mayo and north Connemara



- 3 -

Salmon farm sites in the Southwest (Counties Cork and Kerry)

Salmon farm sites in the Northwest (Co. Donegal)



- 4 -

Finfish production in Ireland grew steadily throughout the 1990s; production in

2001 was as high as 24,000 tonnes but declined to c.12,000 tonnes by 20062.

The Cawley Report (Steering a New Course – Strategy for a Restructured,

Sustainable and Profitable Irish Seafood Industry 2007-2013) identified

market factors (salmon prices earlier this decade plummeted due to below

cost selling) as the dominant cause for the decline. The European Union

introduced Minimum Import Prices in 2005 and farmed salmon prices have

stabilised significantly since then.

The Cawley Report also noted that sub-optimal stock performance due to fish

health problems had also had a negative impact on the Irish industry. The

report cites recent improvements in husbandry, stock breeding and feeding

practices as the basis on which this issue is being addressed. The report

acknowledges that in recent years the Irish industry has not been an attractive

investment option, owing to the foregoing difficulties and also to shortcomings

in the regulatory framework.

1.2 An Overview of the Challenges facing the industry

The biggest challenges facing the Irish salmon farming industry, as identified

by the Cawley Report, revolve around the issues of public acceptance,

proportionate regulation and the efficient control of pests and other fish health

problems. At a national level, there is a concerted effort underway to

streamline the regulatory arrangements and to engender a better

understanding of the sector and its importance. At a local level, in many

areas, the CLAMS process (Co-ordinated Local Aquaculture Management

System) and the SBM (Single Bay Management) scheme approaches are

being used to address these challenges.

Marine finfish farms are also perceived by anglers and wild fisheries interests

to be problematic because of the proximity of some operations to river mouths

and a concern over the possible impact on wild migratory salmonid fisheries.

The Irish salmon farming industry has, for some time, expressed the need for

2 Browne R, Deegan B, O’Carroll T, Norman M and Ó Cinnéide M. 2007. Status of Irish Aquaculture 2006. Merc Consultants

- 5 -

the provision of more sites for fallowing and separation of generations

purposes. However, new applications have been slow to come forward in

recent years, possibly due to the complex nature of the licensing process and

uncertainties associated with the aquaculture licence appeals process.

However, there are a number of underutilised licensed sites which are thought

to hold significant break out potential for current operators. The use of these

sites by existing operators to separate generations of fish and facilitate better

management practices has begun to emerge.

1.3 What are Sea Lice?

Sea lice are a group of parasitic copepods found on fish world wide. There are

two species of sea lice commonly found on cultured salmonids in marine

conditions around the coast of Ireland, Caligus elongatus Nordmann, which

infests over eighty different species of marine fish, and Lepeophtheirus

salmonis Krøyer (the salmon louse), which infests only salmon, trout and

closely related salmonid species. L. salmonis, the salmon louse, is the more

serious parasite on salmon, both in terms of its prevalence and effects. It has

been reported as a common ecto-parasite of both wild and farmed salmon at

sea.

Returning wild salmon have been found to carry an average of 10 or more

adult egg bearing females on their return to the Irish coastline from their

feeding grounds in the Atlantic. Having evolved their relationship with salmon

and trout over many millennia, the parasite is extremely well adapted to target

its host species and it is ubiquitous to all the coastal waters around Ireland

and indeed throughout the range of the Atlantic salmon.

Salmon, whether wild or cultured, go to sea from fresh water free of sea lice

and only pick up the infestation after they enter the marine phase of their lives.

1.4 What effect do sea lice have?

Sea lice infestations can have commercially damaging effects on cultured

salmon. They inflict damage to their hosts through their feeding activity on the

outside of the host's body. Sea lice affect farmed salmon stock by damaging

the integrity of the fish’s epithelium, which impairs its osmoregulatory ability

- 6 -

and leaves the fish open to secondary infections. The net effect of infestation,

especially if it is left unchecked, is a reduced growth rate and an increased

morbidity.

Sea lice and sea lice infestation of salmon have no implications for human health or seafood safety.

- 7 -

Section 2: Sea Lice Monitoring

2.1 Background

Monitoring of lice infestation levels on salmonid farms in Ireland was initiated

in April/May 1991. This was in response to concerns that lice emanating from

farmed salmonids might be implicated in the phenomenon of large numbers of

sea trout returning to rivers in early summer in an emaciated state and with

elevated lice numbers. Since April 1994, monitoring has been carried out in

accordance with the recommendations of the Sea Trout Task Force and its

successor body, the Sea Trout Management and Advisory Group.

The current national sea lice monitoring programme involves the inspection

and sampling of each year class of fish at all fish farm sites 14 times per

annum - twice per month during March, April and May and monthly for the

remainder of the year except December-January. Only 1 inspection is carried

out during this period.

In the early phases, the level of lice per fish that would trigger the need for

treatment was set at a level of 2.0 lice per fish during the Spring period from

March to May. These trigger levels have been tightened up over the years,

however, as the monitoring and control programme has been developed and

enhanced and incorporated into the existing Monitoring Protocol.

In 2000 this monitoring regime was formally adopted as one of a number of

Monitoring Protocols to which all salmon farmers are required to adhere. The

inspections are carried out directly by the Marine Institute (MI). This

programme is applied at all marine finfish farms regardless of whether the

licensee, through the terms and conditions of it’s licence, is subject to the

terms of the Protocol or not. The cooperation of the industry in this respect is

noted. A copy of the Sea Lice Monitoring Protocol is attached at Appendix 1.

- 8 -

Lice levels are determined from the sampling process and measured against

target levels set out in the protocol or in licences. The Spring period (March

to May) targets are now set at very rigorous levels of 0.3 to 0.5 egg bearing

(ovigerous) lice per fish. Outside of this a level of 2.0 egg bearing lice acts as

the trigger for treatment. Where measurements at a farm exceed these target

levels the MI issues a “Notice to Treat” to the licensee.

Results are reported to farms by the MI within five working days of the

inspection together with appropriate advice. Monthly reports are compiled for

each site of mean numbers of egg bearing lice and total mobile lice of each

species. These reports are circulated to the farms, the Department, the

Marine Institute, the Central Fisheries Board, the Regional Fisheries Boards,

the Irish Salmon Growers Association, Save Our Seatrout and the Western

Gamefishing Association. This ensures that real time information on the levels

pertaining on farms is available to all interested parties. These reports are

designed to give a clear, unambiguous measure of the infestation level at

each site and to act as a basis for management decisions.

2.2 Purpose of Monitoring

The initial purpose of the monitoring in 1991 and 1992 was to obtain an

objective assessment of infestation levels on farms and to investigate the

nature of these infestations. The results of these investigations, first published

in 1993, were used to develop a management strategy for effective sea lice

control and subsequently to refine and further enhance the management

strategy. The purpose of the national sea lice-monitoring plan since 1994 has

been:

• To provide an objective measurement of infestation levels on farms

• To investigate the nature of the infestations

• To provide management information to drive implementation of the

control and management strategies

• To facilitate further development and refinement of the control and

management strategies.

- 9 -

2.3 2007 Trends

Appendix 2 contains key information on sea lice infestation during 2007. The

statistics in the tables are presented on a site by site and regional basis. For

the purposes of this report the key issues to note are as follows:

2005 salmon

Only 4 sites (west & north—west) contained two sea winter salmon (i.e.

salmon that had been at sea during winter 05/06 and winter 06/07) in 2007.

Of these 4 sites, 3 sites had 100% of samples above the trigger levels on

inspection. The number of such inspections is small however as these fish

were harvested by March 2007 at the latest.

2006 salmon

South-West

- only 1 site (Roancarraig, Bantry Bay) was stocked

- all 6 samples in the critical spring period exceeded the treatment

trigger levels

- sea-lice levels continued to increase during the critical period,

notwithstanding the application of treatments

West

- there was a further reduction in the number of sites stocked in 2007

(11) compared with 2006 (18)

- of the 11 sites, on 4 sites 100% of the inspections in the critical

period were above the trigger level, while one site was harvested

out before the spring period

- of the remaining 6 sites, 4 sites had 50% or more of results of

inspections above the trigger level in the spring period

- only one site was below the trigger level on all inspections in the

spring period

- 10 -

- overall, outside the spring period, 35% of inspections showed

results which were above the higher trigger level.

North-West

- 5 sites were stocked in 2007 compared with 6 in 2006

- the only site in Lough Swilly was below trigger levels on all

inspections carried out during the spring period

- the 4 sites in Mulroy Bay exceeded trigger levels on 50% of

inspections in the spring period

- despite higher trigger levels outside the spring period, taking the 5

sites together, there was the same incidence of exceeding the

trigger levels outside the spring period as within the spring period

- the most significant feature in the north west was the continuing

escalation in sea lice levels towards the end of 2007.

Monthly Mean Trends

The monthly mean sea lice figures show all 3 regions as exceeding the trigger

levels throughout the spring period. Outside the spring period the experience

varies but towards the latter half of 2007 both the West and north-West

exhibited levels generally in excess of trigger levels.

Treatments

M.I. advise that all farms cooperate with regard to carrying out treatments on

foot of notice to Treat. Notices are issued in all cases where trigger levels

are exceeded. However, a key feature appears to be that re-infestation

occurs relatively soon after treatment and this may raise issues as regards the

efficacy of treatments and or the need for more coordination of treatments

between adjacent cages and sites.

- 11 -

2.4 Annual Trends

L. salmonis ovigerous (egg-bearing) and mobile lice level trends for one-sea-

winter salmon in the month of May from 1991 to 2007 are compared

respectively in Figures 3 and 4 of the Marine Institute report at Appendix 2.

(For ease of reference Figures 3 and 4 are reproduced hereunder.) The mean

number of ovigerous lice per fish, and the mean number of mobile lice per fish

are presented.


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure 3. Annual trend (May mean) (SE) ovigerous L. salmonis on one-sea-winter salmon. (Blue shaded area represents the treatment trigger level during spring period.)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure 4. Annual trend (May mean) (SE) mobile L. salmonis on one-sea-winter salmon.

- 12 -

From 1998 to 2001 the levels decreased steadily for both ovigerous and total

mobile lice. Mean ovigerous L. salmonis levels increased in 2002, remained

steady in 2003 and show a slight decrease again in 2004.

In 2005 and 2006 levels increased and this trend continued in 2007. The

mean ovigerous lice level for one sea winter salmon in 2007 is the second

highest since monitoring commenced. Only 1992 is higher. Mean mobile

levels increased from 2001 to 2002 and again from 2002 to 2003 but show a

reduction in the 2004 figure. Levels increased in 2005 and again in 2006 and

2007. Mean mobile lice levels for one sea winter salmon in 2007 are the

highest recorded to date.

The reasons for the increase are complex and have been outlined elsewhere

but the trend underlines the necessity for a concerted effort to control lice

infestations coming into the 2008 season.

Since 1991 the mean sea lice count for one sea winter salmon has only once

(2001) been below the trigger level while in 1994/95 the count bordered on

the trigger level.

While there are encouraging signs in the winter and early 2008 sealice

inspection data, as a result of action by farms, March sea lice inspections

resulted in a total of 11 sites being issued with notices to treat because they

were above the trigger levels. This underscores the fact that it will take a

concerted effort to achieve a sustained improvement in lice control in 2008.

the Inspection results for March are appended ( Appendix 3) to this Report.

