1 10 18 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/589/GGLP_Drystane-Dyking-LEAFLET.pdf 5319d8e9b400228498b54962c53ca995 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Drystane Dykes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Reports Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Drystane Dykes, or Dry Stone Walls, are an important but often overlooked feature in the Galloway countryside. Take a closer look though, and you will see that they reveal evidence of the local geology, the ingenuity of rural peoples, and evidence of a landscape that is always changing. RuRAL REbELLIon These enclosures changed the traditional way the land was managed. To make the new fields, people who had farmed the land for generations were turned out of their homes and had nowhere to live or work. In 1724, these ‘clearances’ caused the uprising of the Galloway Levellers or ‘Dykebreakers’. Armed gangs of men, women and children roamed the countryside pulling down the dykes and sometimes killing the imported cattle. The gangs were well organised and desperate, and eventually government troops had to be brought in to stop them. This rural rebellion did however change the way landowners behaved, and although land continued to be enclosed, the pace of change slowed and alternative places to live and work were developed. DRYSTANE DYKES KELton HILL The Leveller’s Revolt of 1724 was planned at Kelton Hill Fair. To mark this important element of local history, a drystane dyke has been built at a viewpoint on Kelton Hill within the National Trust for Scotland’s Threave Estate. This fantastic example of rural workmanship showcases many different styles of drystane dyking, some unique to this part of SW Scotland. It was created by members from Scottish branches of the Dry Stone Walling Association, with welcome support from Threave staff and volunteers. WHY BOTHER WITH A WALL? The short answer is beef! About 300 years ago, the Galloway countryside in south west Scotland was much more open than today. Enclosures (walled fields) were few and far apart. Instead, children would herd cows and sheep to keep them away from the crops. Beef fetched a good price in England and so landowners began to gather cattle, often imported from Ireland, in order to sell them at southern markets. To do this more cost-effectively, they started creating enclosures to contain the cattle. View the QR code with your Smartphone camera to see a video about the design and construction of the new Kelton Hill dyke. A Guide to SW Scotland’s Dry Stone Walls DYKE StYLES Building a sound drystane dyke involves more than simply placing one stone on top of another. It in fact requires a great deal of skill, stamina and an understanding of the rules of successful dyking. However, once the rules are understood, there is a great deal of flexibility in how the available stone is used. In Galloway, every dyke is different but distinct styles can be picked out. A cRAft woRTH pRESERving gALLowAY dYkE (above) Also known as a ‘half and half’ dyke. This style of dyke is built with a double dyke at the bottom and a single dyke above. Common in sheep farming areas, the solid base provides shelter from the weather for the animals, while the ‘tottering’ appearance of the top half reduces the temptation of sheep to jump on or over it. SINgLE dYkE (above) Where large irregular stones are abundant, the dyke is built such that single stones create both faces of the wall. Where large rounded stones are used, it is usually then called a Boulder Dyke. This style of building often has noticeable gaps between the stones and is most common in upland areas. DOubLE dYkE (right) Where small stones are predominant, the dyke is built with two faces and the core is infilled with smaller stones or ‘Hearting’. Long stones called ‘Through bands’ and ‘Cover bands’ are used to ‘tie’ the dyke together and give it structural stability. This style of building produces a solid structure and is the most common style in lowland areas. By the 1930s, post and wire fencing was fast becoming the economic alternative to drystane dykes and it was feared that the craft of dyke building was disappearing. On the initiative of Colonel Rainsford Hannay, the Stewartry Drystane Dyking Committee was created in 1938 to raise funds and organise competitions to promote dyking skills. In 1968, the Stewartry Drystane Dyking Committee formed the Dry Stone Walling Association of Great Britain, a charity which continues to work to advance education in the craft and heritage of dry stone walling for the public benefit. Today, there is a renewed enthusiasm for drystane dyking with an upsurge in interest in this fascinating rural craft. Local drystane dyking competitions still take place, and the SW Scotland Branch of the Dry Stone Walling Association holds regular training courses. Find out more at www.dswa.org.uk.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Drystane Dykes Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_129 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 Description An account of the resource A Guide to SW Scotland’s Dry Stone Walls GGLP heritage https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/588/GGLP-Barhill-Forest-Prgramme_high.pdf 510ba8972cbe6b0a60548f8182fc0c02 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Barhill Woodland Festival Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Reports Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document 10am - 3pm 10th – 12th September A partnership event between Kirkcudbright Development Trust and Kirkcudbright Summer Festivities, supported by the Galloway Glens. Mini Beast Hunting Art in Nature Carys Mainprize from the Crichton Carbon Centre and their Biosphere Explorers project will lead pre-schoolers on an adventure hunt for mini-beasts through the woods. Children must be accompanied by an adult. Carys is back for the afternoon, showing pre-schoolers and their adults how to make amazing art and sculptures just from what you find in a forest. friday 10-11Am, 11AM-12PM Friday 1-2pm, 2-3PM free event free event Unicorn Walks! This is too exciting! Go on an adventure through the woods to find a real live Unicorn*! If we find him, he might take us on a walk in his woods, and let us know all the ways in which we need to protect his world. *Not a real Unicorn. But awesome nonetheless! friday 10am, 11am, 1pm, 2pm saturday 10am, 11am, 1pm, 2pm free event Woodland Art Amy Murray of Nest Nurturing Futures will be leading an art session for under 9s - see what you can find in the woods to make art with! All children must be accompanied by an adult. friday 11am-12pm free event Pole lathe - green wood turning workshop If you've always wanted to get your hands on a pole lathe, now's your chance! Join experienced woodworker Rolf Buwert for a wood-turning session suitable for people who can concentrate for 2 hours! Booking essential, £5 per head. All equipment provided. friday1-3pm £5/head Firewood sawing Interactive Storytelling Gavin Philips of Shed Therapy will be demonstrating his nifty sawing equipment - come along to pick up some tips! Amy's back for some interactive storytelling - settle in for some excellent woodland tales. Suitable for accompanied under-9s. friday, 1-3pm saturday, 1-3pm friday 1.30-3pm free event - JUST DROP IN! free event Dendrochronology tour Join Coralie Mills of Dendrochronicle for a tour of the history of the Barhill Woods as seen through the ages of the trees. Including a tree-coring demonstration. Friday 2-3.30pm saturday10-11.30am free event Light Show The woodland behind the Outdoor Classroom will be lit up for a peaceful wander each evening. Poetry Friday 7-9pm saturday 7-9pm Sunday 7-9pm free event - just drop in! Pine Marten and Squirrel talk Stephanie Johnstone of the D&G Pine Martin Group will give a fascinating insight into the relationship between these two amazing animals. Free event, but booking essential - limited spaces as this is an indoor event (Classroom) Friday 7pm free event Exhibition The GCAT 'Ken Words' project helps people draw inspiration from their landscapes through writing. In Spring 2019, they came to Barhill Woods, and this exhibition is just some of their writing and photos from that event. On display in the Outdoor Classroom throughout the Festival. friday, Saturday & Sunday free event 'Woodland Birds for Beginners' walk Gavin Chambers will lead a walk around the woodlands, hoping to spot and identify some of the many species that call Barhill woods their home. Quiet people of all ages welcome! Saturday 10-11am free event Viking Craft den making Join Karen Slattery and her forest school team to get your hands dirty in the woods! First up is den-making. Suitable for children up to 12, accompanied by an adult. demonstrations saturday 10-11am free event saturday 10am-12pm, 1-3pm sunday 10am-12pm, 1-3pm Fire making Next the team will be turning their attention to fire-making! Suitable for 5 16 year olds. Under 12s must be accompanied by an adult. saturday 11-12noon free event Forest school Karen and the team will be putting on a range of Forest School activities suitable for under 12s with their accompanying adults - find out just how much fun there is to be had in the forest! The Vikings are here! Join the team from Cluaran Haven for demonstrations and hands-on activities, from Torc-making to net-weaving to leather-marking. But where will you bury your Hoard when you've made it?! saturday 1-3pm free event just drop in! free event - Just drop in! Hammer making Steven Whitehead will be demonstrating the ancient art of hammer-making in this drop-in workshop. come and see how it's done! saturday 10am-12pm, 1-3pm sunday 10am-12pm, 1-3pm free event - just drop in! Vampire stake whittling It's very important to keep the vampires at bay, so if you've got some little ones who want to be prepared (and can handle a sharp knife with some confidence), come along to make your very own stake! saturday 10am-12pm sunday 10am-12pm, 1-3pm free event - just drop in! Pole lathe - green wood turning demo Rolf is back with his pole lathe, this time demonstrating the art of green wood turning. But if you ask him nicely, you might be able to get a go! saturday 10am-12pm, 1-3pm sunday 10am-12pm, 1-3pm free event - just drop in! Demo - Making Tree Identification kitchen implements walk Stuart Morrison will be demonstrating how to make a range of kitchen implements from wooden blanks - stop by to see the skills! Chris Ingram will lead a tour round the barhill trees, which only benefit from closer inspection. Learn all those tree names you always meant to! saturday 10am-12pm sunday 10am-12pm saturday 2-3pm sunday 2-3pm free event - Just drop in! free event Evening BBQ Families Wildlife up to 12 years Photography Course The Kirkcudbright Youth Club and Kirkcudbright Rotary are putting on an evening BBQ to celebrate the festival. Saturday evening is for families with children up to 12 years. Cash donations appreciated. Join local photographer Alan McFadden for tips and tricks on improving or starting out in wildlife photography. There's no better place to do that than the Barhill Red Squirrel hide! Booking essential - limited spaces. saturday 6-8pm Sunday 9-11am free event - just drop in! £10/head more Woodland Art Forest School Amy Murray and Lizzie Priestly of Nest Nurturing Futures are back on Sunday for some more woodland art activities. Amy and Lizzie will be leading some Forest School activities in the woodland, suitable for accompanied under 12s. Loads of fun in the forest! sunday 10am-12pm sunday 1-3pm free event - just drop in! free event - just drop in! Evening BBQ 12+ The Kirkcudbright Youth Club and Kirkcudbright Rotary are back with a second BBQ to celebrate the festival, this time for young people 12+. Cash donations appreciated. Sunday 7-9pm free event - just drop in! Thanks so much to all our volunteers, partners, deliverers and funders who have made this event possible. For more details about this event, or about any of the deliverers, contact Helen.Keron@dumgal.gov.uk Our support from the Galloway Glens (using their National Lottery Heritage Fund grant) and from Dumfries and Galloway Council’s ‘Community Events’ fund has allowed us to put on most of these events for free. However, if you would like to see the festival continue into 2022, please consider making a donation to the Kirkcudbright Summer Festivities when you attend. find out more at www.kirkcudbright.town www.gallowayglens.org Some practicalities covid Most activities at this Festival are available to just turn up at, and almost all are outdoors. Despite the relaxing of COVID restrictions, please continue to be respectful of the deliverers, volunteers and other attendees’ personal space. If one station is busy, just move on to the next! Please note that the programme may change - please see the website for the most up to date information. Some events are bookable Make sure you’ve read the programme carefully to avoid disappointment! parking There is NO PARKING at the woods throughout this event. The top and bottom carparks will be out of bounds each day. Please park in the town centre and walk up, or use the FREE SHUTTLE BUS to access the woods. It will shuttle to and from the Harbour Square each day of the festival from 10-3. Limited parking available in the evenings. Accessibility The main path in the woodland is wheelchair accessible, but unfortunately, not all the activity stations will be. Contact Helen.Keron@dumgal.gov.uk for more details. There will be limited disabled parking spots available for drop-offs and pick-ups at the top carpark. There will be temporary toilets (portaloos) available behind the Classroom for the duration of the Festival. note There is no food and drink available at the woodland apart from the evening bbqs. Please be sure to bring enough for yourself and your group for your stay. This is the first time we’ve done this, so please be kind!  