|
Post by BarleBlanker on Dec 10, 2016 11:07:44 GMT
I will investigate further on Monday. They are also in the river at Sidford ,just below Packhorse Bridge. The material is being taken by lorry to the seafront to replace shingle lost during the last lot of gales soon to be taken away by the next lot of gales. This madness is a result of a "partnership" between the EA and East Devon District Council. Colin I find that staggering! There is no way gravel extraction on that sort of scale should be going on in any river in winter (or any other time really). The EA really should be taken to task over this. Andy
|
|
|
Post by hardytim on Dec 11, 2016 17:58:15 GMT
There were 6-8 sea trout up to 18-20 inch cutting redds and possibly spawning this afternoon, just above the bridge on Salcombe Road
Great to see!
|
|
|
Post by billyfish on Dec 11, 2016 19:44:27 GMT
Thanks for the info' Tim. I wonder if the work will be allowed to take place tomorrow now that the fish are about to spawn. I shall be down there tomorrow first thing to see what happens. Colin.
|
|
|
Post by boisker on Dec 11, 2016 21:39:22 GMT
Unfortunately I fear flood defence and protecting infra-structure will over-ride the protected species commitments, same way we've allowed large tracts of ancient woodland to be bulldozed through... cheaper option than going around on more expensive farmland... it sucks, but it's how our legislation is set up. You only have to look at budgets, flood defence dwarfs biodiversity / species protection in budget terms. It will be interesting to hear the EA answer if you speak to them tomorrow Colin, I'm sure the people I know in the biodiversity/fisheries teams will be as disheartened as we all are, but likelihood is the flood defence wallas hold the whip hand. If I get chance I'll ping across an email tomorrow morning at work to a couple of people in the fisheries / biodiversity teams and at least raise it with them. If you're on site you could always ask them has it been fully signed off under the protected species legislation and whether an impact assessment has been done...
|
|
|
Post by billyfish on Dec 12, 2016 10:49:47 GMT
Thanks Mat, ive been down this morning and saw fish getting quite excited both sides of the bridge. The contractors were there ready to start but there was no EA presence. I phoned the EA incident line to let them know so it is logged. I suspect you are right about the flood protection issues. A fish pass would go a long way to helping this issue. Colin.
|
|
|
Post by BarleBlanker on Dec 12, 2016 13:39:08 GMT
Thanks Mat, ive been down this morning and saw fish getting quite excited both sides of the bridge. The contractors were there ready to start but there was no EA presence. Disturbance of spawning fish is an absolute no no. Get some pictures if you can (before and after, showing the fish if possible) and present them to the EA. Ask if it is OK for you to pop up to Simonsbath on the Barle and kick some spawning salmon off the redds this afternoon... Andy
|
|
|
Post by billyfish on Dec 12, 2016 14:45:17 GMT
I had a voicemail from Dave Brogden which basically said they had taken all possible precautions. I have left him a voicemail in reply . They have put a floating barrier across the river to stop any possible surface pollutants, such as oil from the machinery. I will try and catch the man in the EA van and get some clarification on what other "possible precautions " they have taken. I will also ask the question re the spawning redds at Simondsbath to see what the difference is. The actual digging out is taking place in the weir and down to the bridge . The 30 or so mainly sea trout disappeared last week during the work and some reappeared over the weekend and are starting to show signs of spawning. As they can't get over the weir the next available spot is the stretch below the weir. I'm dodging around with work so I can't guarantee being in the right place at the right time but I won't let this one go. Cheers, Colin.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 12, 2016 16:02:51 GMT
Hi Colin,
It may be too late to be too helpful, but through the Volunteer bailiff set-up I have contacted Nick Maye, who is the fishery Enforcement Officer for the EA.
He is in the process of finding out what is going on- confirms that disturbance of reds is illegal- and will let me know when he has done so.
PAul
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 12, 2016 16:03:21 GMT
Hi Colin,
It may be too late to be too helpful, but through the Volunteer bailiff set-up I have contacted Nick Maye, who is the fishery Enforcement Officer for the EA.