2.5 Management Strategy

As a result of the experience gained over a number of years an integrated

approach to sea lice control has been developed in Ireland. This management

strategy was endorsed by the Sea Trout Task Force and subsequently, by the

- 13 -

Sea Trout Management and Advisory Group. This management strategy,

which formed the basis for Single Bay Management (SBM) Agreements, relies

on five principal components:

• Separation of generations

• Annual fallowing of sites

• Early harvest of two sea-winter fish

• Targeted treatment regimes

• Agreed husbandry practices

Together, these components are intended to reduce the development of

infestations and to ensure the most effective treatment of developing

infestations. They are intended to minimise lice levels whilst controlling

reliance on, and reducing use of, veterinary medicines. The separation of

generations and annual fallowing prevent the vertical transmission of

infestations from one generation to the next, thus retarding the development

of infestations. The early harvest of two sea winter fish removes a potential

reservoir of lice infestation and the agreed practices and targeted treatments

enhance the efficacy of treatment regimes. One important aspect of targeted

treatments is the carrying out of autumn / winter treatments to reduce lice

burdens to as close to zero as practicable on all fish, which are to be over-

wintered. This ensures zero / near zero egg bearing lice in spring. This is the

so called “critical period” for lice control. It is an important time as strategic

control at this point can enhance lice control for the succeeding months by

interrupting the cycle of infection before the warming water temperatures

increase the speed of lice reproduction. It is also the most important period in

terms of wild farmed interactions. The agreed husbandry practices cover a

range of related fish health, quality and environmental issues in addition to

those specifically related to lice control.

2.6 Trigger Levels for Treatment

The setting of appropriate treatment triggers is an integral part of

implementing a targeted treatment regime. Treatment triggers during the

spring period [March to May] are set close to zero in the range of from 0.3 to 0.5 egg bearing females per fish and are also informed by the numbers of

- 14 -

mobile lice on the fish. Where numbers of mobile lice are high, treatments are

required even in the absence of egg bearing females.

Outside of the critical spring period, a level of 2.0 egg bearing lice acts as a

trigger for treatments. This is only relaxed where fish are under harvest. Over

the period since the initiation of SBM (Single Bay Management), treatment

triggers have been progressively reduced from a starting point of 2.0 per fish

during the spring period to the current levels which are 0.5 egg bearing lice

per fish. Triggered treatments are underpinned by follow up inspections and,

where necessary, by sanctions. Sanctions employed include, peer review

under the SBM process, conditional fish movement orders and accelerated

harvests.

In late winter and early spring sea water temperatures are at a minimum and

development rates of lice are reduced. This has the effect of tending to

synchronise the development of lice larvae. A strategic treatment at this time

can break the cycle of infection.

Ovigerous female lice are those which produce the infective larvae and

treatments are timed to remove adult females before they can release larvae.

Setting the treatment trigger at 0.5 ovigerous lice per fish ensures that

treatments are carried out when a maximum of half of the fish examined have

any ovigerous lice. This is the optimum time to interrupt lice development.

Later in the year generations of lice are not as synchronised and intervention,

at a lice level of 0.5 ovigerous lice per fish, by way of treatment is generally

not justified. A level of 2.0 ovigerous lice per fish has been shown to be a

pragmatic level at which intervention by way of treatment is advisable. Levels

of total mobile lice or juvenile lice are important in advising fish health

professionals in developing a lice control strategy. However, they are not of

themselves appropriate measures upon which to trigger mandatory

treatments.

2.7 Sampling Strategy

The Irish sampling strategy, which underpins the current monitoring

programme, was developed through a consultation process with national and

international experts in the field. It has been refined and modified as a result

- 15 -

of the recommendations of the Sea Trout Working Group, the Sea Trout Task

Force and the Sea Trout Management and Advisory Group. The resulting

programme meets both the exacting scientific requirements of a national

monitoring programme and the diverse concerns of sectoral interests, as

expressed through the various Ministerial committees and through direct

representations. The rationale of the current sampling strategy is to:

• Provide a robust and reliable objective measure of lice numbers on

farmed fish

• Operate within a framework which is cost effective and capable of

being carried out over the range of installations which are in use in

offshore farming

• Take account of weather conditions, fish health issues, environmental

effects and animal welfare considerations.

- 16 -

Section 3: Co-ordinated Management Systems

3.1. Single Bay Management

On the basis of information gathered in surveys of lice infestation on salmon

farms in 1991 and 1992, the Department of Marine put in place a new initiative

in salmon farm management. This initiative, termed Single Bay Management,

has been progressively introduced since then and has been shown to have a

beneficial effect in lice control on farmed fish. It involves all of the farms in an

area co-operating to develop an integrated management plan. Crucial

elements in the success of this plan are identified as:

• separation of generations;

• annual fallowing of sites;

• strategic application of chemotheraputants;

• good fish health management; and

• close co-operation between farms.

3.2. CLAMS

In 1998 the Minister of State for Marine announced the setting up of a Co-

ordinated Local Aquaculture Management System group (CLAMS). This

concept of management is designed to facilitate the development of plans for

individual bays incorporating and extending the concept of Single Bay

Management. It will also be integrated with Coastal Zone Management policy

and County Development Plans. Though CLAMS is integrated with these

plans and the viewpoints of all interest groups are documented, the process is

driven by the aquaculture producers working within the framework of national

policy. BIM and the Marine Institute have been charged with the responsibility

for developing the CLAMS framework at local level.

The CLAMS process is a non-statutory management system, which is

anchored in the national marine policy and development programmes. It is

envisaged that CLAMS will highlight issues in a bay and co-ordinate the

industry and relevant bodies to deal with them. It is separate to the licensing

process and is not intended to solve or take responsibility for all issues. The

- 17 -

concept focuses at local bay level while still taking on board relevant national

policies. The object of this process is to formulate a management plan for the

bay, which incorporates and extends the concepts of Single Bay Management

to all farmed species.

CLAMS provides a concise description of the bay in terms of physical

characteristics, history, aquaculture operations, future potential, problems, etc.

It also allows various Codes of Practice to be customised and integrated to

the aquaculture industry operating in the bay. In addition, it provides the

framework from which a management and development plan for aquaculture

in the bay can be drawn. Another important aspect is that this process acts as

a focus group for the community. This will then provide an information

channel from local to national level and vice versa. It is envisaged that this

will provide a framework for addressing issues that affect or are affected by

aquaculture activities and streamline the resolution of these situations.

3.3 Fallowing

Fallowing is a tool used to control the level of sea lice, benthic conditions and

the spread of fish disease. To be effective it is dependent on a satisfactory

length of time for fallowing and appropriate geographical separation between

sites and/or synchronous fallowing of adjacent sites.

The Protocol on Fallowing essentially establishes the principle of fallowing

and best practice in fallowing. All finfish farms subject to the Protocol are

obliged to undertake appropriate fallowing for the control of disease and

parasite problems (including sealice). Where there is more than one finfish

farm in a particular bay the protocol requires licensees to pursue fallowing in

the context of the Single Bay Management process. The Protocol specifies a

minimum period of 30 continuous days for fallowing an individual site,

although, in many cases, the conditions of a licence go beyond this in respect

of particular locations. Not all licences are subject to the Protocol on fallowing or, indeed, contain specific conditions on fallowing (a number of licences would predate the establishment of the Protocols).

- 18 -

A key issue for licensed farms within their licensed areas is the lack of

availability of sufficient sites to allow for effective fallowing. On a general

level there is a balance to be met between a farm seeking to maximise its

commercial return from the sites available to it while at the same time

observing the requirement to fallow sites if single bay management, sea lice

control and fish health management efforts are to be maximised. The

balance between these potentially conflicting objectives has not assisted the

sea lice control strategy.

The current situation whereby a large number of sites remain unstocked may

afford the opportunity for a greater fallowing effort, largely through cooperation

between licensees. In the medium term a more mandatory and enforcement

approach to fallowing may be called for.

In this regard one of the recommendations of the Cawley Report should be

noted viz:

“The DCMNR should support and facilitate the acquisition of fallowing

sites for the salmon farming sector to assist with more effective sealice

and disease control. Provision of these sites should not necessarily

involve an increase in the permitted output of the industry, but should

facilitate improved spatial and temporal stock management and reduced

incidence of disease. This initiative, which could make a very valuable

contribution to the national effort to control sealice numbers, should

involve the applicants and the agents of DCMNR entering into detailed

consultation on the location of proposed fallowing sites and agreeing

binding stock rotation and fish health management protocols prior to the

submission of applications for aquaculture licensing. The properly

completed application, whose ‘pro-bono’ credentials should be made

known to all of the statutory consultees, should then be processed as

fast as possible through the system, without any compromise to the

rigour and transparency of the Fisheries Amendment Act, 1997, but

- 19 -

yielding a speedy outcome in terms of an appropriate licensing

recommendation to the Minister to either grant or refuse the application.”

- 20 -

Section 4: The Problem in Context

4.1 Best Practice

Over the last three seasons there has been a problem with lice control at a

number of locations. In order to address this development a series of basic

principles were developed as part of previous attempts to address the sea lice

issue. These following 7 basic principles of best practice achieved a wide

measure of agreement amongst all interested parties.

Seven Basic Principles

1) Complete separation of Generations (sites to be one tidal excursion

apart).

2) Each site to be fallowed annually, or at end of a production cycle, for

one month (30 days) before re-stocking. All sites within one tidal

excursion to be fallowed synchronously.

3) Annual synchronous "winter" lice treatment for all adjacent sites (one

tidal excursion).

4) Planned rotation of sea lice treatments over the production cycle &

adjacent sites to use the same product rotation.

5) Treatment triggers Spring Period 0.5 egg bearing females per fish, rest

of year 2.0 egg bearing lice.

6) All above to be set out as part of formal signed SBM Agreement.

7) Where there is a persistent problem with sea lice control there is a

need for an incremental series of actions up to and including

mandatory treatments and sanctions where these are not effectively

implemented.

- 21 -

4.2 Causes of Current Difficulty

The potential causes/contributory factors which have led to the recent

difficulties in maintaining good control of infestations can be summarised as

follows:

• Poor farm management in carrying out lice control measures.

• Husbandry problems in administering lice treatments/poor inclusion

rates for in-feed treatments.

• PD (pancreas disease) related issues (poor appetite and/or poor

uptake of active ingredient in lice treatment) from diet

• Reduced sensitivity in sea lice populations to certain available

treatments.

• Incomplete separation of generations leading to vertical transmission of

lice.

• Additional lice treatments required by low trigger levels in protocols.

4.3 Potential Alternative Method of Treatment

There has certainly been an issue with inclusion rates for in-feed treatments.

The effects of Pancreas Disease on appetite are well known (this has a direct

effect on the up-take of in feed treatments) but there are other less well

studied effects of the disease which may also impair the efficacy of in feed

treatments. Taken together the above has undoubtedly had a significant

impact on the efficacy of in feed lice treatments.

There is growing evidence that some populations of lice may be exhibiting

reduced sensitivity to certain lice treatments. The loss of efficacy associated

with in-feed treatments and the changes in farming practices, whereby cages

have gotten larger and site locations have tended to be in more exposed

areas, have made the problem of lice control more difficult. Using bath

- 22 -

treatments in these circumstances is problematic and often unsuccessful

despite the best efforts of the grower.

The use of Very Large Live Fish Carriers (VLLFC) ships, also called well-

boats, is now the option preferred of the industry, as these vessels can treat

an entire cage at a time and can achieve very precise dose rates in a

controlled environment. They are however expensive to charter and can be

difficult to obtain, especially if there is a lot of demand for their services in their

home countries as is currently the case.

The key issue appears to be access to well boats and how this is to be

achieved would need very careful consideration from a Value for Money

perspective as, e.g. purchasing a vessel could prove costly and perhaps may

not be ideal for future needs. However, this is an issue that is being grasped

by the industry and improved well-boat availability is coming on stream.

Health professionals have expressed concerns from time to time about

additional treatments required to reduce lice levels, which were not having an

adverse impact on the stock, to comply with trigger levels. This is especially a

factor where fish health is already compromised due to other factors (e.g. PD,

high temperatures etc). The need to carry out extra treatments is exacerbated

where there is mixing of generations on the same or adjacent sites and/or

integrated or strategic lice management is not the norm.

- 23 -

4.4 Review of lice control methods

Treatments Licensed in Ireland

Treatment Purpose Usage

SLICE Emamectin Benzoate (in

feed)

widely used

EXCIS Cypermethrin (bath) widely used

CALICIDE

ECTOBAN

insect growth regulator

Similar active ingredient

(in feed)

no longer available

available AR16 (special

licence)

ALPHAMAX

Deltamethrin (bath) available under special licence

for use where other treatments

are not effective or have limited

efficacy.