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Barhill Woodland Festival Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_128 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 Description An account of the resource Programme for a partnership event between Kirkcudbright Development Trust and Kirkcudbright Summer Festivities, supported by the Galloway Glens. access GGLP https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/587/GGLP-201115-Online-JMA-2020-Final-Report.pdf 60b8002c93690ae9b8e90151100a5261 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Online John Muir Award Programme 2020 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Reports Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document OFFICIAL Galloway Glens Online John Muir Award Programme 2020 Final Report 1. Outline The Online John Muir Award programme was initiated as a response to the Covid 19 restrictions during summer 2020. The aims of the project were to: • • Actively engage with the public during Covid 19 restrictions, and provide an alternative to facilitated outdoor projects that could not be undertaken. Encourage and support people, especially families, to engage meaningfully and actively with their local environment during Covid 19 restrictions and beyond. Extending the ethos of our ‘Go Wild’ summer project in 2019, the programme also committed to being widely accessible, free to take part in and to promote outdoor activities that are free or low cost and do not require specialist knowledge or equipment. The John Muir Awards were chosen to provide a focus for the programme but with the flexibility for participants to tailor their activities to suit them and their chosen area. The Family awards enable all ages to participate. The John Muir Trust were keen to support the programme. “You have a wonderful basis for an Award. It is open and flexible, which is ideal for an online group working in their own chosen wild places and I loved that there is such a high level of support” Jenny Holmes, John Muir Award Scotland Project Officer 1 OFFICIAL OFFICIAL To meet the criteria for a John Muir ‘Discover’ Award, either Family or Individual, participants are required to complete 24 hours of activities that encompass the four challenge areas: to Discover, Explore, Conserve and Share wild places. The Galloway Glens Online John Muir Award programme was designed to support participants to complete the award criteria, through direct online communication and providing a platform for participants to connect and share activities. Galloway Glens acted as the Award Provider, responsible for assessment and putting forward participants for their Award. Because the programme ran remotely with participants from different locations, each participant was encouraged to tailor their activities to their own chosen area and interests. Although the majority of participants were living in or visiting the Galloway Glens area during the programme, some were from other parts of Dumfries and Galloway or Scotland but had a connection to the area. All based their activities at least partly in Dumfries and Galloway. The project was conceived and prepared over a short timescale, preparations beginning midJune for delivery from 3rd July. An end date for participation was given as 10th August, with some leeway for those taking longer to complete and record their Award activities. 2 OFFICIAL OFFICIAL 2. Key Outcomes As a result of the programme: • • • • • • • • 24 people achieved a John Muir ‘Discover’ Award. 44 adults, young people and children actively engaged in discovering, exploring, conserving and sharing their experiences of local landscape and wildlife over the summer. Of the above, all achieved this in time spent wholly or partly within the Galloway Glens area. Galloway Glens has achieved John Muir Award Provider status for 2020 / 2021 Positive recognition and feedback has been generated for the Galloway Glens from the public, other organisations / landscape partnerships, the John Muir Trust and other funders - particularly in recognition for an innovative response to Covid-19 restrictions A new, open Facebook group will be established for sharing local outdoor ideas, activities and information for families with a focus on the Galloway Glens area A series of video resources on the land and wildlife in the Galloway Glens area has been created A bank of ideas, activities and resources created by the participants is available as a resource for future projects “It has been interesting how much my eyes have opened more to the ‘wild’ around us in terms of wildlife, food and general beauty, even though I thought I took a lot of notice before!” (Family) 3 OFFICIAL OFFICIAL 3. Numbers Initial interest was high and achieved primarily through online / social media advertising. The number of participants moving through from interest, registration, engagement and completion reduced over time - 31% of those signing up completed their Awards, while 48% were active participants. To put this in context, recent research on accredited and non-accredited online courses found an average completion rate of 12.6%, most ranging between 5% and 22% completion. Initial enquiries Registration requests Sign-ups Active participants Awards completed Individual Awards 13 9 6 3 3 Family Awards 28 28 23 11 6 Total Awards 41 37 29 14 (44 people in total) 9 (24 people in total) Of those signing up but not completing the online John Muir Award programme, some did not engage at all after initial registration but most made contact and cited a change in circumstances during the duration of the programme such as increased family or work commitments as the reason for their withdrawal. Some also said that, although the idea of completing a John Muir Award had initially attracted them and they found the ideas and support useful, they found that they preferred to enjoy outdoor activities without the pressure of completing the criteria. Number of adults and children by age (including each person participating via a Family Award, some families including participants both under and over 12) Active participants Awards completed Adults 18 9 12+ 5 5 Under 12 21 10 Total 44 24 “Whilst doing the John Muir Award, I discovered that coastlines and beaches can be so different and diverse both in habitat and species that live there. I will continue to explore my local area and further afield to discover new places and what secrets they hold. I have always been interested in nature since I was small and will continue to do so. I find being in nature makes me happy and peaceful. There is so much to learn and discover. When I am older, I would love to work with animals or in conservation.” (Individual, aged 14) 4 OFFICIAL OFFICIAL 4. Process The programme was carried out by the Galloway Glens Education and Community Engagement Officer (EO), Helen Keron, and freelance Project Coordinator (PC), Mary Smith. Mary was also the project coordinator for the pilot Galloway Glens ‘Go Wild’ programme in 2019, which also delivered John Muir Discover awards Time Early June Focus Award Proposal Tasks • Initial contact with John Muir Trust; Award proposal completed and approval for the award programme granted Mid June Publicity • Graphic designer commissioned to produce an advert for the programme • Programme advertised through Galloway Glens website and social media, local press release and poster display e.g. at Tesco’s • Information pack sent to those who enquired Registration Registration • Registration forms designed closed 3rd • Registration forms sent as requested July • Registration information collated End June Facebook Group • Closed Facebook group created for programme Start July Introduction • Welcome and introductory emails sent • Activity Log online form created and sent • Ideas and resources information sheet created and sent Ongoing Ongoing • Ongoing individual email contact with participants in July / support response to questions or problems, and for August encouragement • Engagement through Facebook group Newsletters • Online newsletters created and distributed with extra ideas / resources / showcasing activities so far End July ‘Checking in’ • Individual emails checking in mid-way through programme Early Aug JMT • Checking in with JMT to review progress communication Early Aug ‘Finishing up’ • Individual emails sent towards end of programme End date Assessment • Activity logs and other records gathered and reviewed 10th Aug Mid Aug Completion • Individual confirmation of completion and congratulation emails sent End Aug Certificates • Certificate request form completed and sent to JMT • Galloway Glens certificates designed and completed • Certificates posted to participants End Aug Feedback • SurveyMonkey feedback form designed and sent • Verbal / email feedback gathered 5 OFFICIAL Who PC EO with input from PC PC EO PC PC PC EO PC / PC PC PC PC PC PC EO PC PC PC / OFFICIAL 5. Examples of Activities Participants entered into a wide range of activities within the four Award criteria, and were encouraged to share these as they went, along with any questions or concerns. Whenever possible, ideas were suggested that built on or expanded the scope of activities in line with the award criteria, and participants linked to resources or organisations to help them with this. Some of the activities undertaken were: Discover / Explore • • • • Mapping Barrhill Woods and researching its history Visiting new Solway beaches and recording seaweeds, rockpool fauna and seashore plants Exploring Loch Mitton in detail by walking around the shore, by kayak and swimming Revisiting a spot many times, e.g. Loch Ken shore, garden or field at end of house and observing and recording the variety and quantity of wildlife and nature they contain Conserve • • • • • • • • • Taking part in The Big Butterfly Count Making hedgehog and minibeast ‘hotels’ Rescuing and hatching snail eggs Litter picking and creating anti-litter posters Making posters detailing local flora and fauna, and showing ideas for conservation projects Creating bee feeders Joining local conservation groups, e.g. D & G Eco Warriors and Loch Ken Trust Carrying out moth surveys Carrying out wild-flower surveys Share • • • • • • Creating poems, art works and maps and sharing online and in newsletter Inviting friends and family to join in walks Writing articles for newsletter Posting activities and observations online Making and posting you-tube video on moth trapping and moth varieties Creating a wild-flower identification booklet 6 OFFICIAL OFFICIAL 6. Feedback Informal feedback was requested throughout the programme and gathered both through email and the Facebook group. At the end of the programme, a link to a short online questionnaire was sent by email to those still actively participating and also to those who had withdrawn from the programme but given permission to be contacted for feedback. The link was also posted on the Facebook group. All participants responding to the feedback