He is in the process of finding out what is going on- confirms that disturbance of reds is illegal- and will let me know when he has done so.
PAul
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 12, 2016 17:15:49 GMT
Well, I have had a bad day, pressing too many buttons in the wrong order. I should have picked up on this issue earlier and pressed the enforcement buttons over the weekend, but failed to do so- mea culpa.
Nick came back to me within the hour. The fisheries team were in involved as the gravel was deemed a flood risk in a built up area, threatening property and people- the key difference with the Simonsbath situation. Ultimately, if real, priorities which everyone would accept.
Given the primacy of flood RISK, the EA fisheries people's responsibility was to advise on the best way to do it not whether it should be done or not. They were advised on how best to mitigate the impact- only taking dry gravel, minimising siltage etc.
As a result of my query, they will be providing Nick with photographic evidence of the work to prove they acted as advised, so there is now review of how the work was conducted. If you have any photos etc that would be useful evidence, please let me know.
Had we got to Nick earlier, there might have been a more robust discussion of the urgency/ seriousness of the flood risk, although the outcome may well have been the same.
You may wish to pursue the assessment of the flood risk in this instance- the route to hold the EA to account if it was overplayed. If you have difficulty accessing the flood risk assessment, I may be able to get it through Nick.
|
|
|
Post by billyfish on Dec 12, 2016 20:47:07 GMT
Thanks for your efforts Paul. The fact that they put a floating barrage, for want of a better description, shows a reaction of sorts. However ,why did they not electrofish or net the river below before they started the work. It's not the first time that they have taken aggregate from this part of the river. They know there is a problem and they should try and rectify it by changing the shape of the weir structure and perhaps put in a fish pass at the same time. No reply from Dave Brogden . I mentioned the fish pass and the possibility of some money from funds outside the public purse . Perhaps he will be less busy tomorrow. Stay tuned, Colin.
|
|
|
Post by BarleBlanker on Dec 13, 2016 10:21:32 GMT
The fisheries team were in involved as the gravel was deemed a flood risk in a built up area, threatening property and people... Flood risk to property and people my arse! The Sid below the weir is not a natural river, it is well engineered to get water away ASAP. A couple of feet of gravel will make no difference. The truth will be that the gravel below the weir is an easily accessible source of free gravel for the sea front work. Dave Brogden - least said soonest mended... Andy
|
|
|
Post by remnevinhunter on Dec 13, 2016 15:54:37 GMT
Thanks for your efforts Paul. The fact that they put a floating barrage, for want of a better description, shows a reaction of sorts. However ,why did they not electrofish or net the river below before they started the work. It's not the first time that they have taken aggregate from this part of the river. They know there is a problem and they should try and rectify it by changing the shape of the weir structure and perhaps put in a fish pass at the same time. No reply from Dave Brogden . I mentioned the fish pass and the possibility of some money from funds outside the public purse . Perhaps he will be less busy tomorrow. Stay tuned, Colin. Paul makes a good point - early contact. I have now signed up to this forum. As the Angling Trust Regional Enforcement Manager responsible for developing and delivering the Voluntary Bailiff Service across South-West England I can offer practical support in cases such as this, IF I know about them. This will take the form of making the right contacts with the Environment Agency and the Police where enforcement actions to protect angling are needed. I cannot promise action will always be taken, but I can promise that I will do all I can to assist you.
If anybody would like to know more about the role I play you can look at the Angling Trust Voluntary Bailiff Service pages on its website at:
www.anglingtrust.net/page.asp?section=930§ionTitle=Voluntary%20Bailiff%20Service
or contact me at:
nevin.hunter@anglingtrust.net
|
|
|
Post by billyfish on Dec 13, 2016 16:39:14 GMT
Just finished work and found an answer phone message from Diane from the EA . She would like to meet and discuss the possibility of a fish pass. Could this be the start of something . Stay tuned. Colin.