Treatments Licensed or available elsewhere

Treatment Purpose Usage Deltamethrin

(Alphamax)

Bath effective & widely used in Norway

Hi-cis Cypermethrin

(Betamax)

Bath as above

Salmosan

(azamethiphos)

Bath licensed in UK no longer available

Ivermectin in-feed licensed for other food animals in

EU/Ireland

- 24 -

Other (alternative) lice “control” methods

Treatment Usage Wrasse

Used as a “cleaner fish” in several countries, including

Ireland. Still used in Norway. Serious limitations to

efficacy. Also issues with supply of wrasse, effects on wild

populations and possible disease risks. May have limited

application especially on post smolts in their first summer

at sea.

Immuno-

stimulants

e.g. Ecoboost (blend of aromatic herbs) feed additive, said

to enhance ability of fish to withstand lice infection. May

have part to play in integrated lice management plan. It is

not of itself an effective way of controlling existing lice

infestations.

Hydrogen

Peroxide

Bath treatment. Issues with safety & practicality for

treatments above 12o C.

- 25 -

4.5 Solutions / Response Options

In seeking to address the current problems a number of approaches are

required. In the short term it will be necessary to tackle the problem of severe

infestations at certain sites, some of which may be experiencing reduced

sensitivity to currently available medicines. This will have to be tackled on a

bay by bay rather than a site by site or company basis to ensure that the

extent of the management response is appropriate to the biological area of

impact of the infective stages of the pest. In the short to medium term it will be

necessary to review management practices to optimise lice control and to

integrate it with overall health management, again on a bay by bay basis.

Three strategies are listed below which need to be addressed to ensure

effective sea lice management on Irish salmon farms. Each of the strategies

presents its own particular challenges, however as a suite of responses they

provide the best way forward in the current circumstances.

A. Availability of a suite of novel lice treatments & methods (including VLLFC/wellboat)

• For use on those sites where remedial action is urgently required.

• For use on sites where reduced sensitivity has been demonstrated or is

suspected to traditional treatments.

• In particular, VLLFC are a key to effective use of bath treatments on

exposed sites or those with large cages

B. Full implementation of Site Management /Bay Management • Fallowing between generations

• Single Generation sites

• All in all out bay by bay strategies in specific cases

• Flexible and/or novel approach to use of currently licensed sites,

including the species to be cultured at those sites.

C. Enhanced role for SBM;- Integration of sea lice and health management protocols to include a bay management approach which is:

• Defined by specific targets and goals.

• Goal led.

• Flexible and enforceable.

- 26 -

Section 5: Conclusions

The solution most likely to have the best medium and long term results is a

combination of all three response options set out in section 4.4. A flexible,

inclusive approach can be achieved by continuing to adapt management

practices at site and bay level to emerging trends in sea lice control.

In an effort to optimise management practices with regard to sea lice control

at fish farms there have been a number of ad hoc initiatives including, the

setting up of a small working group comprising Irish Salmon Growers

Association and the Marine Institute. This group has met regularly over the

last few months to improve co-ordination of efforts to achieve optimum benefit

from the fish farmers control efforts. The enhancement of this approach

through the formation of a management cell approach involving farmers, state

agencies and DAFF at a local regional level would underpin a focussed SBM

approach to addressing the ongoing management of sea lice control.

There appears to be an emerging consensus that “break-out” space is

necessary to facilitate fallowing and separation of generations. This gives

rise to a number of challenges including:

• limited availability of space for new sites;

• access to existing licensed areas for fallowing purposes;

• environmental and other licensing constraints;

• potential objections from a variety of interested parties.

- 27 -

Section 6. Recommendations and Action Plan

1. A joint DAFF/industry working group to be established to identify

“break out” site options in areas which have persistent sea lice problems.

These options would include the possibility of using redundant sites, to

optimise fallowing and separation of generations.

In accordance with the Steering a New Course report, (Strategy for a

Restructured, Sustainable and Profitable Irish Seafood Industry 2007-2013

(Cawley N, Murrin J and O’Bric R, 2006)) DAFF should “support and facilitate

the acquisition of fallowing sites for the salmon farming sector to assist with

more effective sea lice and disease control. Provision of these sites should

not necessarily involve an increase in the permitted output of the industry, but

should facilitate improved spatial and temporal stock management and

reduced incidence of sea louse infestation and other diseases.

This initiative, which will make a very valuable contribution to the national

effort to control sea lice numbers, should involve the applicants and the

agents of DAFF entering into detailed consultation on the location of proposed

fallowing sites and agreeing binding stock rotation and fish health

management protocols prior to the submission of applications for an

aquaculture licence.” It is very important that where break out space is made available it should be used by the industry for fallowing and separation of generations and not merely to enable an increase in output.

2. Effective and appropriate use of chemical intervention to be reviewed

to take ongoing account of changing environmental conditions, developing

farming practices, sensitivity of lice to treatments and fish health issues.

In particular, the development of efficient protocols and mechanisms for the

sourcing and use of well boats (VLLFCs) for controlled bath treatments and

for the optimisation of product rotation for strategic treatments should be

pursued by BIM in close consultation with the industry and the MI.

- 28 -

3. The increased availability of well boat capacity coming on stream in the

industry to be utilised for controlled bath treatments.

4. The optimisation of product rotation for strategic treatments should be

given further consideration as a matter of urgency.

5. BIM and the Marine Institute to engage in intensive consultation with

the fish farming industry, both with individual fish farmers and representative

organisations, to ensure ongoing optimisation of management practices and

to report back to the Minister within four months.

6. BIM and the Marine Institute to immediately establish a working group

to report in three months on the potential of alternative treatment approaches

and to set out the steps necessary to introduce these approaches.

7. A national implementation group to be established comprising

appropriate representation from:

• The Coastal Zone Management, Veterinary and Seafood Policy Divisions of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food;

• An Bord Iascaigh Mhara;

• Marine Institute; and

• Industry representatives.

The group is to provide the Minister, within six months of it’s establishment,

with a full update of the actual situation on the ground, the progress made to

reduce sea lice levels and the further steps required, if any, to redress the

situation.

- 29 -

8. A New role for SBM (Single Bay Management) as a focus for

management cells to manage sea lice control at a local and regional level

reporting to the national implementation group.

Efforts should be intensified to revitalise the single bay management approach

and make it central to national policy for sea lice management.

In this regard it is proposed that a new feature of the strategy to enhance the

control of sealice infestations on Irish salmon farms should be the creation of

an integrated mandatory “real time” management regime, which will vigorously

deal with failures to control sealice infestations on a case-by-case basis. One

of the perceived shortcomings of the current arrangements is that they are not

sufficiently proactive in dealing with situations where, despite attempts to

treat, the sealice infestation is not brought adequately under control.

The rationale behind this new initiative is to bring all of the relevant State

expertise to bear on problem situations in real time, actively engaging the

affected farmer and ensuring that a high priority is given to dealing with the

infestation by all concerned.

The regime is designed to bring progressively tougher actions to bear on the

infestation to ensure the highest possible level of compliance.

The structure and modus operandi of this new more vigorous regime are set

out below:

• Following established best practise for environmental management, a

bay management cell approach will be taken to the problem of controlling sealice infestations on individual farms, where despite attempts to treat, the level of infestation has not been brought under control.

• Each bay where salmon farming takes place, will have a contingency

management cell formed and available for immediate action. The cell shall consist of appropriate representation from the Marine Institute Sealice Monitoring Programme, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, an industry

- 30 -

representative from the Single Bay Management Group for the bay and a veterinary surgeon of record.

• The cell will be convened by the Marine Institute Sealice Monitoring Programme representative when a “notice to treat” has been issued to a farmer in the bay, followed by an inspection which determines that either the “notice to treat” was not acted upon, or that the attempted treatment did not prove successful.

• The cell will take into account inter alia such factors as the time of the

year relative to the so called critical period and the spatial location of the affected farm in determining the relative urgency of its responses and the speed at which it ratchets up its responses.

• The cell will attempt to convene within 72 hours of the meeting being called by the Marine Institute and it will meet with the farmer concerned, and review all pertinent data and facts. The MI representative shall act as the chair of the cell. The cell will then issue a recommendation for further action. The farmer concerned will be obliged to follow the further action recommendation of the sealice management cell, insofar as humanly possible.

• The further action recommendation from the cell shall be time specified

and will be set down in writing and copied to the CZMD of the DAFF at the conclusion of the cell meeting or as soon as possible thereafter.

• Once the recommended course of action has been pursued, a further

inspection will take place as soon as possible, and the results will be disseminated to the cell members. Depending on the relative success achieved, the cell may decide that no further action is required or that a further meeting and that a further action recommendation is needed. The subsequent further action recommendation of the cell shall also be mandatory and shall also be copied to the CZMD of the DAFF.

• Courses of action open to the cell for recommendation to the affected

fish farmer, shall include selection of treatment medicine and the selection of treatment methodology. If after a number of attempts satisfactory control has not been achieved the cell may move to recommend accelerated harvesting, followed by extended fallowing post-harvesting. In exceptional circumstances the cell may also recommend mandatory restocking arrangements and/or an indefinite prohibition on restocking.

• The flow chart outlining the operation of the cell is set out below.

- 31 -

High Lice levels detected

Inform Management Cell

Notice to Treat (MI)

No treatment

Effective treatment lice levels reduced -

no further action

Lice levels still high

Management cell recommend further action

DAFF issue compliance

notice

DAFF issue 2nd

compliance notice

DAFF issue notice with sanctions

Action effective lice levels reduced – no

further action


Management cell recommend further action

DAFF issue compliance notice


Management cell recommend action including possible:- accelerated harvesting, extended fallowing , mandatory restocking arrangements, prohibition on restocking

- 32 -

Appendices

- 33 -

Appendix 1


for

Offshore Finfish Farms- Sea Lice Monitoring and Control


11 May, 2000 Leeson Lane, Dublin 2 Tel +353 1 619 9200 e-mail [email protected] Lána Chill Mochargán LoCall 1890 44 99 00 GTN +1 18 Baile Átha Cliath 2 Fax +353 1 661 8214


- 34 -

for Offshore Finfish Farms -

Sea Lice Monitoring and Control

1. Monitoring Regime Required All finfish farms are obliged to monitor for sealice on an ongoing basis and to take remedial action. This involves the inspection and sampling of each year class of fish at all fish farm sites fourteen times per annum, twice per month during March, April and May and monthly for the remainder of the year except December-January. Only one inspection is carried out during this period. 2. Purpose of Monitoring The four purposes of the National Sea Lice-Monitoring Plan are: • To provide an objective measurement of infestation levels on farms • To investigate the nature of the infestations • To provide management information to drive implementation of the control and management strategies • To facilitate further development and refinement of the control and management strategies. 3. Monitoring and Control Strategy The sea lice monitoring and control strategy has five principal components: • Separation of generations • Annual following of sites • Early harvest of two sea-winter fish • Targeted treatment regimes, including synchronous treatments • Agreed husbandry practices Together, these components work to reduce the development of infestations and to ensure the most effective treatment of developing infestations. They minimise lice levels whilst controlling reliance on, and reducing use of, veterinary medicines. The separation of generations and annual following prevent the vertical transmission of infestations from one generation to the next, thus retarding the development of infestations. The early harvest of two sea winter fish removes a potential reservoir of lice infestation and the agreed practices and targeted treatments enhance the efficacy

- 35 -

of treatment regimes. One important aspect of targeted treatments is the carrying out of autumn / winter treatments to reduce lice burdens to as close to zero as practicable on all fish, which are to be over-wintered. This is fundamental to achieving zero / near zero egg bearing lice in spring. The agreed husbandry practices cover a range of related fish health, quality and environmental issues in addition to those specifically related to lice control. 4. Trigger Levels for Treatment The setting of appropriate treatment triggers is an integral part of implementing a targeted treatment regime. Treatment triggers during the spring period are set close to zero in the range of from 0.3 to 0.5 egg bearing females per fish and are also informed by the numbers of mobile lice on the fish. Where numbers of mobile lice are high, treatments are triggered even in the absence of egg bearing females. Outside of the critical spring period, a level of 2.0 egg bearing lice acts as a trigger for treatments. This is only relaxed where fish are under harvest and with the agreement with the Department of Marine and Natural Resources or its agent. Over the period since the initiation of SBM, treatment triggers have been progressively reduced from a starting point of 2.0 per fish during the spring period to the current levels which are the optimal sustainable at present. These trigger levels will be kept under review in the light of advances in lice control strategies. Triggered treatments are underpinned by follow up inspections and, where the Department or its agent considers it to be necessary, by sanctions. Sanctions employed include, peer review under the SBM process, conditional fish movement orders and accelerated harvests. 5. Synchronous Sea Lice Treatment and Control in Bays All fish farms operating in a particular bay will be required to undertake appropriate synchronous sea lice treatment and control strategies through the Single Bay Management/CLAMS process. The Department of Marine and Natural Resources or its agent reserves the right to devise appropriate strategies for synchronous action by fish farms in any bay. 6. Sampling Strategy The Irish sampling strategy methodology is designed to: • Provide a robust and reliable objective measure of lice numbers on farmed fish • Operate within a framework which is cost effective and capable of being carried

out over the range of installations which are in use in offshore farming • Take account of weather conditions, fish health issues, environmental effects and animal welfare considerations. There are four key components to this sampling strategy: the sampling method, the sampling frequency, the sample size and reporting mechanisms.