survey reported being ‘unlikely or very unlikely’ to have undertaken a John Muir Award this summer without the Galloway Glens online programme. All respondents agreed that as a result of participating they had spent more time discovering and exploring wild places, and also that they were inspired to spend more time discovering, exploring and conserving wild places in the future. Most also agreed that they had a greater understanding of and appreciation for wild places and more awareness of conservation issues and opportunities locally. Only half agreed that they had undertaken activities they would be less likely to do otherwise, indicating that the level of outdoor engagement was already quite high. This in a sense adds more value to the other statements, as the majority of these families and individuals were already actively engaging with the outdoors but still felt they had been inspired and gained greater understanding and appreciation as a result of participating. The programme also attracted interest from other Landscape Partnerships, and we were delighted to share information and resources on the programme with both the Isle of Axholme & Hatfield Chase Landscape Partnership and the Coigach & Assynt Living Landscape Partnership Scheme. “Thank you. we have really enjoyed the past few weeks. After lockdown I really wanted to explore locally and get to know more of lovely D&G. The award really focused this which has been wonderful.” (Family) 7 OFFICIAL OFFICIAL 7. Considerations for future programmes Approach Two of the participants who did not complete the programme said they would like to have seen more a more directive approach, with prescribed activities. However, this would have been difficult to achieve with the range of places and interests within the group, and less in keeping with the John Muir Award ethos. Instead, it is recommended that future programmes use clear, specific examples of the kinds of activities that could be done, drawing on the work of participants this year. This should help to make a range of example activities readily available without being prescriptive, as well as to demonstrate the recording process. As stated earlier, it is worth considering the degree to which achieving the Award is the focus of the programme. Facebook group This was very effective and at the suggestion of participants will evolve into a public group for Spring 2021. It is definitely worth exploring alternatives to Facebook that would enable younger people / those not on social media to participate in a similar way. Newsletters These were time consuming for the PC and less interactive compared with the Facebook group – feedback suggested they were appreciated, and they were an attempt to involve and give a platform to those not participating in social media. However, if all participants are engaging on social media or equivalent the newsletter may not be necessary. Online forms Forms were designed and sent using Adobe Acrobat DC after investigating a number of platforms. The registration form sent individually through the ‘Fill and Sign’ application worked well. The other forms (activity log and four challenge review), sent collectively, were unreliable as online documents and were off-putting for some. In future, it is recommended that examples of documentation be given instead, and participants create their own. 8 OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Timing Five weeks was a reasonable amount of time to ensure people had time to complete the hours required, averaging 4 / 5 hours per week to complete the Awards. However, as restrictions started to ease and work commitments increased towards the end of the summer, and with the start of school approaching, the focus began to drift and some participants found they no longer had the time to finish. In future, an end date around a week before the end of term would be more helpful, as well as a clearer indication in the initial information of the time commitment required. Webinars and other group meeting opportunities It had been thought to include at least one webinar as part of the programme, to provide extra input and an opportunity for participants to meet live online. However, as the programme evolved, it appeared that participants were happy with the level of engagement the Facebook group provided, and ‘experts’ videos that were filmed for the programme took the place of the webinar idea. If circumstances allowed, mixing online support, a Facebook group or similar, and some opportunities to meet up and participate in activities in person could be a great combination and may help to keep a larger number engaged throughout. “We have always spent a lot of time outside as a family but the online John Muir award has definitely inspired us to get out more and properly ‘see’ what we have perhaps just taken for granted. By showing our friends our wild spaces, we have realised how properly lucky we are.” (Family) 9 OFFICIAL OFFICIAL 8. Conclusion Although the numbers completing the award was significantly lower than those initially signing up, the quality of participation and the enthusiasm shared with those who embraced the programme was high and more than achieved the aims of the Awards and the programme. The programme perhaps worked best for those who had already had an outdoor focus, were used to engaging their family or as individuals with outdoor activities, had sufficient time to devote to activities and were happy to engage with the Facebook group. It may have worked less well for those with less confidence and experience outside, or those who were unable to spend as much time supporting their families through the award. In order to better support families and individuals in this category, a more targeted and directive programme of activities may be more appropriate, and some thought could be given to a programme that focused on bringing families together for activities designed to increase confidence and participation in outdoor activities, when restrictions allow. This could be achieved through a blended approach of online and in-person contact. The fact that some participants reported that the Facebook group was inspirational and a valuable support in encouraging and inspiring outdoor activity, even when meeting the award criteria was not possible, indicates that the programme has value beyond the target of completing the John Muir Award. Although the John Muir Award was a good focus for some, it is important that the activities are valued and celebrated for their own sake and there is no sense of failure associated with not completing the Award criteria. Finally, there was some particularly pleasing work undertaken by younger participants, including artwork for posters, writing and video diaries. Building on these, the Galloway Glens could consider projects targeted at young people directly online or in-person, such as wildlife filming, photography workshops or competitions, conservation workshops or similar. Content aimed at this demographic could perhaps be done in partnership with GCAT Youth Arts, Kirkcudbright Youth Group and / or council youth work services. This could also be one way to continue to engage with young people involved previously either through the Go Wild or Online John Muir Awards programmes Mary Smith, Project Coordinator, Nov. 2020 Thanks to participants for the use of some of their many fantastic photos Appendices – available on request from helen.keron@dumgal.gov.uk 1. 2. 3. Initial ideas sheet sent to all participants Newsletters examples Activity records - 3 example logs of activities and hours per activity 10 OFFICIAL  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Online John Muir Award Programme 2020 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_127 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 Description An account of the resource The Online John Muir Award programme was initiated as a response to the Covid 19 restrictions during summer 2020. The aims of the project were to actively engage with the public during Covid 19 restrictions, and provide an alternative to facilitated outdoor projects that could not be undertaken; and encourage and support people, especially families, to engage meaningfully and actively with their local environment during Covid 19 restrictions and beyond. access GGLP https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/586/Tales-from-Kirkcudbright-bay-booklet.pdf 71626bc6ce1acb11bd6faef07b5f03a7 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Tales from Kirkcudbright Bay Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Reports Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Tales from Kirkcudbright Bay Where Every Place Tells a Story Kirkcudbright Bay This guide is an introduction to some of the stories inspired by people and places in Kirkcudbright Bay. It is the tidal estuary of the River Dee and is a perfect place to explore a varied shoreline of rocky headlands, sandy bays, pebble beaches and cliffs with caves that will inspire your imagination. Explore the seashore and discover the dramatic seascape but remember to take care on the coast. A walking guide, Kirkcudbright Bay Walks, is also available and describes three routes to access the magical countryside where you can stand in the shade of a woodland and hear the call of the curlew or feel a sea breeze while exploring an old graveyard. Ask people who know the area where the good places are to visit or get a detailed Ordnance Survey map and look up tide timetables to plan your own adventure. Bay Tales Places are made from stories and by retelling the story of a place its meaning is brought to life. All names begin by describing a place to other people, as a way of helping us find our way in the world. With one or two words they tell a story that provides clues about the history of our coast and reveal what people considered noteworthy. A name can help to identify places of archaeological importance or landmarks that are the setting for folk tales or works of fiction. Some names have existed for hundreds of years, while others are a modern phenomenon, but they all tell a story. Take TAKECare CARE Enjoy your visit to the coast, but always remember to be careful. Scottish weather can be unpredictable. Check weather forecasts and take appropriate clothing and footwear. The coast can be rugged and remote, so tell a family member or friend where you are going and when you expect to be back. The Solway has one of the largest tidal ranges in the world. Remember to check the tide times to avoid becoming stranded on the vast sand-flats or in tidal bays. The coast is bursting with life so try to avoid disturbing wildlife, particularly shore-nesting birds in spring. The coast is beautiful and to keep it that way please take your litter home with you. Richardson’s Rock A local story tells us of the day when Janet Richardson went to the shore to collect mussels at low tide. Preoccupied in her task, she did not notice the incoming tide and was stranded on a rocky island. Surrounded by the sea, she pulled up her skirt and plunged into the water. Luckily, her clothes acted as a buoyancy aid and finding herself floating in the sea, she was washed ashore by strong currents to Milton Sands, near the beach at The Doon. From that day onwards the rocks became known as Richardson’s Rocks. O.S. map location: Rocks in the sound of Little Ross NX655432 1 Madras Cottages 2 The barque Madras arrived at Whitehaven in January 1884 with a cargo of timber from America. While waiting for a high tide at the harbour the winds became gale force and the captain decided to run for shelter in Kirkcudbright Bay. On entering the bay she struck the sand bar and began to break up. Three fishermen put to sea in a small boat and rescued the crew. The cottages next to Harbour Cottage Art Gallery were rebuilt by Lord Selkirk after the incident and are believed to have been rented to the brave fishermen at a nominal rent. For many years they were known as Madras Cottages. O.S. map location: Cottages in Kirkcudbright NX681510 Senwick Church Yard Senwick, derived from the Norse meaning Sand Bay, was a parish until it was united with the parish of Borgue in 1670. The ruins of the old parish church are situated within a graveyard and the burial vault of the ‘Blairs of Dundrod’ still stands. The manse ruins are located between the graveyard and the shore. The headstone of Robert Watson marks the grave of a drowned lighthouse keeper