Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br />V. Roche <br />very successful (Anon, 1986). The <br />Board carries out various main- <br />tenance and improvement works on <br />spawning and nursery streams to en- <br />sure that the best possible habitat is <br />available for trout spawning and sur- <br />vival of young fish. Such works con- <br />sist mainly of loosening of spawning <br />gravels and the erection of barriers to <br />create holding pools. <br />4.6 Cropping of Streams <br />From time to time, the Board "crops" <br />larger trout from nursery streams, by <br />means of electro-fishing, and transfers <br />them to the lake; this ensures that a <br />greater food supply is available for ju- <br />venile fish. <br />5 WATER QUALITY CONTROL <br />AND MONITORING <br />5.1 Lough Conn Eutrophication <br />Problem <br />5.1.1. In 1990, Lough Conn suffered <br />a severe algal bloom for much of the <br />angling season. This was much more <br />severe than anything previously seen <br />on the lake and was so bad that the <br />lake became unfishable at times with <br />anglers' flies becoming clogged with <br />algae. Given the importance of Lough <br />Conn as a game fishery and its value <br />to the economy of the area, apart from <br />its value as a local recreational outlet, <br />there was strong local reaction to the <br />apparently very serious deterioration <br />in water quality. Two biologists from <br />the Central Fisheries Board were <br />called in to examine the situation. The <br />first of these, Dr. Trevor Champ, found <br />that Lough Conn had reached "an <br />alarming level of eutrophication" <br />(Champ 1990). He said the extent of <br />the enrichment had not been evident <br />from the anlaysis of monthly samples <br />taken at mid-lake locations over a <br />number of years. He recommended a <br />concerted effort to establish the princi- <br />pal sources of nutrients, which were <br />causing the excessive algal growth <br />and the implementation of corrective <br />measures as a matter of urgency. <br />5.1.2 A second biologist, Dr. Martin <br />O'Grady, carried out a fish stock sur- <br />vey (O'Grady 1990). He used the <br />same methods as had been used in <br />earlier surveys in 1978 and 1984. This <br />time, however, his findings were very <br />different. Firstly, a large population of <br />char, which had been found to be pre- <br />sent in 1978 and 1984, had ap- <br />parently collapsed. Char are <br />considered to be the best indicators <br />of clean water conditions in lakes and <br />Dr. O'Grady concluded that the sud- <br />den and dramatic fall in the stock of <br />this species was most likely related to <br />the onset of cultural eutrophication. <br />Secondly, he found that while the trout <br />population was similar to 1978 and <br />1984, i.e. approximately 500,000 <br />trout, the average size of fish had in- <br />creased substantially; this again, he <br />attributed to enrichment. Like Dr. <br />Champ, he recommended urgent ac- <br />tion to pinpoint the sources of enrich- <br />ment and the implementation of <br />corrective measures.