|
|
|
Post by BarleBlanker on Dec 13, 2016 16:53:57 GMT
Just finished work and found an answer phone message from Diane from the EA . She would like to meet and discuss the possibility of a fish pass. Could this be the start of something . Stay tuned. Colin. Let's hope so. I realise there are budget and manpower issues with the EA but it used to drive me up the wall when things like this happen. The fish (and indeed the environment) have been completely disregarded when the idea of gravel extraction has been floated. But rather than hold their hands up and say "it's only the Sid, nobody fishes it, we have let the council take the cheap option" the EA insist on giving out BS about "only taking dry gravel" and flood risk* etc etc. I've heard this sort of stuff time and time again, the people at the top (and in the middle) just don't care but lack the honesty to say there is nothing they can OR will do. It seems incredible that an agency charged with looking after the river and fishery has not got in touch with the volunteers who lift fish over the weir to coordinate things better here IF the gravel really must be taken out. I'll stop ranting now! Andy *I don't know if anyone knows better but the only reference to flooding downstream of the weir in recent times I can find is from a combined sewer (so not from the river) and "some ponding on roads around the ford". Hardly risk to life and property is it?
|
|
|
Post by boisker on Dec 13, 2016 17:21:39 GMT
The engineers will work on something like a 1 in 200 yr flood. It grates but flood defence takes a higher priority and they are very risk adverse.... sort of understandable when they take the rap when any house does get flooded.
Good to hear Diane has got in touch Colin, I emailed her Monday but missed Diane's return phone call and then missed her again when I rang her back. Didn't get chance today, it would be fantastic if a fish pass could be constructed, I'll try ringing again tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by BarleBlanker on Dec 13, 2016 19:01:37 GMT
The engineers will work on something like a 1 in 200 yr flood. Yes and that is why the Sid downstream of the weir is a concrete gutter. I guess it was engineered like this after the big floods in the 1960's when many properties were flooded. This current bit of gravel removal has absolutely nothing to do with flood prevention in the river. Colin has told us the gravel is being used on the sea front. It is cheap and easy to get it out of the river nearby and to hell with the fish or indeed the law. The talk of this having anything to do with flood prevention is simply EA BS. They know that flooding frightens people and that very few understand it (see the clamour for utterly pointless dredging on the Somerset Levels...) so it is a get out of jail free card for them. Have a look at this report www.devon.gov.uk/devon-summer-floods-2012-joint-report.pdfSection 11 (starting page 49) deals with the Sid. The map on page 50 shows the flooding in July 2012. Note, as I've already noted, that the only flooding below the weir is from a combined sewer (a sewer that takes combines sewage and floodwater), not from the river. I'll bet the river hasn't overtopped it's (engineered) banks below the weir since it was built like that, a few tons of gravel would make no difference. Andy
|
|
|
Post by billyfish on Dec 13, 2016 20:01:40 GMT
I think it was in the 60s that the authority of the time , probably the Devon Rivers Authority , decided to take out the weirs as they thought that would alleviate any flood risk in the middle of town. All it did was accelerate the speed and volume of water to the lower town during a flood . This combined with a high spring tide resulted in flooding . I believe a local lad drowned but I can't remember the exact circumstances. Anyway at a later date , probably during the NRA period the weirs went back in. Colin.
|
|
|
Post by billyfish on Dec 16, 2016 16:30:32 GMT
Despite the upset caused by the abstraction of aggregate below the weir sea trout have started spawning in the gravels below the weir, above the road bridge. Just where Tim saw them. I had a great view of a hen fish scooping out a redd with a good size cock fish in attendance. Every now and again he would chase away another cock trying to get in there. Pure theatre free and right in front of your eyes. Be wary of the traffic behind as there isn't a pavement there if you go for a look. It would make for a good video. I don't think they will spawn in their usual spot below the bridge as following the abstraction the stone on the river bed is the wrong consistency. Colin
|
|
|
Post by tackle tart on Dec 16, 2016 22:51:00 GMT
I am working in Sidmouth tomorrow so will take my video camera and try to see if there is any activity below the weir about 9 am, then if worthwhile, will probably spend all evening working out how to post it up here. Dennis
|
|