from Little Ross. He had gone to Kirkcudbright to buy stores and commissioned a local fisherman and his son to take him and the supplies back to Little Ross. It is not known what went wrong but the next day the bodies were discovered washed up on the shore. O.S. map location: Senwick Church remains NX655460 3 Frenchman’s Rock 4 A local tradition tells us that Senwick Church was once plundered by French pirates. They stole the silver plate from the altar but they paid with their lives as they made their escape. The heavens, as if watching over this act, stirred up the winds and waves and the ship was wrecked on the rocks. Frenchman’s Rock is named after this memorable event but the silver was never recovered. It is also said that one foggy night the rock was bombarded by local soldiers in the mistaken belief that it was John Paul Jones’s ship on a raid to Kirkcudbright. O.S. map location: Frenchman’s Rock NX660463 Carlin’s Cove A local tale tells us that the tiny cave in Senwick Bay known as Carlin’s Cove was a hiding place for a Covenanter called Dixon during the religious persecutions of the killing times. The cave is very small and it seems unlikely that it was a good hiding place, however recent research has revealed that there is some truth in the story. Archive records of a court case in 1684 identifies Mareon McKie from nearby Over Senwick (now Upper Senwick) as being accused of helping a fugitive named John Richardson, his surname being shortened to Dixon in the collective memory. O.S. map location: Senwick Bay NX657471 5 Devil’s Thrashing Floor 6 Also known as the Devil’s Threshing Floor it is recorded in the 1st Edition Ordnance Survey name book as being a rock at high tide but is generally believed to identify an area of mud flats where a ‘dog leg’ line of boulders reaches out towards the river channel. An 1802 plan of fish traps identifies the line of boulders as a stone fish yair (trap) and was probably in use for many hundreds of years. Perhaps the name is a reference to the fish thrashing in the trap when it is revealed at low tide. The map shows another ancient fish trap at Goat Well Bay where there is also line of boulders. O.S. map location: Devil’s Thrashing Floor NX659473 Monrieth Low tide reveals the ribs of the wrecked schooner named the Monreith. She was built at Port William in 1880 and owned by Alex Hill in Ireland. In November 1900 she was on passage from Newcastle, County Down to Silloth with a cargo of 100 tonnes of granite kerbstones and put into Kirkcudbright Bay to shelter from a storm. She struck the sand bar and was driven into Goat Well Bay on the Milton Sands. The crew escaped unharmed before the lifeboat reached them and they returned to Ireland with assistance from the Shipwrecked Mariners’ Society. Every year a little more of the Monreith disappears. TAKE CARE the sand and mud can be treacherous next to the wreck! O.S. map location: Nun Mill Bay / The Doon NX658485 7 Clinking Haven 8 This small bay appears to be named after the clinking sound made by the stones on the shore when they are disturbed by waves. Beyond the bay is the Shoulder O’ Craig where remains of a volcanic vent has been identified by geologists. The vent was probably created by gases escaping from a volcano before it was filled by lava and shattered rocks. Evidence of the vent is provided by an outcrop of basalt containing shards of stone, a sharp contrast with the surrounding sedimentary beds of mudstones and sandstones known as greywacke. O.S. map location: Shoulder O’ Craig NX662490 Paul Jones’s Point John Paul Jones’s Point refers to the memory of a remarkable event in the history of St Mary’s Isle. Jones was born in Galloway and became a sailor on merchant ships before joining the fledgling United States Navy during the American revolution. In 1778 as commander of the Ranger he made an unsuccessful assault on Whitehaven so he sailed to Kirkcudbright Bay. A plan to capture the Earl of Selkirk and hold him to ransom failed because the Earl was away. The crew took the family silver instead although it appears Jones later returned it to the family with a letter of apology. He went on to have a valiant role in a battle off Flamborough Head in Yorkshire and is remembered today as an American Naval Hero. O.S. map location: Paul Jones’s Point NX673484 9 Lady’s Bay 10 Kirkcudbright lifeboat station and slipway was constructed in 1892 to replace the first lifeboat station located in the town. Despite the longer journey for the crew to reach the lifeboat, the new location ensured access to water even at low tide and greatly reduced the time taken to get the boat out onto the open sea. Beyond the lifeboat station a crushed stone path continues through the deciduous woodland passing Bathing House Bay. There is no sign of a bathing house today and the site is known locally as Lady’s Bay, perhaps because in the past it was a favourite place for the Lady of the estate to bathe. A sandy beach is revealed at low tide and the bay remains an ideal place for a dip. O.S. map location: Bathing House Bay NX673461 Witchwife Haven Halftide Rock is located at the mouth of the estuary and as the name implies is only exposed at half-tide. It provides a guide to the depth of water to sailors who need to approach Kirkcudbright when the tide is high. The sheltered bay of Witchwife Haven is no longer marked on maps and the reason it was named after a witch is not clear. Coastal stacks are sometimes called Witch Rocks and the stack next to the cliff within the bay may be the inspiration for the unusual name. The bay remains a haven for small boats waiting for the tides to change or sheltering from an unfavourable wind. O.S. map location: Halftide Rock NX672450 11 Flint Bay 12 Although this name does not appear on maps it is known by sailors as Flint Bay because of the large number of flints found only in this location. An explanation for this geological oddity (the nearest flints are found in Northern Ireland) lies in the tale of a wreck in January 1816. The sloop, Ellen and Agnes, laden with beef, hides and flint was lost here and the three crew members were drowned. All that remains of the wreck is a bay scattered with the cargo of flints and a place name that has become part of our oral tradition. O.S. map location: Halftide Rock NX673451 Ravens Nest The raven is the largest of the crow family with a distinct shape and a heavy bill. Tumbling in the updrafts of a sea cliff the ‘gronking’ call of a raven is one of the most evocative sounds of our rugged shoreline. Ravens often return to the same spot each spring and bring new nest material so that the nests become large, untidy piles of sticks that remain as a landmark long after the nest has been abandoned. However, the name may not refer to a nest at all but instead be derived from the word ness meaning a promontory. O.S. map location: Halftide Rock NX673450 13 Gauger’s Loup 14 This place name refers to a fictitious customs man who was often called a Gauger because he tested and measured the contents of casks, and Loup the Scots for leap. In later editions of ‘Guy Mannering’ by Sir Walter Scott he notes; strangers who visit this place, the scenery which is highly romantic, are also shown, under the name of Gauger’s Loup, a tremendous precipice, being the same, it is asserted, from which Kennedy is precipitated. In ‘Guy Mannering’ smugglers kidnap a boy after he witnesses them murdering a customs officer named Kennedy by pushing him off a cliff. It seems enterprising locals identified this real place with one that features in the popular story. O.S. map location: Gauger’s Loup NX673448 Sapphire The Ordnance Survey surveyor recording place names in the mid 1800s appears to have realised that this name has probably arisen from a misunderstanding. Although he identifies two people who confirm that this stretch of coastline was called Sapphire he also noted that the New Statistical Account states; upon the rocks towards the sea is found an abundance of samphire. Rock samphire is a succulent plant at its northern most range and only grows in Scotland where it can make the most of the sun warmed south facing cliffs. The pungent leaves of this plant were once collected to make into a pickle. O.S. map location: Gauger’s Loup NX674447 15 Keaw Cove 16 This cave is christened Keaw which is a local Scots name for jackdaw, however the Ordnance Survey surveyor recording place names in the 1840s noted that the recently published New Statistical Account stated that at this location; rears a lofty head facing the sea, forming a frightful precipice,….frequented by the redlegged jackdaw. The red-legged jackdaw is now more commonly known as a chough and are a species which no longer lives on the Solway coast. Chough can be found on similar coastal habitats in the Isle of Man and perhaps one day they will return to this rugged coast. O.S. map location: Gauger’s Loup NX673447 Dirk Hatteraick’s Cove Torrs Cave was also known as Torrs Cove. There is no doubt that in times past the indented shoreline was attractive to smugglers and was the haunt of the infamous Jack Yawkins. It is thought that the character of smuggler Dirk Hatteraick in Sir Walter Scott’s novel Guy Mannering was based on Yawkins and for a while Torrs Cove was renamed Dirk Hatteraick’s Cove. Caves are probably not the best hiding place for smuggled goods but archaeological excavations have shown that the cave was used as a shelter for thousands of years and intriguing carvings have been removed for safe keeping in the Stewartry Museum. O.S. map location: Torrs Cave NX676445 17 3 Nun Mill Bay or The Doon Old Senwick Churchyard Meikle Ross 1 7 6 5 8 Torrs Point 2 Castle Barhill Woods Mutehill Dundrennan MOD Range Torrs Farm Lifeboat 10 Sta�on John Paul Jones’s Point St Mary’s Isle 9 Point of the Isle 17 11/12/13 14/15/16 Li�le Ross Manxman’s Lake KIRKCUDBRIGHT Mill Hall Devil’s Threshing Floor Senwick Bay 4 Frenchman’s Rock Bay right Kirkcudb  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Tales from Kirkcudbright Bay Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_126 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 access GGLP https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/585/Kirkcudbright-Bay-View-Paths_web-2020.pdf 506aa965b98ed0c914fb48d6ba251aaa Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Kirkcudbright Bay Paths – A Walking Guide Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Reports Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document KIRKCUDBRIGHT BAY PATHS SCOTLAND’S SOUTHERN COAST Take Care Enjoy your visit to the coast but remember to be careful. Scottish weather can be unpredictable. Check weather forecasts and take appropriate clothing and footwear. Scottish coasts can be rugged and remote, so tell a family member or friend where you are going and when you expect to be back. The Solway coast has one of the biggest tidal ranges in the world. Remember to check tide times to avoid getting stranded on the sandflats or tidal bays. The coast is bursting with life so try to avoid disturbing wildlife, particularly shorenesting birds in spring. The coast is beautiful. Take your litter home with you to keep it that way. Wreck of the Monreith 2 Kirkcudbright marina Where the Dee Meets the Sea The tidal estuary of Kirkcudbright Bay is a perfect place to explore a varied shoreline of rocky headlands, sandy bays, pebble beaches and cliffs with caves that will inspire your imagination. This guide describes three walks that will introduce the magical countryside of Kirkcudbright Bay, where you can stand in the shade of a woodland and hear the call of the curlew or feel a sea breeze while exploring an old graveyard. Where a river meets the sea is a dynamic place with the rhythm of tides and seasons making every visit a delight. Whether you want a gentle amble around St Mary’s Isle, a stroll to enjoy clifftop views from Torrs Point or a more demanding ramble through the undulating woodland on the Senwick shore, this guide helps you discover a landscape steeped in history where there are many tales to tell. This guide is a good introduction to Kirkcudbright Bay, but do ask people who know the area for the best places to visit or get Ordnance Survey Explorer 312 map and plan your own adventure as well. 3 START: Car park Harbour Square, Kirkcudbright OS GRID REF: NX 683510 WHAT3WORDS: palettes.proceeds.care SIGN POSTED AS: St Mary’s Isle core path number 151 RATING: Family Adventurers Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2019 4 Old boathouse slipway St Mary’s Isle Walk 4.5 miles Grade: Easy This is circular walk around the edge of St Mary’s Isle on pavements, tracks and beaten earth paths. Start at the Harbour Square car park and walk up St Cuthbert Street to the cross road with St Mary’s Street and turn right. Pass Kirkcudbright Art Gallery on the left (where there are many fine paintings of Kirkcudbright Bay) and the Stewartry Museum on the right (where you can discover more about the area). At the junction with Castledykes Road, branch onto a tree lined drive through a gateway between the two roads. Follow the track until you see a footpath on the right where the track bends to the left. The footpath, known as Sailor’s Walk, follows the shoreline where the River Dee meets the sea. The name St Mary’s Isle is misleading because it is not an island but a narrow peninsular jutting out into Kirkcudbright Bay, named after the 12th century Augustinian Priory dedicated to St Mary. No remains of the priory can be seen today but the place name Great Cross is believed to mark the location of the main entrance to St Mary’s Priory. 