- 36 -

6.2 Sampling Method The full methodology is laid out in Appendix 1. It is essentially a non-destructive sampling method. Fish are removed at random from the cages and anaesthetised, to reduce stress and risk of injury. All adult and sub-adult mobile lice are then removed from the fish and retained for examination before the fish are allowed to recover and returned to the cage. Lice which become detached from the fish in the anaesthetic are collected and included in the lice count for the sample to ensure that lice numbers are not under reported. As it involves the handling of live animals and as there are animal welfare issues involved, the sampling process is subject to peer review and a licensing process. Strict limits are imposed on the number of fish which may be sampled and changes to these limits must be justified. 6.3 Frequency Sampling The sampling frequency will fourteen inspections per year, plus any follow-up inspections required where instructions to reduce lice levels have been issued or such other frequency as may be determined by the Department or its agent. 6.4 Sample Size The target number of fish sampled is sixty per inspection, comprising two samples of thirty fish. One sample is taken from a standard cage, inspected at each inspection, and one from a cage selected at random. Where there are difficulties in obtaining the full sample size, every effort will be made to obtain a minimum of ten fish in each sample. (This sample size is statistically robust and also takes into consideration the practicalities and animal welfare issues involved in carrying out the programme. The standard cage allows for the monitoring of within cage trends and the random cage acts as a spot check). 6.5 Reporting of Lice Monitoring Monthly reports are compiled for each site of mean numbers of egg bearing lice and total mobile lice of each species. These reports are circulated to the farms, the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, the Marine Institute, the Central Fisheries Board, the Regional Fisheries Boards, Save Our Sea Trout, the Western Gamefishing Association and the Irish Salmon Growers’ Association. This ensures that detailed information on the levels pertaining on farms is available to all interested parties. These reports are designed to give a clear, unambiguous measure of the infestation level at each site and to act as a basis for management decisions.

- 37 -

APPENDIX 1.

Sampling Methodology This protocol is followed in the carrying out of sea lice inspections on all salmon and rainbow trout farms.

Disinfection

Due to the real risk of transmitting disease from one site to the next the Disinfection Protocol should be rigidly adhered to.

It is especially important to ensure that your hands and protective clothing are kept clean and disinfected by washing with the Iodophor disinfectant provided. Disinfection of dirty clothing or equipment is not possible as the dirt reduces the effectiveness of the disinfectants.

Cages to be sampled

The standard cage (i.e. the selected cage which is sampled at each sampling session).

A random cage: To be selected by the inspector on the day. This cage may be nominated at the start of the inspection or on the morning of the inspection so that it can be left un-fed to facilitate the catching of fish. The inspector may, at his/her discretion, consult with the Fisheries Board's observer on the selection of the random cage.

Fish to he sampled

A sample of thirty fish is to be taken from a standard and random cage for each year class of fish on site.

Where there are only two cages of fish on site only one cage need be sampled. Where fish are on starve for immediate harvest they need not be sampled.

- 38 -

Methods of Sampling

Fish may be caught by any of the following methods:

1. With a hand net (with or without the use of feed to attract fish). 2. By seining the cage. 3. By the use of a brailer. 4. By the use of a box net. 5. By pulling the net and removing fish using a net or brailer. 6. By use of a draw net. 7. By sampling fish being removed for harvesting.

Limitations to sampling

Sampling should not be attempted where weather conditions are such as to put the safety of personnel or the health of the fish at significant risk.

Where there is difficulty in obtaining a full sample of thirty fish every effort should be made to obtain a minimum of ten fish.

Where it is not possible to obtain a representative sample the sampling of damaged or moribund fish only should be avoided, as this will not give a representative measure of lice infestation levels within the cage and will skew the results for the site as a whole.

Difficulties in obtaining samples should be noted.

Registration of lice from fish sampled

All mobile stages of lice should be removed from the fish and placed in a bottle containing alcohol. Attached stages may be removed, at the discretion of the inspector, for research purposes. All lice remaining on the sampling tray or in the bin of anaesthetic should be collected and placed in a bottle containing alcohol and labelled “Bin”. All sample bottles including the “Bin” bottle are to be placed in a plastic bag together with a waterproof label containing the following minimum information: 1. Date

- 39 -

2. Year Class of Fish 3. Site sampled 4. Number of fish sampled 5. Cage number

Inspection Forms An inspection form should be completed for each inspection. The farm representative, the RFB observer and the inspector should sign the form.

Water Samples A 30ml water sample should be taken at each inspection and preserved by the addition of 3-4 drops of Lugols Iodine. This sample should be forwarded to the Phytoplankton section at the FRC at the earliest opportunity.

Disinfection Protocol for Sea Lice Inspections 1. All protective clothing, footwear, containers and equipment to be dipped/washed in iodophor (0.5%) on return to shore. 2. All observer from RFB's to be advised to disinfect before entering and on

leaving Dip and/or wash all footwear and protective clothing in iodophor (0.5%) prior to leaving the shore base for the sea site. 3. All bins, containers and equipment to be dipped/washed in iodophor (0.5%) prior to leaving the shore base for the sea site. 4. All instruments and work surfaces to be washed in Virkon (2%) prior to use. 5. All observers from RFB's to be advised to disinfect before entering and on leaving

site, as per above protocol.

- 40 -

APPENDIX 2

Key Facts about lice infestation during 2007

Dr David Jackson

Atlantic salmon 2005 (two-sea-winter salmon)

At the beginning of 2007, two-sea-winter salmon were still being stocked on 4 sites;

Corhounagh (Mannin Bay Salmon Ltd.); Seastream Inner (Clare Island Seafarms

Ltd.); Millstone (Marine Harvest); and Lough Swilly (Marine Harvest). Table 1

contains number of inspections per site and total number of inspections exceeding the

treatment trigger.

Table 1. National breakdown of inspections for 2005 fish on fish farm sites in 2007.


Over in Spring

Samples outside

Over outside

Total Samples

Total Over

% over in Spring

% over outside

% over total

Mannin Bay Salmon Co Ltd Corhounagh 0 0 1 1 1 1 - 100% 100%

Clare Island Seafarms Ltd. Seastream Inner 2 0 2 0 4 0 0% 0% 0%Southwest Totals 2 0 3 1 5 1 0% 33% 20%

Marine Harvest Millstone 3 3 0 0 3 3 100% - 100%Lough Swilly 0 0 1 1 1 1 - 100% 100%


National Totals 5 3 4 2 9 5 60% 50% 56%

A total of 9 visits were undertaken to these sites before harvesting was completed,

with 56% of inspections exceeding treatment trigger levels.

Atlantic salmon 2006 (one-sea-winter salmon)

One-sea-winter salmon were stocked in a total of 17 sites in 19 bays in 2007. One

hundred and fifty-six visits were undertaken to this generation of fish. Five sites, in 4

bays, continued to stock one-sea-winter salmon in November 2007.

Ovigerous L. salmonis levels greater than the treatment trigger level were recorded in

a total of 75 inspections (48%) on one-sea-winter fish. Within the critical spring

period, sea lice levels were in excess of 0.5 ovigerous females per fish on 50

inspections (60%) and outside of the spring period 25 inspections (35%) were in

excess of 2.0 ovigerous female sea lice per fish.

- 41 -

Southwest Region

In the Southwest region, all of the 6 inspections in the spring period (March to May)

were in excess of treatment trigger levels and 1 of the 4 inspections outside the spring

period exceeded the treatment trigger levels (see Table 2). Roancarraig (Silver King

Seafoods Ltd), Bantry Bay, was the only site stocking 2006 fish in 2007.

Table2. Breakdown of inspections for 2006 fish on Southwest sites in 2007.


Over in Spring

Samples outside

Over outside

Total Samples

Total Over

% over in Spring

% over outside

% over total

Silver King (Beara Atlantic) Ltd Roancarraig 6 6 4 1 10 7 100% 25% 70%Southwest Totals 6 6 4 1 10 7 100% 25% 70%

West Region

In the West region, sea lice infestation levels greater than the treatment trigger were

recorded on 34 out of 51 inspections (67%) in the spring period and on 15 out of 43

inspections (35%) outside the spring period (see Table 3).

Table 3. Breakdown of inspections for 2006 fish on West sites in 2007.


Over in Spring

Samples outside

Over outside

Total Samples

Total Over

% over in Spring

% over outside

% over total

Muirachmhainni Teo Cuigeal 0 0 1 0 1 0 - 0% 0%Casheen 5 3 1 0 6 3 60% 0% 50%Daonish 6 3 3 0 9 3 50% 0% 33%

Muir Gheal Teo Cnoc 6 5 3 2 9 7 83% 67% 78%Ardmore 6 6 5 4 11 10 100% 80% 91%

Mannin Bay Salmon Co Ltd Corhounagh 4 4 6 4 10 8 100% 67% 80%Hawk's nest 2 2 2 1 4 3 100% 50% 75%


Celtic Atlantic Salmon (Killary) Co ltd Rosroe 6 2 4 0 10 2 33% 0% 20%

Clare Island Seafarms Ltd. Seastream Inner 4 0 6 1 10 1 0% 17% 10%Portlea 6 3 8 1 14 4 50% 13% 29%

West Totals 51 34 43 15 94 49 67% 35% 52%

Levels at Daonish (Muirachmhainni Teo), Kilkieran Bay, were in excess of treatment

trigger levels for 3 out of 6 inspections in the spring period and none of the 3

inspections outside the spring period. At Casheen (Muirachmhainni Teo), Kilkieran

Bay there were 5 inspections, 3 of which over treatment trigger levels.

Cnoc (Muir Gheal Teo.), Kilkieran Bay, were above treatment trigger levels for 5 of

the 6 spring inspections and 2 of the 3 inspections outside the spring period.

Ardmore, (Eisc Ui Flathartha Teo), Kilkieran Bay, were above treatment trigger levels

for all of the 6 spring inspections and 4 of the 5 inspections outside the spring period.

- 42 -

At Corhounagh (Mannin Bay Salmon Co. Ltd.), Mannin Bay, sea lice exceeded

treatment trigger levels for all 4 inspections in the spring and for 4 of the 6 inspections

outside the spring. Both inspections at Hawk’s Nest in the spring were in excess of

treatment trigger levels and for 1 of the 2 inspections outside spring.

Fraochoilean (Bifand Ltd.), Ballinakill Bay, exceeded treatment trigger levels for all 6

spring inspections and 2 of the 4 inspections outside the spring period.

Sea lice levels at Portlea (Clare Island Seafarms Ltd), Clew Bay, were in excess of

treatment trigger levels for 3 of the 6 inspections in spring and 1 of the 8 inspections

outside the spring period.

Northwest Region

The treatment trigger levels were exceeded on 10 out of 27 inspections (37%) in the

Northwest region during the spring period and on 9 out of 25 inspections (36%)

outside that period (see Table 4).

Table 4. Breakdown of inspections for 2006 fish on Northwest sites in 2007.