5 St Mary's Isle walk St Mary’s Isle became the seat of the Earl of Selkirk who built “The Isle” mansion on the site of the priory and established gardens, once considered to be “one of the loveliest spots in Scotland”. The mansion house was demolished and replaced with another in 1897 which was lost to fire in the winter of 1940. The gardens fell into disuse but clumps of rhododendron and bamboo are garden escapees that are remains of exotic planting. Other reminders of past uses include the remains of a jetty at Slate Harbour and a ruined boathouse and slipway on the shore. The path continues to the Point of the Isle where there is a small island known as the Inch - derived from Inis meaning island in Gaelic. From here there are views through the trees into Kirkcudbright Bay framed by wooded shores, with Little Ross island and lighthouse guarding the mouth of the estuary. Now returning to Kirkcudbright, the bay on your right is known as Manxman’s Lake, where in the days of sail the intertidal flats were often busy with vessels loading or unloading in the few hours before the tide came in and they re-floated. The name may simply refer to traders from the Isle of Man who used the area as a port, or it could refer to an event in 1507 when the Earl of Derby and a large fleet from the Isle of Man attacked and devastated Kirkcudbright. 6 Rocks on the shore are known as John Paul Jones’s Point and refer to the memory of a remarkable event in the history of St Mary’s Isle. John Paul Jones was born in Galloway and became a sailor on merchant ships but events led him to join the fledgling United States Navy during the American revolution. In 1778, as the commander of the USS Ranger, he planned an unsuccessful assault on Whitehaven. He next sailed to Kirkcudbright Bay with a plan to capture the Earl of Selkirk to hold him to ransom in exchange for American sailors. The plan was thwarted because the Earl was away. The crew took the family silver instead but it appears John Paul Jones later returned it to the family with a letter of apology. John Paul Jones later had a valiant role in a battle off Flamborough Head and is remembered today as an American Naval Hero. At a T junction, turn right onto a track, still keeping the shore line on the right, and continue past a field with metal estate fencing. Turn right at the next T junction and follow the signposted track alongside another field to reach the road and then turn left to return to Kirkcudbright town centre. John Paul Jones’s Point 7 START: Car Park Doon Beach OS GRID REF: NX 657487 WHAT3WORDS: hazelnuts.tooth.dote SIGN POSTED AS: Millhall to Ross Bay core path number 220 RATING: Family Adventurers Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2019 8 Wreck of the Monreith Senwick Shore Walk 4 miles Grade: Moderate This linear coastal walk to Senwick old church and back involves a short length of road verge and quiet road followed by a beaten earth path with some steep sections and a few narrow burns to cross. This woodland walk is particularly enjoyable in the morning when the sun glints on the waters of Kirkcudbright Bay. Alternative longer routes link the path to Brighouse Bay (5 miles) or add a cliff top walk round Miekle Ross (7 miles). Start at the car park at the popular beach known locally as the Doon on the west side of the bay, approximately 3 miles south of Kirkcudbright. The beach is shown as Nun Mill Bay on many maps but the ‘unofficial’ name is derived from the nearby Doon Hill where there are the earthworks of an ancient fort hidden in the woodland. The Doon has a number of small sheltered sandy beaches between rocky outcrops and at low tide the wreck of the Monreith can be seen lying in the sands where it came to rest over 100 years ago. Beware if you visit the wreck because there are sometimes patches of sinking sands! 9 The Doon From the car park, walk up the hill for a short distance on the road verge and take a left turn into Mill Hall. Follow the road round to the left where it becomes a dead-end and the path is signposted between numbers 3 and 4 Mill Hall. The beaten earth path meanders through the wooded coast with views down into Kirkcudbright Bay. Lines of boulders are all that remains of ancient fish traps at Goatwell Bay and the evocatively named Devil’s Thrashing Floor where a nearby short spur path leads to a point where you can view the rugged coast. The place name Senwick is Old Norse meaning Sandy Bay, and although the original name may have referred to a number of sandy bays in the area, the small bay named Senwick Bay has a sandy shore that is revealed at low tide. Hidden in the low cliffs is a small cave known as Carlin’s Cove. Local tradition tells us that in the 1680s this cave was used as a refuge by a covenanter avoiding persecution by troops during the ‘killing times’. 10 Speckled wood In the spring the woods are full of bluebells and wild garlic. If you are lucky you may see the secretive red squirrels in the treetops. In the summer the woods are noted for the speckled wood butterfly you can see in sunny glades. At low tide Frenchman’s Rock is revealed in the bay. These rocks are believed to have been named when French smugglers raided Senwick Church and stole the silverware. As the smugglers sailed away a storm began to brew and their ship was dashed to pieces on the rocks. They all perished and the silver was lost forever. At the end of the path you arrive at the secluded Old Senwick Church. It was abandoned in 1618 when the parish was united with Borgue, and although little is left of the old church, the graveyard continued to be used. In 1830 John McTaggart, author, poet and engineer, was buried in a family plot marked by a table stone. He was the author of the delightfully eccentric Scottish Gallovidian Encyclopedia which is a valuable source for local tales, terms and sayings. A reminder of the maritime location of the graveyard is the headstone of Robert Watson, lighthouse keeper on Little Ross, who drowned while returning in a small boat with provisions from Kirkcudbright. There are paths which continue round the coast to Meikle Ross and Brighouse Bay but the graveyard is a convenient stopping point where you can retrace your steps back to the car park at the Doon. Old Senwick graveyard 11 START: Car park Harbour Square, Kirkcudbright OS GRID REF: NX 683510 WHAT3WORDS: palettes.proceeds.care SIGN POSTED AS: Torrs Point core path number 157 RATING: Family Adventurers Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2019 12 Torrs Point Torrs Point Walk 9 miles Grade: Easy This is a linear walk along pavements on the east side of Kirkcudbright Bay with a loop out to Torrs Point along tracks and footpath and a cliff top, returning through farmland and a minor road. An alternative shorter walk of 5 miles starts at a layby on the minor road south of Mutehill where there is limited parking available at NX682476. Please do not park on the track branching off the road. It is a private road and access is required at all time for emergency vehicles to reach the Lifeboat Station. Start at the Harbour Square car park and walk up St Cuthbert Street to the cross road with St Mary’s Street, turn right onto the A711 and follow the road out of town towards Dundrennan. Hugging the east side of Kirkcudbright Bay, the body of water first seen is known as Manxman’s Lake, a bay separated from the course of the River Dee by the promontory called St Mary’s Isle. The large tidal range reveals mud and sand at low tide and the intertidal flats of Manxman’s Lake were firm enough for ships to be beached and loaded or unloaded before they re-floated when the tide came in. 13 Northern brown argus At low tide the shimmering mud looks green because it is covered by a underwater meadow of seagrass. Seagrass, also known as eelgrass, is a unique plant that flowers underwater and is a rare habitat, as well as an important food source for ducks, geese and swans. When the A711 turns inland, continue along the minor road along the shore past the layby where there is limited parking for those who prefer a shorter walk. Take a right turn onto a track that continues past a group of houses and through the kissing gate into woodland, which in the summer is a favourite haunt of the speckled wood butterfly. Continue along the track until you reach the life boat station and slipway which was constructed in 1892 to replace the first lifeboat station located in Kirkcudbright. Despite the longer journey for the crew to reach the lifeboat, the new location greatly reduced the time taken to get the boat out onto the open sea. From the lifeboat station a crushed stone path continues through the deciduous woodland passing Bathing House Bay, known locally as Lady’s Bay, where a sandy beach is revealed at low tide. As you continue along the path you will see Kirkcudbright Bay open out and catch glimpses of Little Ross island and the lighthouse. Lifeboat station 14 Gaugers Loup The path narrows as it rises out of the woodland and you go through a kissing gate onto open fields. Turn right and follow the edge of the field to go through another kissing gate. Take care as you access the narrow path along the edge of the cliff. In the summer, the cliff tops are covered with flowers, especially the harebell, and on a still day you may see a rare northern brown argus butterfly with distinctive little white spots on chocolate coloured wings. At Torrs Point you will have a wonderful view of the mouth of Kirkcudbright Bay, Little Ross island and the hill of Miekle Ross behind. Follow the cliff top with care, the dramatic drop is called Gaugers Loup and is the supposed location that the customs man was pushed to his death in the novel, Guy Mannering by Sir Walter Scott. When you reach the white army lookout post at the entrance to the MOD Dundrennan Range, do not go through the gate but turn left and follow an indistinct path inland until you reach a farm track where you turn left and continue through the gate. Follow the track through farmland, past a small loch, and on to a gate at a minor road. Turn left and walk past Torrs Farm and down the hill to the coast. Follow the road back to your starting point. Harebells 15 DESIGNED BY FINDLAY DESIGN Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2019 This guide has been produced as part of the Solway Firth Partnership Kirkcudbright Bay Views Project supported by The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership. The Galloway Glens is a suite of projects being undertaken up and down the Ken/Dee Valley, between 2018 and 2023, connecting people to their heritage, driving economic activity and supporting sustainable communities. The Galloway Glens is primarily funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund and is supported by a range of partners including Dumfries & Galloway Council and the Galloway & Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Kirkcudbright Bay Paths – A Walking Guide Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_125 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 access GGLP https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/502/GGLP-LCAP-Appendix-5-HST-EO-BIG.pdf 04cfb8fabb663c42e1ffa80d01c35911 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens, Final