Over in Spring

Samples outside

Over outside

Total Samples

Total Over

% over in Spring

% over outside

% over total

Marine Harvest Millford 3 1 2 0 5 1 33% 0% 20%Cranford A 6 3 2 2 8 5 50% 100% 63%Millstone 6 3 8 3 14 6 50% 38% 43%Glinsk 6 3 7 1 13 4 50% 14% 31%Lough Swilly 6 0 6 3 12 3 0% 50% 25%


Cranford A (Marine Harvest), Mulroy Bay, had sea lice levels in excess of treatment

trigger levels in December/January, February, March, and April. The fish were

harvested out in July. Millstone (Marine Harvest), Mulroy Bay, had elevated sea lice

levels for December/January, March, May, June, September and November. Glinsk

had elevated sea lice levels for 3 inspections in the spring period and again in October

prior to harvesting.

- 43 -

Regional Monthly Means for one-sea-winter salmon

L. salmonis monthly mean figures for one-sea-winter salmon are shown in Figures 1

and 2 for each of the three regions. Regional monthly mean L. salmonis levels were in

excess of treatment trigger levels in all 3 regions during the spring months in 2007

with the exception of the Northwest in April. The Southwest exceeded treatment

trigger levels again in July prior to harvest. In the West monthly mean ovigerous

levels were in excess of treatment trigger levels outside of the spring period in

February, July, August, September and November. In the Northwest monthly mean

ovigerous levels exceeded the treatment trigger levels in February and again from

August to November inclusive outside of the spring period.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


2007

Mea

n ov

iger

ous

L.sa

lmon

is

Treatment trigger levelNorthwestWestSouthwest

Figure 1. Mean (SE) ovigerous L. salmonis per month per region in 2007.

- 44 -

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


2007

Mea

n m

obile

L. s

alm

onis

NorthwestWestSouthwest

Figure 2. Mean (SE) mobile L. salmonis per month per region in 2007.

Total mobile sea lice levels exceeded 10 sea lice per fish in February, March, May,

June, August and November in the West region. In the Northwest total mobile levels

exceeded 10 per fish in September and November and in the Southwest in May and

July.

Annual trends

L. salmonis ovigerous and mobile level trends are compared in Figures 3 and 4 for

one-sea-winter salmon in the month of May from 1991 to 2007. The mean number of

ovigerous sea lice per fish, and the mean number of mobile sea lice per fish are

presented.

Sea lice levels were at their lowest on record in 2001 for both ovigerous and total

mobile lice. Mean ovigerous L. salmonis levels have increased steadily since, with the

exception of 2004. Levels in 2007 are at 1.74 ovigerous per fish, the highest since

1992 which reached 2.34 ovigerous per fish.

- 45 -


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure 3. Annual trend (May mean) (SE) ovigerous L. salmonis on one-sea-winter salmon.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure 4. Annual trend (May mean) (SE) mobile L. salmonis on one-sea-winter salmon. Mean mobile levels show a similar pattern with a steady increase from 2004 to their

highest level on record in 2007 at 12.35 mobile sea lice per fish.

Optimally using all available sites in an area to keep generations of fish separate is a

key tool in breaking the life cycle of the sea lice and keeping infestations under

control so as to avoid cross infection of younger fish from older stocks. Having

sufficient and appropriate sites available to cater for separation of generations and

fallowing is important and this has been raised as an issue by the industry frequently.

Fallowing also serves to break the life cycle of the sea lice, as can be seen in Lough

Swilly (Marine Harvest) this year where the site was fallow early in the spring,

- 46 -

control of sea lice was achieved until the autumn. However in certain cases re-

infestation from the surrounding environment has occurred quite quickly.

- 47 -

Appendix 3

Sea Lice Data for March 2008

Date Lepeophtheirus salmonis

F + eggs Total

BANTRY BAY FASTNET MUSSELS LTD

Cuan Baoi

Atlantic salmon, 2008 S

1/2 04/03/2008 0.00 0.07 18/03/2008 0.03 0.13

SILVER KING SEAFOODS LTD Roancarraig


1/2 04/03/2008 0.00 0.04

19/03/2008 0.00 0.00 JOHN POWER TROUT Waterfall Rainbow trout 2007 (1) 04/03/2008 0.00 0.00 19/03/2008 0.00 0.03

KILKIERAN BAY MUIRACHMHAINNI TEO Daonish


1/2 06/03/2008 0.35 3.67

19/03/2008 0.63 10.08 Golam


1/2 05/03/2008 0.14 1.76 20/03/2008 0.12 1.67 MUIR GHEAL TEO Cnoc


1/2 13/03/2008 1.49 8.09

27/03/2007 0.94 23.33 Ardmore


1/2 13/03/2008 1.00 10.64

- 48 -

27/03/2008 0.91 13.00 Lettercallow


1/2 13/03/2008 0.02 0.12

27/03/2008 0.00 0.55 The Gurrig


1/2 05/03/2008 0.20 2.83 20/03/2008 0.25 3.30

MANNIN BAY MANNIN BAY SALMON CO LTD Hawk's Nest Atlantic salmon, 2007 Moved to Corhounagh Corhounagh Atlantic salmon, 2007 18/03/2008 0.82 28.09 27/03/2008 0.84 29.90

BALLINAKILL BAY BIFAND LTD Fraochoilean


1/2 04/03/2008 3.40 8.73

25/03/2008 2.48 9.63


1/2 04/03/2008 0.00 0.35 25/03/2008 0.00 0.68 MANNIN BAY SALMON CO LTD Ballinakill Atlantic salmon, 2006 04/03/2008 4.78 11.89 25/03/2008 7.88 40.38

KILLARY HARBOUR CELTIC ATLANTIC SALMON (KILLARY) LTD Rosroe Atlantic salmon, 2007 14/03/2008 0.39 1.75 Atlantic salmon, 2007 28/03/2008 0.14 0.78

- 49 -

CLEW BAY CLARE ISLAND SEAFARMS LTD Seastream Inner Atlantic salmon, 2006 06/03/2008 0.23 2.22 20/03/2008 0.35 3.04 Portlea Atlantic salmon, 2007 06/03/2008 2.31 6.57 25/03/2008 0.49 1.50

BEALACRAGHER BAY

CURRAUN FISHERIES LTD Curraun Rainbow trout 2007 (2) 06/03/2008 0.06 0.35 20/03/2008 0.04 0.36 Rainbow trout 2007 (3) 06/03/2008 0.04 0.41 20/03/2008 0.00 0.07

DONEGAL BAY

EANY FISH PRODUCTS LTD Inver Bay Rainbow trout 2007 (2) 14/03/2008 0.00 0.13 27/03/2008 0.00 0.21 Rainbow trout 2007 (3) 14/03/2008 0.00 0.16 27/03/2008 0.05 0.80 MARINE HARVEST McSwyne's Bay Atlantic salmon, 2007 14/03/2008 0.05 2.77 27/03/2008 0.75 3.06 Ocean Inver

Atlantic salmon, 2008

S1/2 14/03/2008 0.00 0.04

27/03/2008 0.00 0.03

- 50 -

MULROY BAY MARINE HARVEST Moross 1 Atlantic salmon, 2007 04/03/2008 0.14 5.05

19/03/2008 0.25 7.70 Millstone

Atlantic salmon, 2006 Harvested Out


1/2 04/03/2008 0.00 4.48

19/03/2008 0.05 3.09

LOUGH SWILLY

MARINE HARVEST Lough Swilly

Atlantic salmon, 2006 Harvested Out


1/2 04/03/2008 0.25 10.77 19/03/2008 1.09 13.45

- 51 -

Infestation of sea trout by the salmon louse (Lepeophtheirus

salmonis) in Ireland during spring of 2004

Oliver Tully

Zoology Department

Trinity College Dublin

Dublin 2

A report commissioned by the Central Fisheries Board

Issued September 2004.

CONTENTS

BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................3

METHODS..............................................................................................................................................3 FIELD SAMPLING ...................................................................................................................................3 DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................4

RESULTS................................................................................................................................................4 FISH SIZE AND CONDITION .....................................................................................................................5 INFESTATION PARAMETERS ...................................................................................................................5 POPULATION STRUCTURE OF LICE .........................................................................................................9

TRENDS IN INFESTATION 1992-2004..............................................................................................9

DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................................17

REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................17

Background

Annual surveys of sea trout have been undertaken in Ireland since 1990 as a result of

the collapse in a number of stocks in 1989. High marine mortality has persisted in a

number of stocks in the intervening 14 years although accurate estimates of mortality

are available for only a small number of stocks. A continuing feature in post smolt sea

trout populations in a number of locations is that they become heavily infested with

sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) shortly after migrating to sea.

This report summaries the infestations of L. salmonis that occurred on sea trout post

smolts in Ireland during May and June of 2004. Tully et al. (1999) published the data

from the 1993-1997 surveys. These and more recent data have also been analysed by

Gargan et al. (2003) who explore the relationship between the infestations and

production of sea lice on salmon farms.

Methods

Field sampling Sampling was carried out in the middle and upper reaches of estuaries. Observations

at a number of sites in Ireland since 1989 indicated that post-smolts can be present in

estuaries in May and June. These fish may be representative of the general post smolt

population although there is also strong evidence that fish that have heavy infestation

return prematurely to freshwater and are therefore more likely to be captured in the

estuarine locations used in this survey. Some sampling was also undertaken at sea in

Killary and Beirtreach Buoy Bays in 2004. Sampling was carried out between May 1

and June 15 only.

Fine mesh monofilament gill nets or draft nets were used at the majority of sites to

capture fish but some fish were also captured in upstream traps. Fish were retrieved

from the nets and individually transferred to plastic bags, which were labelled with

the date and location of sampling. A field record sheet was completed with

3

information on the date, location, duration of fishing, number of fish retained, number

of fish not retained and the reason for this and observations on water flow conditions

at the time of sampling. Fish were then frozen and transferred to the laboratory for

analysis. In the laboratory the length and weight of the fish was recorded, scale

samples were taken and lice were identified to species, life history stage and counted.

A number of fish in 2004 were analysed for lice by eye in the field. There were no

consistent differences in lice counts derived from fish analysed in the field compared

to those analysed in the laboratory. It is difficult to make valid comparisons here

however. A controlled test would involve counting lice on the same fish in the field

and in the laboratory. Some sea trout were treated with SLICE prior to migrating to

sea as part of the SUMBAWS project. These fish are not included in this report.

Data analysis The infestation parameters described are as follows: abundance is the mean number of

lice per fish, intensity is the mean number of lice per infested fish and prevalence is

the percentage of fish infested.

Summary statistics and frequency distributions of lice in the fish population are

presented

Results A total of 382 sea trout from 16 sites are included in the analysis for 2004. The

majority of fish were captured using gill nets or upstream traps in estuaries and lice

were counted in the laboratory. In addition, however, 18 fish from the Gowla and 26

from the Invermore, which were analysed for sea lice in the field, are included.

Sampling at sea, as opposed to sampling in estuaries, also resulted in the capture of 10

sea trout in Beirtreach Bui Bay (BBBay) and 15 sea trout in Killary. Eight fish

captured at the Gowla and Invermore that had been treated with ‘SLICE’ prior to their

migration to sea, as part of the EU funded project SUMBAWS, were not included in

the analysis.

4

A total of 11 salmon salmon smolts were captured in 2004. Eight of these were

captured in the Killary and 3 in the estuary of the Eske River. Results for these are

presented separately in this report.

Caligus elongatus was recorded on sea trout in Beirtreach Buoy Bay. Results are

given separately to those of L. salmonis.

Fish size and condition The relationship between the length and weight of fish in 2004 is shown in Figure 1.

y = 0.0116x2.9854

R2 = 0.9661

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Length (cm)

Wei

ght (

g)

Fig. 1. Length weight relationship for all fish captured in 2004

Infestation parameters Infestation data for sea trout are shown in Table 1 for each sampling date at each size

and for each site summarised over sampling dates in Table 2. The highest level of

infestation was recorded at BBBay and Ballinahinch. Mean intensity was 89 and 70

respectively at these 2 sites. Intensity ranged between 34.6 and 42.5 at 5 other sites

(Delphi, Owenshaugh, Gowla, Killary and Dawros).

C. elongatus was recorded only at BBBay. A maximum of 4 C. elongates was

recorded on individual fish and mean abundance was 0.4.

5

Wild salmon smolts were captured in the Eske and in Killary. Those captured in the

Eske were not infested with sea lice. In the Killary 5 of the 8 smolts were infested

with a mean intensity of 2.4 lice per fish and a maximum of 6 lice per fish. This is the

first record of infestation of wild salmon smolts by sea lice in Ireland (Table 3).

Table 1. Mean abundance of sea lice infesting sea trout by sampling date and

location in 2004. Data is sorted by River and then Date River Date N Mean S.d. Ballinahinch 01/06/2004 7 20.1 40.0BBBay 21/05/2004 9 95.2 53.7BBBay 08/06/2004 1 36.0Costello 31/05/2004 12 6.1 13.9Costello 10/06/2004 9 1.4 3.3Dawros 07/05/2004 1 10.0Dawros 27/05/2004 10 26.5 26.6Dawros 01/06/2004 2 70.0 59.4Delphi 18/05/2004 22 42.5 29.7Eany 12/05/2004 1 0.0Eany 13/05/2004 2 14.5 20.5Eany 15/05/2004 3 1.0 1.7Eany 17/05/2004 9 7.3 3.9Eany 25/05/2004 1 0.0Eany 02/06/2004 1 0.0Eany 09/06/2004 1 0.0Eany 10/06/2004 1 3.0Erriff 18/05/2004 2 12.5 17.7Erriff 20/05/2004 2 20.0 8.5Erriff 27/05/2004 7 8.3 17.6Eske 19/05/2004 10 2.8 5.2Eske 20/05/2004 6 0.7 1.2Eske 22/05/2004 1 10.0Eske 07/06/2004 4 21.0 4.1Eske 08/06/2004 4 23.5 21.8Eske 17/06/2004 2 9.5 12.0Gowla 05/05/2004 2 15.0 21.2Gowla 13/05/2004 5 66.2 27.9Gowla 17/05/2004 11 41.4 39.3Gowla 01/06/2004 2 49.0 25.5Gowla 23/06/2004 2 19.5 2.1Gowla 25/06/2004 1 24.0Gowla 28/06/2004 3 9.7 7.5Gowla 30/06/2004 1 38.0Gowla 02/07/2004 2 0.0 0.0Gowla 09/07/2004 1 10.0Gowla 12/07/2004 1 41.0Gowla 16/07/2004 3 0.0 0.0Gowla 29/07/2004 1 0.0Gowla 13/08/2004 1 10.0

6

7

Invermore 06/05/2004 1 0.0Invermore 18/05/2004 5 11.0 12.7Invermore 31/05/2004 3 0.0 0.0Invermore 16/06/2004 10 0.2 0.4Invermore 09/07/2004 2 40.0 11.3Invermore 14/07/2004 3 0.0 0.0Invermore 19/07/2004 1 0.0Invermore 29/07/2004 1 70.0Invermore 01/08/2004 3 2.0 3.5Invermore 03/08/2004 2 3.0 4.2Invermore 05/08/2004 1 12.0Invermore 11/08/2004 1 40.0Invermore 12/08/2004 3 19.7 7.5Invermore 13/08/2004 1 37.0Invermore 15/08/2004 1 15.0Killary 29/04/2004 6 4.5 7.3Killary 30/04/2004 5 14.8 21.5Killary 07/05/2004 2 5.0 7.1Killary 12/05/2004 2 131.5 16.3Kylemore 19/05/2004 11 9.5 14.3Newport 20/05/2004 14 20.7 14.5Newport 28/05/2004 17 17.7 10.4Newport 04/06/2004 12 6.9 16.4Owengarve 12/05/2004 11 0.0 0.0Owengarve 20/05/2004 7 0.0 0.0Owengarve 28/05/2004 11 17.6 14.3Owengarve 04/06/2004 2 16.0 22.6Owenshaugh 13/05/2004 15 48.3 32.7Owenshaugh 17/05/2004 11 50.5 34.9Owenshaugh 28/05/2004 13 2.4 3.3Sneem 20/07/2004 39 3.8 5.8

8

Table 3. Prevalence, abundance and intensity of sea lice infestation of salmon post smolts at 2 sites in 2004.

Table 2. Prevalence, abundance and intensity of sea lice infestation of sea trout at 16 sites sampled in 2004.

Prevalence Intensity Abundance Site N (%) Mean S.d. Median IQR Mean S.d. Max BBBay 10 100 89.3 54.0 84.0 83.0 89.3 54.0 191Ballinahinch 7 29 70.5 50.2 70.5 71.0 20.1 40.0 106Delphi 22 100 42.5 29.7 45.5 40.0 42.5 29.7 118Owenshaugh 39 85 39.8 34.6 38.0 59.8 33.6 35.0 108Gowla 36 78 39.5 31.7 27.0 55.5 30.7 32.4 105Killary 15 67 37.4 52.0 14.5 47.0 24.9 45.5 143Dawros 13 92 34.6 33.7 24.5 25.0 31.9 33.6 112Kylemore 11 36 26.0 10.2 29.0 15.0 9.5 14.3 34Owengarve 31 32 22.6 12.3 21.5 17.0 7.3 12.7 40Invermore 38 45 22.5 18.7 17.0 25.8 10.1 16.7 70Newport 43 79 19.8 13.5 16.5 15.0 15.7 14.5 57Erriff 11 73 15.4 16.6 9.0 23.0 11.2 15.7 48Eske 27 63 14.1 13.3 13.0 15.3 8.9 12.5 56Eany 19 58 9.2 7.3 8.0 6.0 5.3 7.2 29Costello 21 48 8.6 14.7 2.0 9.0 4.1 10.8 48Sneem 39 69 5.4 6.3 3.0 3.0 3.8 5.8 22

Prevalence Intensity Abundance Site N (%) Mean S.d. Median IQR Mean S.d. Max Eske 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Killary 8 62.5 2.4 2 2 2 1.5 2 6

Sites are arranged in order of decreasing mean abundance.

Population structure of lice The majority of lice infesting sea trout post smolts in 2004 were copepodids or

chalimus (Table 4) and varied from 100% chalimus at Killary to 50% chalimus at

Costello.

Table 4. Infestation of sea trout by chalimus (including copepodids) and post chalimus stages of L. salmonis in 2004. Sites are ordered in decreasing percentage of chalimus.

Postchalimus Chalimus Chalimus Site N Mean S.d. Max Mean S.d. Max (%) Killary 15 0.0 0.0 0 24.9 45.5 143 100Delphi 22 1.3 2.9 13 41.2 30.1 116 95Owenshaugh 39 0.5 1.4 6 33.2 34.9 105 94Invermore 38 0.1 0.4 2 9.9 16.6 70 94Kylemore 11 0.9 1.4 4 8.5 13.1 32 89Ballinahinch 7 2.4 4.6 12 17.7 35.4 94 87BBBay 10 7.0 10.2 34 82.3 59.2 190 85Erriff 11 3.5 8.1 25 7.7 11.9 35 85Gowla 36 4.9 8.1 34 25.8 30.6 105 80Sneem 39 0.4 0.8 3 3.4 5.8 22 79Eany 19 1.7 2.4 7 3.6 6.4 27 64Newport 43 5.9 7.5 26 9.7 12.9 57 58Owengarve 31 2.7 6.4 28 4.5 9.2 36 58Eske 27 2.3 4.3 18 6.5 11.7 52 52Dawros 13 17.3 28.4 107 14.6 23.5 90 51Costello 21 1.0 2.3 9 3.0 9.0 39 50

Trends in infestation 1992-2004 A number of rivers have been sampled annually between 1992 and 2004. Summary

data for each site and year for sites where 3 or more fish were captured are shown in

Table 5. Data from 7 sites are shown graphically in Fig. 2. There are no consistent

trends during the period.

9

Table 5. Mean abundance of sea lice infesting sea trout at different sites sampled between 1992-2004. Only site year combinations where at least 3 fish were captured are shown. Year Site N Mean S.d. Max

1993 Adrigole 4 20.5 21.4 511995 Adrigole 10 100.1 71.7 2051999 Adrigole 9 50.2 45.6 1401994 Ardbear 4 0.0 0.0 01995 Ardbear 3 15.3 19.9 381996 Ardbear 7 43.0 59.6 1621997 Ardbear 6 55.8 59.7 1671998 Ardbear 14 33.8 35.4 1051999 Ardbear 8 16.8 23.8 572000 Ardbear 3 27.3 27.5 581992 Argideen 19 8.4 33.1 1451993 Argideen 3 12.7 14.8 291994 Argideen 5 0.0 0.0 01995 Argideen 6 0.0 0.0 01996 Argideen 6 1.2 1.9 51997 Argideen 40 0.4 1.3 71998 Argideen 14 1.6 3.5 132000 Ballinahinch 4 21.5 24.9 462004 Ballinahinch 7 20.1 40.0 1061992 Ballynahinch 5 14.2 12.8 271993 Ballynahinch 8 37.1 31.2 941997 Ballynahinch 21 55.5 54.8 1911998 Ballynahinch 31 47.3 36.6 1431993 Ballyveeney 3 0.0 0.0 02004 BBBay 10 89.3 54.0 1911994 Belclare 26 7.5 7.0 291995 Belclare 15 19.5 27.9 941993 Boro 11 0.5 1.0 31993 Bride 23 0.1 0.4 21995 Bride 8 0.0 0.0 01994 Bunowen 4 0.0 0.0 01995 Bunowen 20 19.4 29.3 1101996 Bunowen 14 5.6 14.1 531993 Bunree 21 2.7 5.1 181992 Burrishoole 7 51.1 33.6 1071998 Burrishoole 15 51.7 21.5 931999 Burrishoole 21 0.0 0.0 01993 Carna 3 8.7 0.6 91994 Carna 13 16.1 20.3 701992 Clifden 6 77.5 62.4 1541994 Clifden 34 52.2 56.5 2261995 Clifden 15 1.9 2.3 61996 Clifden 12 38.6 54.2 1361997 Clifden 7 11.0 24.9 67

10

1998 Clifden 9 6.8 13.3 411993 Colligan 28 0.0 0.0 01994 Colligan 4 0.0 0.0 01998 Colligan 11 2.8 4.2 121999 Colligan 4 0.0 0.0 02000 Colligan 6 0.2 0.4 12001 Colligan 81 3.6 10.9 862002 Colligan 3 3.0 2.0 52003 Colligan 17 0.6 1.2 41996 Coomhola 3 3.7 0.6 41993 Corock 10 0.0 0.0 01992 Costello 7 67.3 87.4 2351993 Costello 27 43.2 32.7 1191994 Costello 4 0.0 0.0 01996 Costello 3 27.7 46.2 811997 Costello 18 33.2 47.4 1771998 Costello 9 14.4 20.8 561999 Costello 3 10.3 9.6 192000 Costello 5 1.6 1.8 42002 Costello 3 0.7 0.6 12004 Costello 21 4.1 10.8 481993 Crana 32 32.6 44.2 1611995 Crana 11 78.8 115.4 3501996 Crana 13 14.0 24.0 811997 Crana 35 37.3 36.8 1661998 Crana 55 3.7 6.5 321999 Crana 75 55.3 50.1 2372000 Crana 23 38.6 43.1 1482001 Crana 12 31.1 29.5 902002 Crana 17 21.8 17.3 772003 Crana 24 22.3 17.0 621994 Crumlin 7 7.6 17.1 461995 Crumlin 10 11.9 25.5 831997 Crumlin 3 22.3 31.9 591994 Culfin 6 4.7 7.7 181995 Culfin 22 68.5 98.6 3141996 Culfin 7 70.7 45.6 1491997 Culfin 6 5.3 8.4 181998 Culfin 13 6.1 17.2 622000 Currane 11 0.1 0.3 11993 Dargle 19 19.7 13.6 491994 Dargle 19 17.6 15.1 541995 Dargle 5 12.0 16.8 381996 Dargle 45 2.1 9.0 461992 Dawros 15 34.6 37.2 1231993 Dawros 38 21.6 24.5 1001994 Dawros 36 35.4 51.7 1901995 Dawros 44 28.7 27.9 1121997 Dawros 25 26.1 29.7 1171998 Dawros 22 20.7 22.3 871999 Dawros 13 17.0 23.1 592000 Dawros 8 14.5 23.0 702001 Dawros 44 14.1 22.7 136