Report Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Reports Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Final Report Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Final Report Commissioned by Dumfries and Galloway Council for the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership North of England Civic Trust The Schoolhouse 12 Trinity Chare Quayside Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 3DF DIRECTOR Graham Bell BA(Hons) BArch(Hons) RIBA FRSA CHAIRMAN Peter Candler DL PRESIDENT Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith MP PATRON HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO REGISTERED ADDRESS AS RIGHT REGISTERED CHARITY 513055 COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE 1654806 Tel: (0191) 232 9279 Fax: (0191) 230 1474 Email: admin@nect.org.uk www.nect.org.uk November 2016 Contents Summary iii 1 Introduction and Methodology 1 2 The Galloway Glens 6 3 Heritage Skills 10 4 Heritage Skills in Scotland – The Wider Context 12 5 Heritage Skills Training in the Galloway Glens 16 6 Audiences 19 7 Barriers to Heritage Skills Training 20 8 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens – Addressing Current Needs 22 9 Proposed Training Programme 29 Appendices 1 Original Long List of Heritage Skills 2 Consultees 3 Business Cases 4 References 31 32 34 50 Novermber 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens i ii Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 Summary The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership is developing a five year project to connect people and communities with their natural, built, and cultural heritage across a 590km2 area of the river catchment of the Ken/Dee, from Carsphairn in the north to Kirkcudbright in the south. Through an ambitious scheme of capital projects and activities for people, the Partnership aims to secure a prosperous, sustainable future for the heritage and communities of the area. One element of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme is the development and delivery of a programme of heritage skills training activity. The aims of such a programme are to enhance employment opportunities in the area for local people, particularly young people, and to ensure that the heritage of the Galloway Glens is better understood, managed and conserved for future generations. The programme will act as a trailblazer for similar training activities in future, for example across the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere. Heritage Skills are the specialist skills needed to understand, protect, conserve, manage and share natural, built and cultural heritage. They include practical, professional, and technical skills, and can be generic across the heritage sector or highly specific to different aspects. Heritage skills are vital in ensuring a sustainable future for heritage, ensuring better conservation and management. North of England Civic Trust (NECT) was commissioned by Dumfries and Galloway Council in autumn 2016 to research current heritage skills needs, opportunities and training in the Galloway Glens, within a wider regional and national context. NECT was asked to complete this research in light of the economy and demography of the project area, and to draw up a proposed suite of recommendations for heritage skills training to be delivered through the Landscape Partnership Scheme. Research was both desk-based, drawing on the growing body of evidence highlighting the need for heritage skills, and consultative, with the NECT teams speaking to stakeholders from the public sector, third sector, land owners and managers, educational organisations, and community groups amongst others. NECT concluded that:     There is a clear gap in current and likely future heritage skills training provision in the Galloway Glens, echoing the national situation but with some issues magnified by the remoteness of the area. Heritage skills work can form the basis of economic opportunity for some living and working in the area, either through the creation of new businesses or, as is more sustainable for the Galloway Glens, through the diversification, expansion or upskilling of existing enterprises. Succession planning, recruitment, and in some cases retention, are major factors in the heritage skills sector in the Galloway Glens. However, those working with young people reported a high demand for training and jobs based on practical skills and outdoors work, and a high level of connection between young people and the local area, suggesting that if the training gap can be addressed there is a keen audience willing to take on heritage skills roles. There are numerous audiences for heritage skills training, the most significant of which are young people aged 11-25, and those wishing to upskill and expand their existing skill set to enhance prospects or establish new careers. Novermber 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens iii A number of barriers to both providing training and audiences accessing training were identified, the most significant of which is transport. The high costs of transport and the time it takes to travel to remote locations must be considered in the delivery of all training recommendations. The following ten areas were identified as the most important heritage skill areas for the economy of the Galloway Glens over the next 5-10 years:           Heritage Construction: Repair and Maintenance Heritage Construction: Energy Efficiency, Renewables and Retrofitting Heritage Construction: Specific Local Building Techniques Upland Path Creation and Maintenance Land and Estate Management Trees and Timber Raising Awareness and Aspirations Heritage Tourism Drystone Dyking, Fencing, Hedgelaying and other boundary work Technical and Professional Heritage Skills In order to address the training needs for these ten skill areas, a training plan was drawn up which identifies training mechanisms, cost, audiences, training providers, partners, accreditation and progression routes, and benefits of delivery. These recommendations propose a range of different activities, including:       Awareness raising events for local people and tourists An intensive programme of opportunities for secondary schools Short and long term bursaried on-the-job training opportunities and apprenticeships hosted by local companies, land owners, farmers, and other organisations Practical upskilling courses and master classes for those already working in the sector Training for communities and local people in aspects of heritage skills such as woodland management CPD networking and learning opportunities These activities should be co-ordinated by a dedicated Heritage Skills expert working for the Landscape Partnership Scheme, working in partnership with others across the region, including the those in education, skills and employability, and organisations such as the Galloway and South Ayrshire Biosphere, to ensure a joined up approach and a sustainable future for the programme after the Landscape Partnership Scheme ends. In addition to the proposed training programme, NECT presents three Business Cases for Heritage Skills activities in the Galloway Glens area:    Upskilling SME’s with Heritage Skills Partnership Pilot Project – Threave Garden and Estate, Kelton Mains Traditional Skills Team These Business Cases consider the ways in which the range and scope of heritage skills activity in the Galloway Glens could be expanded during the delivery of the Landscape Partnership Scheme. iv Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 Introduction and Methodology Introduction The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership is developing a five year project to connect people and communities with their heritage, protecting natural and cultural heritage in the river catchment of the Ken/Dee, from Carsphairn to Kirkcudbright. Through a programme of projects in the river catchment, including major capital projects and activities for people, the Partnership aims to secure a prosperous future for the heritage and communities of the area. 1.1 As part of the development phase of this work, Dumfries and Galloway Council commissioned North of England Civic Trust (NECT) to carry out an audit of the current and potential future heritage skills situation in the Galloway Glens, considering heritage skills in a wider national context, with an emphasis on economic opportunities and long term sustainability for both the heritage and communities of the area. The audit considers current provision of specialist heritage skills in and around the project area, and opportunities for heritage skills training. On the basis of the research, NECT have created a suite of recommendations for heritage skills activities and training to be delivered through the Landscape Partnership project, along with three detailed business cases to support the creation and expansion of economically sustainable heritage skills activity in the area. 1.2 1.3 This report is the response to the brief, for consideration by the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Board. The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Project The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership project area is larger than the average Landscape Partnership area, covering a 590km2 catchment of the Ken/Dee river valley from Carsphairn in the north to Kirkcudbright in the south. The project aims to explore the interaction between people and their natural, cultural and built environment, supporting communities in better understanding and better management of the heritage for future generations through a programme of capital works and activities. 1.4 The Galloway Glens are an undiscovered area of south west Scotland, sandwiched between the Solway Firth to the south and the highlands to the north. The landscape comprises rolling hills, winding roads, and water from the Ken and Dee rivers, Loch Ken and a mosaic of smaller lochs and glens. Settlements are small and scattered, with towns at Kirkcudbright, Castle Douglas and St John’s Town of Dalry, and a network of smaller villages and hamlets. Despite a landscape dominated by forestry and agriculture, industry has shaped the area, with the magnificent hydroelectric power system of dams and reservoirs, including the grade A listed Tongland Power Station, still standing proud. The uplands in the north of the project area are only accessible by forest tracks. Much of the area is part of the Galloway Hills and Solway Coast Regional Scenic Areas, and is also a part of the Galloway Forest Park (Scotland’s first Dark Sky Park), and the UNESCO designated Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere. The area has numerous SACs, SSSIs, two RAMSAR sites, and many listed buildings and ancient monuments. The National Trust for Scotland, Historic Environment Scotland, and the RSPB own and manage sites in the project area. 1.5 The project aims to safeguard the future of the Galloway Glens by working across three strands; people, places, and prosperity. 1.6 November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 1    People - Rural skills training, education and interpretation, volunteering and employment opportunities Places – Research and capital works relating to improved management of Loch Ken and the river systems, peatland and other habitat restoration, forestry design, archaeological and historical research, access and interpretation Prosperity – Better access and visitor facilities, support for nature based tourism and community enterprise The project is currently in the development phase, with the delivery phase due to start in 2018 and run until 2023. 1.7 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership area 2 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 Methodology The methodology for this research was developed in response to the brief set out by Dumfries and Galloway Council (Quote Reference DGC/KM/550/16). 1.8 Work began with background reading and an initial desk-based assessment of the heritage skills situation across Scotland, informed by previous heritage skills audits carried out by NECT, considering current heritage skills training provision, identified skills needs and shortages, and employment opportunities. This sets the context for the heritage skills situation in the Galloway Glens. An initial long-list of the types of heritage skills to be considered in the research was drawn up (see Appendix 1). 