11

2002 Dawros 5 15.6 19.1 472004 Dawros 13 31.9 33.6 1121993 Delphi 19 18.2 17.9 601994 Delphi 13 19.0 47.1 1431995 Delphi 110 55.2 70.3 3421996 Delphi 10 82.4 91.2 2471999 Delphi 6 87.8 19.2 1202000 Delphi 19 30.2 23.5 702003 Delphi 20 40.2 46.9 1642004 Delphi 22 42.5 29.7 1181992 Drumcliffe 7 1.0 2.6 71993 Drumcliffe 34 33.3 28.2 1551996 Drumcliffe 5 9.2 17.8 411997 Drumcliffe 4 0.0 0.0 01999 Drumcliffe 16 7.9 11.9 411993 Eany 39 5.9 14.0 791994 Eany 49 4.4 13.9 841995 Eany 13 36.9 60.6 1651996 Eany 39 6.9 17.2 671997 Eany 4 63.5 56.8 1211998 Eany 58 36.5 47.8 2271999 Eany 71 41.3 63.7 3062000 Eany 96 50.1 47.0 1932001 Eany 67 38.1 49.1 2712002 Eany 50 23.5 24.9 1002003 Eany 65 41.2 37.4 1572004 Eany 19 5.3 7.2 291992 Erriff 8 0.0 0.0 01993 Erriff 7 32.1 16.0 531994 Erriff 15 14.7 20.6 641995 Erriff 34 60.1 148.6 8721996 Erriff 13 88.1 61.5 1991997 Erriff 29 21.5 26.8 1081998 Erriff 15 11.0 16.4 491999 Erriff 22 42.2 57.9 1692000 Erriff 18 20.1 25.6 712001 Erriff 31 1.2 2.6 122002 Erriff 3 0.3 0.6 12003 Erriff 17 41.4 48.2 1572004 Erriff 11 11.2 15.7 481998 Erriff 8 10.0 11.6 351993 Eske 27 23.5 45.5 1831994 Eske 6 0.0 0.0 01995 Eske 13 36.4 30.2 1081996 Eske 11 20.5 55.2 1851997 Eske 65 12.2 27.4 1251998 Eske 45 13.6 22.9 971999 Eske 28 28.3 51.7 2722000 Eske 42 12.5 21.9 1322001 Eske 37 18.7 28.2 1422002 Eske 9 25.4 14.8 532003 Eske 17 15.5 19.6 762004 Eske 30 8.0 12.2 56

12

1993 Feale 4 0.0 0.0 01994 Furnace 8 35.1 24.4 681995 Furnace 4 12.0 14.7 321996 Furnace 28 55.5 43.1 1691997 Furnace 50 73.3 96.1 3781998 Furnace 40 36.8 33.1 1461999 Furnace 44 45.2 37.8 1682000 Furnace 9 50.6 37.4 1322001 Furnace 3 0.0 0.0 02002 Furnace 10 8.9 13.5 402003 Furness 3 0.7 1.2 21993 Glanmore 4 26.8 29.1 581993 Glenamoy 4 0.0 0.0 01998 Glenamoy 21 0.2 0.9 41999 Glenamoy 35 0.1 0.7 42000 Glenamoy 33 0.5 2.2 111992 Gowla 14 26.7 55.4 1711993 Gowla 44 57.0 29.1 1301994 Gowla 8 14.8 37.4 1071997 Gowla 38 19.6 33.1 1211998 Gowla 33 63.3 50.3 1621999 Gowla 25 40.4 27.3 882000 Gowla 33 25.6 26.8 1042003 Gowla 5 21.6 30.7 742004 Gowla 39 29.1 31.9 1051999 Inner Clew

Bay 25 19.9 19.3 74

1999 InnerClewBay 10 0.9 1.4 41992 Inny 73 45.2 52.4 3251993 Inny 137 13.8 18.3 1041994 Inny 34 2.4 7.7 401995 Inny 21 1.2 4.4 201996 Inny 8 0.0 0.0 01998 Inny 10 0.0 0.0 02000 Inny 6 0.0 0.0 01993 Invermore 39 46.4 29.0 1101994 Invermore 37 75.3 34.4 1421995 Invermore 37 26.2 15.4 581996 Invermore 41 83.6 62.5 2881997 Invermore 33 111.7 96.1 2951998 Invermore 36 66.5 39.3 1441999 Invermore 68 52.6 32.9 1222000 Invermore 77 77.4 34.1 1612001 Invermore 34 29.4 18.5 762003 Invermore 15 32.1 35.4 1212004 Invermore 43 9.4 16.1 701992 Killary 28 31.3 48.6 1661996 Killary 5 106.8 83.4 1832004 Killary 23 16.8 38.1 1432003 Kylemore 8 7.6 10.4 322004 Kylemore 11 9.5 14.3 341993 Lackagh 4 1.8 2.4 51994 Lackagh 10 0.3 0.7 21996 Lackagh 19 1.6 2.1 6

13

1997 Lackagh 12 0.4 1.4 51998 Lackagh 32 1.0 1.5 62000 Lackagh 7 17.9 19.1 511993 Leannan 31 10.5 18.7 681996 Leannan 38 12.0 14.3 491997 Leannan 44 15.3 22.3 1061999 Lennan 11 0.2 0.4 12000 Lennan 5 1.2 2.2 52001 Lennan 11 6.8 7.1 192003 Lennan 7 33.3 42.7 1141993 Nanny 13 13.0 16.8 441992 Newport 7 55.0 23.9 941993 Newport 3 1.0 1.0 21995 Newport 15 3.7 6.9 271998 Newport 88 24.2 19.5 761999 Newport 7 20.3 10.5 362002 Newport 24 9.3 12.2 462004 Newport 43 15.7 14.5 571993 Oily 16 58.7 60.5 1791994 Oily 21 2.4 5.9 261995 Owenduff 14 7.4 7.3 301996 Owenduff 4 5.0 8.7 181997 Owenduff 11 0.6 1.4 41999 Owenduff 55 4.4 8.9 372000 Owenduff 41 1.4 6.0 382002 Owenduff 40 4.3 10.2 492003 Owenduff 26 2.0 3.6 141993 Owenea 15 5.8 20.8 811994 Owenea 12 0.2 0.6 21995 Owenea 9 0.1 0.3 11996 Owenea 10 0.0 0.0 01997 Owenea 20 1.0 3.8 172000 Owenea 5 1.2 2.2 52001 Owenea 13 1.8 2.0 72002 Owenea 5 0.0 0.0 02003 Owenea 5 11.2 11.6 271992 Owengarve 45 70.0 63.9 2691993 Owengarve 15 10.8 22.5 621994 Owengarve 34 3.1 9.3 441995 Owengarve 86 9.3 32.7 2291996 Owengarve 25 6.1 23.3 1101997 Owengarve 17 2.2 5.0 151998 Owengarve 40 27.7 47.6 2481999 Owengarve 41 17.3 20.2 742000 Owengarve 32 2.3 5.8 302004 Owengarve 31 7.3 12.7 401992 Owenmore 6 8.2 13.0 291993 Owenmore 9 4.4 5.9 181994 Owenmore 17 0.0 0.0 01995 Owenmore 27 3.1 3.9 181997 Owenmore 21 0.4 1.0 41998 Owenmore 23 1.0 4.0 191999 Owenmore 37 9.1 12.1 44

14

15

2000 Owenmore 39 1.3 4.1 192002 Owenmore 27 0.2 0.7 32001 Owenshangh 56 39.4 32.6 1091993 Owenshaugh 9 77.1 44.4 1361994 Owenshaugh 33 33.2 44.4 1471995 Owenshaugh 18 24.4 32.5 1181996 Owenshaugh 16 33.4 37.1 1501997 Owenshaugh 10 6.0 6.9 211999 Owenshaugh 15 10.9 12.0 442001 Owenshaugh 25 46.1 24.0 1032002 Owenshaugh 6 9.3 8.3 242004 Owenshaugh 39 33.6 35.0 1081993 Palmerstown 5 0.0 0.0 01994 Palmerstown 21 0.0 0.0 01995 Palmerstown 22 0.1 0.4 21996 Palmerstown 11 0.0 0.0 01998 Palmerstown 24 0.0 0.0 01999 Palmerstown 16 0.0 0.0 01993 Roughty 52 34.5 48.5 2451994 Roughty 34 12.3 16.3 631995 Roughty 17 1.3 2.3 91996 Roughty 16 1.5 3.8 131997 Roughty 13 1.2 1.7 51999 Roughty 14 2.6 2.8 91993 Sneem 13 45.0 52.4 1791994 Sneem 31 21.8 27.2 1421995 Sneem 15 2.5 4.2 161996 Sneem 16 2.5 4.7 151997 Sneem 8 1.5 1.4 31999 Sneem 15 8.3 10.2 342001 Sneem 34 23.7 17.0 652004 Sneem 39 3.8 5.8 221993 Spiddal 7 27.4 32.4 801994 Spiddal 12 12.8 29.7 821995 Spiddal 16 1.1 4.5 181993 Stragar 11 29.1 34.6 1051994 Stragar 22 0.6 1.8 71995 Stragar 21 7.4 11.6 391993 Tay 43 0.0 0.0 01995 Tay 9 1.1 2.6 81998 Tay 3 0.0 0.0 01992 Waterville 21 13.0 30.6 1091993 Waterville 37 37.1 47.4 1901994 Waterville 24 3.7 7.8 381995 Waterville 28 0.7 2.4 121997 Waterville 51 2.5 8.7 591998 Waterville 30 0.8 4.2 23

16

Crana

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Delphi

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Fig. 2. Trends in sea lice infestation at 7 sites between 1992 and 2004

Dawros

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Erriff

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Eske

0.05.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

1015

2025

3035

40

Costello

0.000000000

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.

Eany

0.00000000

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

10.20.30.40.50.60.70.

Discussion Infestations of sea trout post smolts in 2004 were largely similar to previous years.

The 12 year time series for some sites also shows little pattern. There has not been any

consistent increase or decrease in infestations at the majority of sites. Infestations

within site certainly fluctuate and there are significant differences between years

within site. The infestation data are generally variable over date and site as shown by

Tully et al (1999). Fish sampled at the same site on different dates in a given year can

have very different infestations. Nevertheless the lack of pattern is consistent across

almost all sites and heavy infestations have been a feature at some sites during the 12

year period.

References

Tully, O. 1993 – 2002. Annual reports of sea lice infestation of sea trout in Ireland.

Reports held by the Central Fisheries Board

Tully, O. 1999. Spatial and temporal variation in the infestation of sea trout (Salmo

trutta L.) by the caligid copepod Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Kroyer) in relation to

sources of infection in Ireland. Parasitology 119, 41 – 51.

17

Williamsburg Agreement Annex 2 - General Measures To Minimise Impacts 1. Siting and Operation of Aquaculture Activities 1.1 Salmon aquaculture facilities should only be located where hydrographical,

epidemiological, biological and ecological standards can be met. Factors which may be taken into consideration include: availability of water supply and receiving waters for discharge; water quality and exchange; water depth; site protection; separation distances between aquaculture facilities; and distance from salmon rivers.

Further information on how Ireland deals with containment issues is provided in Annex 3 of the Williamsburg Resolution below. Specific details of all of the above must be presented in an Environmental Impact Assessment which is a requirement for an Aquaculture Licence.

1.2 Consideration should be given to the establishment of “wild salmon

protection areas” where salmon aquaculture is restricted or prohibited. Such protection areas may minimise genetic, disease, parasite and environmental impacts.

Wild salmon protection areas have not been considered to date except in the

context of fisheries restrictions in areas known to have suffered from drastic sea trout population declines in the past.

1.3 The designation of “aquaculture regions”, where all the steps in the

production process are carried out and which are separated from similar regions by areas without aquaculture, could also be considered. Such regions could provide a framework for management of the aquaculture industry and could assist in controlling the spread of fish diseases and parasites.

These are not currently considered. 1.4 The separation distance between aquaculture facilities at marine sites should

be based on a general assessment of local conditions. Wherever possible, different generations of salmon should be reared in separate locations. As local conditions permit, a fallowing regime should be practiced as a means of minimising outbreaks of disease and parasites. Aquaculture production should be adapted to the holding capacity of an individual site and should not exceed density levels based on science and good husbandry practices.

All of the above are taken into account for Irish aquaculture practices – see

Appendices 4a to 4e for details. 1.5 Dead and dying fish should be removed immediately from aquaculture

production facilities, taking into account worker safety, and weather and sea

state conditions. Mortalities should be disposed of, along with waste materials, in an approved manner. Procedures should be established to address the effective removal and disposal of infectious material. Contingency plans should be established for the disposal of mortalities from emergency situations.

Such measures are considered to be of critical importance in the operation of any aquaculture facility.

1.6 Depending on local regulations and protocols, tagging or marking or

inventory tracking systems will be used in order to facilitate the identification of farmed salmon in the wild and their separation from wild fish, to determine the source of escapes and to assess the interactions of escaped farmed salmon with the wild stocks. These systems could be coupled with river monitoring and recapture systems that allow holding and close examination of returning fish in the rivers.

Given the current low level of escapes (Appendix 5 and 6) this has not been believed to be necessary or practical. However as there is no in-river monitoring system in place presently it is difficult to judge whether low but persistent straying occurs and the possible impacts of genetic intrusion in some populations. This has been noted in Appendix 5 and should be addressed by the new Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI).

2. Diseases and Parasites 2.1 All steps in the aquaculture production process from hatchery to processing

plant, including transportation of live fish materials, should be conducted in accordance with appropriate fish health protection practices. This includes attention to the application of appropriate husbandry techniques to minimise the risk of disease in the reared stock. These might include vaccination, use of optimal stocking densities, careful handling, frequent inspection of fish, proper diet and feeding regimes, avoidance of unnecessary disturbance of the fish, detailed health inspections, disinfection of transportation equipment and the use of foot baths at production facilities.

Stringent procedures and requirements for aquaculture operations are in place which cover the above. The details of these can be found in Appendix 3.4 8 and 9 attached. Specified diseases and parasites

2.2 Mapping of the presence of serious diseases and parasites should be used to

establish epidemiological zones (either with or without specific pathogens). Management measures within these zones should include monitoring to confirm the disease status of a zone and eradication. These zones should be

established for at least the following diseases: Viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemia (VHS), Infectious Haematopoietic Necrosis (IHN), Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA) and the parasite Gyrodactylus salaris.

The development of specific epidemiological zones is being considered at several

levels. 2.3 Movements of live salmonids and their eggs from a zone where any of the

specified diseases is present to a zone free of these diseases should not be permitted. However, movements of salmonid eggs may be permitted where there is minimal risk of transmission of the specified diseases or parasite.

This is the current strategy in Ireland. 2.4 A list of the prevailing infectious diseases and parasites, and the methods in

practice for their control, should be maintained by the appropriate authorities.

lists and procedures are maintained by the qualified vets and authorities in Ireland.

Unknown diseases and parasites

2.5 Procedures should be established for the early identification and detection of,

and rapid response to, an outbreak of any new disease or parasitic infection likely to affect Atlantic salmon. These procedures should include the establishment of official surveillance services responsible for the monitoring of the health of both wild and farmed fish. The procedures should also demand the rapid introduction of restrictions on the movement of salmonids in the case of an outbreak of a disease or parasitic infection until the status of the disease or parasitic infection is known.

Such procedures are currently being developed in Ireland

2.6 Even with such procedures, it may not be possible to respond in time to

prevent the spread of such a disease or parasitic infection. It is recommended that the Contracting Parties, when establishing or reviewing rules on transfers of fish, consider additional protective measures such as:

- the establishment of zones: the intention of such zones, between which

the movement of live salmonid fish and their gametes should be restricted and which might be defined using geographical, climatic or biological criteria, is to limit the spread of parasites and diseases to wild stocks;

- the movement of salmonids: for disease prevention purposes, the trade in eggs is safer than the trade in live fish. It must, however, be recognised that some serious diseases, such as IPN, BKD and IHN, may be transferred with eggs and ovarian fluid;

- diseases of wild fish: there is a need to strengthen and amend disease

controls to minimise disease transfer between aquaculture activities and wild fish.

All of the above are being considered by the Irish authorities to ensure the lowest possible risk of disease transfer form any aquaculture facility.

Health inspections of donor facilities

2.7 Movements of live salmonids and their eggs from hatcheries to areas

containing Atlantic salmon stocks, or to facilities where there is a risk of transmission of infection to such areas, should only take place from facilities where regular inspections have not detected significant diseases and parasites.

This is the standard practice in Ireland.

Use of medicines and disinfectants 2.8 Medicines and disinfectants to control diseases and parasites must be used

with care and in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and any Codes of Practice, and in compliance with regulatory authorities.

This is standard practice in Ireland.

3. Gene Banks 3.1 Various activities may result in serious adverse impacts on salmon stocks and

strains such that the potential exists that a portion of the salmon genome is lost. In order to protect against this possibility, Parties should consider the establishment of gene banks for stocks that are in danger of extirpation. This could provide a source of genetic material for future restoration programmes.

No such programme has been initiated in Ireland to date.

SAMPLE

FISH HEALTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON OUR BUSINESS The main activity of this business is __________________ The veterinary practice retained by this company is_________________ Various records are kept by our company, but those retained to comply with the Fish Health Regulations are as follows:

• Mortality records • Movement records • Records of the results of risk based surveillance

These records are retained in a ring-binder, which is sub-divided into relevant sections which reflect the record keeping requirements of SI 261 of 2008 (European Communities Health of Aquaculture Animals and Products Regulations 2008). We also participate in a Risk Based Surveillance Scheme and have an appropriate biosecurity regime in place. Details are outlined below.

1

2.0 MORTALITY RECORDS Mortalities are recorded in the Mortality Log which is an A4 sheet of paper formatted as outlined below. This Mortality Log is kept in the ring-binder mentioned above. Where mortality levels are unexplained and are significantly above what is considered to be normal for this farm under prevailing conditions, the event will be notified to the veterinary practice named above. Where such investigations either (i) indicate the suspicion/ confirmation of the presence of a listed disease or (ii) where no diagnosis has been reached within a reasonable time frame, the Fish Health Unit of the Marine Institute will be notified.

Date Dead Fish removed

Cage / Pond / Tank No. fish removed from

No. of fish removed Total no. of fish in each cage / pond / tank

Observations Comments: (runts, failed smolts, predator damage, gill damage, skin lesions, etc.)

2

3.0 MOVEMENTS 3.1 MOVEMENTS ONTO SITE Details of any movements onto the site are recorded in the Movements (In) Log. This is an A4 sheet of paper which is formatted as follows and is kept in the Movements Section of the ring binder referred to above. Date Species Number Average Weight Site of Origin Transporters Fish

Health Registration No. (where applicable)

Date of Notification to the Marine Institute

Observations (e.g. condition on arrival, mortalities).

* NOTE: Notification of the movement to the Marine Institute is done by the person/company who operates the site of origin in the case of movements within the country and by the person/company receiving the consignment in the case of movements from outside the State. In both cases, the Marine Institute is given a minimum of 3 days notice by sending an email to [email protected] or by sending a fax to 091-387201. Any Health Certificates provided with the consignment are also kept in the Movements Section of the ring binder.

3


3.2 MOVEMENTS OFF A SITE

Where the animals are to be on-grown elsewhere (i.e. not going for direct human consumption), the following details are kept in the Movements (Out) Log: Date Species Number Average

Weight Site of Destination

Name & Health Registration number of Transporter (where applicable)

Date of Notification to the Marine Institute

Observations (e.g. condition on departure etc.)

Where health certification is provided by the Marine Institute, copies of the certificates are kept in the Movements Section of the ring binder. NOTE:

• In the case of movements off the site, notification of the Marine Institute is done by the person / company operating the site of origin. • Where movements off the site are going for direct human consumption, invoices may be used for traceability purposes. Where fish are traded

without money, provision must be made to record / trace these movements.

4

4.0 RISK BASED HEALTH SURVEILLANCE – CATEGORISATION Based on the criteria supplied by the Marine Institute in Annex 1 of the Application Pack, the risk based categorisation attached to the site represented by this Fish Health Management Plan is as follows: Categorisation Reason Once the Marine Institute supplies our final health categorisation, this will be inserted in our Fish Health Management Plan. 5.0 RECORDING THE RESULTS OF RISK BASED HEALTH SURVEILLANCE The results of our risk based health surveillance scheme are kept in the Health Surveillance Section of our ring binder. Details of health inspections are kept in the Health Surveillance Log, which is an A4 sheet of paper which is formatted as outlined below and which is kept in the Health Surveillance Section. Date of Inspection Name & affiliation of

Inspector Signature Type of Inspection, i.e.

record check only or record check plus sample collection

Details of any samples taken during the inspection

Any reports sent by the inspection team will be kept in the Health Surveillance Section of the ring binder. Any non-compliances identified by the inspector(s) will be dealt with immediately.

5

6.0 NOTIFICATION 6.1 NOTIFICATION OF SUSPICION OF THE PRESENCE OF A LISTED DISEASE In the event of suspicion of the presence of a disease listed in Directive 2006/88/EC, immediate written notification will be sent to the Marine Institute. This will be done either by: • Sending a letter to The Fish Health Unit, Marine Institute, Rinville, Oranmore, Galway or • By sending a fax to 091-387201 or • By sending an email to [email protected] 6.2 NOTIFICATION OF INCREASED MORTALITY As outlined in Section 1.0 above, unexplained increased mortality will be notified to the Marine Institute, for investigation. This will be done either by: • Sending a letter to The Fish Health Unit, Marine Institute, Rinville, Oranmore, Galway or • By sending a fax to 091-387201 or • By sending an email to [email protected]

6



7.0 BIOSECURITY PLAN

7.1 Stocking the Site Care is taken to review the disease risk from suppliers of live fish and ova and to use only reputable suppliers. Fish health certification is mandatory for all consignments imported from abroad. Stocks moved within the country are subject to veterinary examination within a 7 day period prior to movement, to ensure they are clinically healthy. 7.2 Inspection / Vigilance post arrival Stock is inspected on arrival at our site and any mortalities above the norm are recorded in the Movements (IN) Log Book. Ongoing vigilance is exercised and mortalities are reported to our retained veterinary practice should they be above what would be expected under prevailing conditions. 7.3 Transportation of Fish From 1 September 2009, only commercial hauliers who have been registered by the Marine Institute on the Aquaculture Animal Transport Register will be used for transporting stock to and from our site. Remaining transportation is carried out by ourselves, thus minimising the risk of bringing unwanted pathogens onto our site. 7.4 Disinfection & Cleaning

• Access to our site is strictly controlled. A Visitors Book is maintained and foot baths, hand sprays and vehicle disinfection points are available at access / exit points

• Different stocks are separated and new stocks are quarantined in so far as possible, given the lay-out of our site • Where possible, separate nets are retained for each unit within the site. These nets are disinfected after use. • Every effort is made not to share equipment with other sites. If this is absolutely necessary, the piece of equipment is thoroughly

cleaned and disinfected before it leaves the site and prior to it being returned to the site. It is disinfected again, on arrival back at the site.

• Boots/ wet gear etc are not removed from the site and visitors are supplied with boots / gear on arrival. • Mortalities are removed on a regular basis to ensure that on-site infection pressure is kept as low as possible. Dead-on-farm fish are

removed by______________for rendering.

7

Aquaculture, Introductions and Transfers and Transgenics ... FAR_Ireland.pdf · Irish Focus Area...

Documents

Transcript of Aquaculture, Introductions and Transfers and Transgenics ... FAR_Ireland.pdf · Irish Focus Area...