1.9 An initial project meeting was attended by Graham Bell and Elanor Johnson (NECT), Karen Morley (Dumfries and Galloway Countryside Service), McNabb Laurie (Galloway Glens Development Officer), and Kerry Monteith (Dumfries and Galloway Employability and Skills Service) to discuss the background to the research and the aims of the Landscape Partnership in developing a heritage skills training aspect of their project. 1.10 Following the initial meeting, a suite of research questions were developed to form the basis of consultation with stakeholders and desk-based research. 1.11          What is the national heritage skills situation (training and economic opportunities)? What types of heritage skills are important in the Galloway Glens, and the surrounding area? What is the nature and scope of current heritage skills work and opportunities in and around the Galloway Glens? How does heritage skills activity fit in to the economy of the area? What can we learn from past and current heritage skills training opportunities, successes and failures in and around the Galloway Glens? What is the population, demographics, and economy of the Galloway Glens? Who are the audiences for heritage skills training? What barriers prevent delivery of, or participation in, heritage skills training? What barriers prevent audiences from accessing heritage skills training? What opportunities exist for research in to heritage themes in the Galloway Glens? Due to the very small population of the project area and nature of the local economy, particularly relating to heritage skills work, a standardised survey was not felt to me the most useful tool. Instead, in-depth face-toface and telephone conservations were held with a wide range of local stakeholders, establishing the nature and scope of each stakeholders involvement in heritage skills and discussing the research questions. 1.12 The initial list of stakeholder contacts was generated by the Landscape Partnership, but this was added to throughout the research period by exploiting local networks, internet searches, and use of social media. Social media based research, harnessing opinion via Twitter and Facebook, was not as successful as hoped, but a survey monkey survey of farmers did elicit responses. A wide range of contacts was reached via existing local networks, such as the NFU Scotland and Scottish Land and Estates, and contacts in the communities of the area. 1.13 Local stakeholders consulted included commercial businesses, contractors, community projects, educational and training establishments, umbrella bodies, land owners and managers, and other agencies. In addition, regional and national stakeholders in the heritage sector were interviewed, including staff at Historic Environment Scotland, the Scottish Lime Centre, and others. A full range of the stakeholders consulted can be found in Appendix Two. As the consultation process concluded, additional email or telephone interviews were 1.14 November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 3 held with some stakeholders to clarify understanding or discuss particular issues. In parallel to the consultation process, NECT carried out additional desk based research. Responses from the stakeholders were analysed and emerging patterns identified. Links between skills, training, and economic opportunity were established. The original long list of heritage skills was refined to reflect the nature of the project area and the feedback from stakeholders, resulting in a working, relevant definition of heritage skills in the context of this particular project. This can be found in Section Three. A summary of the current situation of the ten most important heritage skills for the future of the Galloway Glens can be found in Section Eight. 1.15 On the basis of our findings during the research process, NECT proposes a suite of training recommendations, with details of the audiences, associated qualifications, potential training providers, possible venues, barriers, and financial/resource implications. Our proposals not only draw on the outcomes of the consultation process, but also take in to account best practice and our experience of developing and delivering heritage skills training through the Heritage Skills Initiative. 1.16 Limitations At the request of the commissioning client, this research and report focuses largely on employment directed training, aimed at increasing or safeguarding jobs and economic activities for individuals and businesses in the Galloway Glens area. As a result, the recommendations for training activities to be delivered through the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership project aim to make a ‘sustainable, genuine difference’ (Karen Morley, Dumfries and Galloway Council) in terms of economic opportunities and jobs, and should be delivered alongside strategic training activity across the region. 1.17 Heritage Skills training can also be successfully delivered via community engagement or volunteering activities, this is vital for the long term sustainability and protection of heritage, and in creating communities who are better able to manage and care for their heritage. However, much of this type of training does not impact economically due to the nature of the audiences it attracts. NECT recommends that community and volunteer heritage skills training should be built in to other aspects of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme, to run alongside a programme of heritage skills training aimed at developing and enhancing economic activity. 1.18 In contrast, raising awareness of heritage skills, of what they are and why they are so important, is an integral part of the recommendations made in this report. If heritage skills specialists, whether drystone dykers or conservation architects, are to sell their services to the population of the Galloway Glens and beyond, the reasons for choosing a specialist, trained, experienced, and often more expensive option must be understood by those outside the sector. Additionally, if we are to attract people to specialist training, in particular young people, we must initially raise awareness of what heritage skills are. For these reasons, our recommendations do include a number of awareness raising and informal training opportunities. 1.19 In developing our proposals, we have been mindful of the deliverability of the recommendations, and have wherever possible provided information on possible training providers, placement hosts, and potential venues. The deliverability of some of the recommendations will be bolstered once the other elements of the overall Landscape Partnership project are confirmed, with other projects becoming vehicles for elements of the training programme. 1.20 The context of the landscape geography, population demography, and the scale and level of economic activity in the Galloway Glens area must also be taken in to account. Consideration must be given in particular to 1.21 4 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 the very low population levels, and the relatively small scale of economic activity which is spread over a wide geographic area with a scarcity of good transport links. This has resulted in the development of a programme which is ambitious in quality but realistic in terms of quantity. The research process was limited by a very short timeframe for the work, with only six weeks between the initial project meeting and the submission of a draft report. This unfortunately coincided with a two-week school holiday in Dumfries and Galloway, meaning that a significant number of potential consultees were unavailable at key points. However, we were able to contact a large number and range of stakeholders, and those we spoke to and met were very positive about the project and happy to participate in development. 1.22 November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 5 The Galloway Glens If we are to make meaningful recommendations for heritage skills activity and training in the Galloway Glens, we must consider the economic and social context of the project area. Information for this section of our report draws heavily on two documents, the Stewartry Area Profile, and the Dumfries and Galloway Regional Economic Strategy 2014-2020. Dumfries and Galloway covers a much larger area, and although the Stewartry area is more closely matched to that of the Galloway Glens project area, it is slightly larger and includes the town of Dalbeattie, which is out with the Galloway Glens area. However, the trends and issues are likely to be very similar. 2.1 The project area covers 590 km2 of rural landscape, with the population living in scattered farms, hamlets, villages, and three small towns. The entire project area is remote, or very remote. 2.2 Population The population of the Stewarty is around 24,000. This equates to 0.14 people per hectare, compared to 0.24 people per hectare across Dumfries and Galloway, which is itself one of the least densely populated areas of Scotland. The average age of the population is 46.2, compared to 40.4 across Scotland. There are a lower proportion of young people (under 25), and a higher proportion of older people aged over 65. Dumfries and Galloway is projected to have the highest proportion of over 65s of any Scottish Local Authority by 2020, which clearly has an impact on skills loss through retirement, the need for succession planning, and attracting new entrants in to the heritage sector workforce. 2.3 There are three main towns in the Galloway Glens; Castle Douglas (population c.4000), Kirkcudbright (population c.3500), and St Johns Town of Dalry (population c. 400). Significant villages are New Galloway and Carsphairn, both of which have services such as a shop and community hall/centre. 2.4 Consultees and official statistics indicate an outward migration of young people. This is in common with comparator regions, and is rooted in lack of opportunity, poverty of transport and living costs. 2.5 Economy, Employment and Business In 2011, around 10,600 people in the Stewartry were in employment, representing 61% of people of working age. Around 14% were employed in agriculture, fishing or forestry, compared to 9% in Dumfries and Galloway and 2% across Scotland, figures for the construction industry were comparable with the rest of Scotland. Dumfries and Galloway has approximately 8% of all of Scotland’s farm holdings. 2.6 Across Dumfries and Galloway, there is a distinct pattern of under employment; many people are working part time, seasonally, or less than they would wish, or in roles beneath their level of skills and qualifications. 2.7 Current threats to the economy in the project area include public sector spending cuts, welfare reforms, and changes to agricultural policy including grant schemes. 2.8 Statistics reflect the pattern of businesses described by consultees, with a large number of self-employed people (19%) or micro businesses. Nearly 40% of all enterprises in the Stewartry are in the agriculture, forestry of fishing sector. 89% of VAT registered businesses in Dumfries and Galloway have10 or less employees. Businesses are supported by Scottish Enterprise, Business Gateway, and Young Entrepreneurs. New businesses do tend to thrive in the area, surviving beyond the first three years. 2.9 6 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 Tourism is also a key sector in the regional economy of Dumfries and Galloway, with sustainable tourism accounting for around 3,500 jobs. However, consultees report that this very much a seasonal economy, with accommodation providers and caterers closing over the winter months. 2.10 Society and Community Transport is a huge issue in the Galloway Glens, in terms of transport infrastructure, transport poverty, and lack of public transport. Settlements are scattered, 20% of households in Dumfries and Galloway have no access to private transport, and public transport is scarce, infrequent, and expensive. This prevents uptake of training and work opportunities, as well as adding to social isolation. Commuting is expensive for those who do so, but the average earnings of those who live in the region are higher than those who commute in to the region to work, suggesting that residents commute out for better paid work. It is not known if this pattern relates more to the accessible town of Dumfries or whether it is also true for the remote rural areas. 2.11 Despite the dispersed nature of the settlement pattern, many villages in the project area have strong sense of community identity, and have facilities such as a small shop, community hall, or pub/café. 2.12 Most of the project area does not have access to superfast broadband. There are issues around fuel poverty in some communities. 2.13 People living in Dumfries and Galloway report a very high level of satisfaction and personal well-being, greater than in comparator regions. 2.14 Information from consultees was conflicting regarding connectedness of individuals and communities to the landscape. Some felt that there is an increasing disconnect, as less people work on the land, and as young people move away from where they have grown up and communities are filled with people retiring from elsewhere. However, other consultees suggested a slightly different reality, that people living in the area are very connected with their place and have an identity bound up in where they live in the landscape, but that this doesn’t tend to be shared, celebrated, or valued in an outward way, particularly in younger cohorts. 2.15 Education and Skills There are three secondary schools in the area, Castle Douglas High School with 550 students, Kirkcudbright Academy with 420 students, and Dalry School, with 55 students at secondary level. Dalry students who continue in education past S4 must travel to Castle Douglas or Kirkcudbright. Castle Douglas High School in particular reports that a higher than average number of students leave education at S4, mainly in to employment which is often on family farms. Achievement in all three schools in the project area is good, with the proportion of pupils gaining qualifications at S4, S5 and S6 higher than the regional and national average. 2.16 2.17 Dumfries & Galloway College is the nearest college for school leavers in the Galloway Glens. 2.18 12% of the population of Dumfries and Galloway have no qualifications. Only 20% of the workforce in Dumfries and Galloway have a degree, as opposed to 30% across Scotland, and those who leave the region to attend university tend not to return at the end of their studies. 2.19 Only 19% of employees in Dumfries and Galloway across all sectors report receiving any workplace training, which may be linked to the large number of micro businesses and the high number of agricultural jobs, a sector which does not traditionally value training for staff. This is below comparator regions. 2.20 November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 7 The number of young people in Foundation and Modern Apprenticeships in the area is increasing, which mirrors trends across Scotland. 2.21 Young People Statistics on youth employment may not be picking up the reality of the employment situation for young people (16-25 year olds) in the area. Youth employment is higher than in comparator regions, and lower numbers of school leavers than average go to university. The Employability and Skills team working directly with this section of the population in the area suggest that there is a pattern of under employment, with individuals either working less hours than they wish, seasonal employment, or in roles that do not accurately reflect their skills. Barriers such as access to transport and costs of living can disproportionately affect young people, and in addition a lack of training, qualifications or employment during this formative period can have longer term effect on individuals and society as a whole, with impacts on future earnings potential, health and wellbeing, and the public purse. 2.22 Future Issues facing the Galloway Glens The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Board suggest the following issues as major challenges for the future of the communities and landscape, amongst others: 2.23       Restructuring and restocking of the forest Climate change and associated flooding risks An aging population, with high levels of young people migrating Changing land management and increasingly intensive agriculture Increased pressure due to rise in tourism Disconnection between communities and landscape The Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership area sits within the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere Reserve, designated by UNESCO because of the specialness and significance of its wildlife areas, cultural heritage, and communities. The Biosphere is one of only four in the UK, and offers new opportunities for people to demonstrate how we can work and live in ways that benefit both people and heritage, leading in developing sustainable ways of living through conservation, learning and research, and connecting communities with natural and cultural heritage. The Biosphere area includes the catchment of seven river systems, of which the Ken-Dee, the river catchment for the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme, is one. 2.24 The themes and principles of the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere and the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership are very closely aligned, and in particular the heritage skills training element of the Landscape Partnership Scheme has clear links to the role of the Biosphere is stimulating the local economy through environmentally and financially sustainable employment, which in turn connects to the common theme of the addressing the outward migration of young people from remote rural areas. Heritage Skills training recommendations can be piloted through the Landscape Partnership Scheme, with successful methods and mechanisms then being rolled out across the wider Biosphere, resulting in a more sustainable programme. 2.25 8 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 The Landscape Partnership Scheme offers an ideal opportunity to deliver the principles of the Biosphere in an active, on the ground way. It is recommended that the Biosphere team work closely with the Landscape Partnership during the final development, delivery and evaluation of training activities. 2.26 November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 9 Heritage Skills What are Heritage Skills? Heritage Skills are the specialist skills needed to understand, protect, conserve, manage, and share natural and cultural heritage. They include practical, professional, and technical skills, some applicable across the whole heritage sector and some highly specialised or aligned to individual aspects of natural, built, industrial, maritime, transport or intangible heritage. These skills are vital in conserving heritage and in ensuring that it is better managed and protected for future generations. 3.1 Following the initial meeting and early consultation process, and a review of the national context, three key areas of heritage skills were identified as most relevant to the Galloway Glens area. Within these three overarching heritage skill areas sit a variety of specialist skills. There is some cross over between the three key areas, and individuals both currently and in future are likely to be skilled and experienced in more than one specialism. These skill sets are not exhaustive, and additional specialisms should also be considered in any training programme. Underpinning all three skill areas is a knowledge of the local environment, it’s geology, geography, history, and culture. The three skills areas are: 3.2     Skills for Built Heritage Traditional construction skills such as stone masonry, clay bonding methods (potentially used in as many as 20% of traditional buildings locally), use of lime for mortar, plastering, and render, carpentry and joinery, roofing, lead work and blacksmithing. Construction skills necessary to protect 20th century heritage structures, such as the concrete buildings of the hydroelectric system. Modern construction skills which impact upon heritage, such as retrofitting of energy efficiency measures to traditional buildings. Heritage Skills for Management of Landscapes and Natural Heritage Traditional rural and landscape skills such as drystone dyking, fencing and hedgelaying, trees and timber skills including woodland management and processing of timber, game keeping, horticulture, path pitching and estate maintenance. Traditional and modern construction skills used to protect and conserve the heritage landscape of the 21st century in terms of water management, such as construction and maintenance of culverts, stream and river banks, and rainwater run-off features. Skills for Heritage Interpretation and Access Community engagement, leading guided walks, rides, and other tours, interpretation skills for print and digital media, designing trails and interpretation panels, wildlife, landscape, or night sky photography, creating exhibitions. Professional and Technical Heritage Skills - building recording, estate management, water and flood management, academic research in to natural or cultural environment, archive skills, field survey skills (archaeology, ecology, water courses), architecture and planning. Heritage skills and training in heritage skills cannot be completely separated from generic business and employability skills, as without these skills individuals and organisations are unable to successfully work in the heritage sector. 3.3 Artisan craft skills, such as basket making, pottery, silversmithing, and textiles were excluded from this study as it was felt that they are better addressed elsewhere. The production, processing, and preparation of food using artisan and traditional methods was also excluded, as this was considered a buoyant element of the local economy at present, having benefitted from development support over recent years. 3.4 10 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 What is Heritage Skills Training? Training in heritage skills is defined by the Heritage Lottery Fund as ‘formal or informal courses or on-thejob tuition which provide(s) people with knowledge and specialist skills to sustain heritage to the highest standards’. 3.5 This definition covers a wealth of training mechanisms, including formal and informal training, training leading to qualifications or accreditation, upskilling, peer-to-peer training or mentoring, work experience, bursaried placements and apprenticeships, and research and study opportunities. All options have been considered in developing the proposals for the Galloway Glens Partnership project. 3.6 November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 11 Heritage Skills in Scotland – The Wider Context Since the early 2000s, there has been a growing body of research commissioned by Historic Environment Scotland, the National Heritage Training Group, and other heritage organisations on skills needs, shortages, and training in the natural and historic environment. This research has attempted to ascertain the nature of the skills issues; to understand which skills are most needed, to quantify supply and demand, and to explore how patterns of training and development match these needs. Alongside this research sits a growing body of knowledge regarding the value of heritage to our economy, and the size and nature of the heritage workforce. The majority of this research relates to built heritage, rather than natural heritage, but there is also evidence of the role heritage plays in the tourism sector in Scotland. 4.1 The historic environment contributes in excess of £23 billion to Scotland’s Gross Value Added every year. Total spend on the historic environment in Scotland was £986 million in 2013/14, and the sector is a major employer, providing 2.5% of Scotland’s employment and supporting around 60,000 jobs, or 41,000 FTE. 4.2 Skills for Built Heritage Within these figures, the heritage construction sector employs around 20,000 people. There are 450,000 traditional buildings in Scotland, around 20% of the building stock, and £600 million is spent on pre-1919 buildings in Scotland annually. The 2014 Scottish Housing Survey identified that 72% of pre-1919 dwellings were not wind or watertight, or suffer from disrepair to critical elements. 33% of pre-1919 dwellings have a need for critical and urgent repair. Every town surveyed had instances of serious disrepair to pre-1919 buildings. 4.3 Although the overwhelming needs in the Scottish construction industry over the next 5 years are likely to be related to infrastructure projects, there is a predicted 2.3% growth in the repair and maintenance sector. Half of all repair and maintenance work in Scotland is to traditionally constructed, pre-1919 buildings, and as such requires the sympathetic use of traditional materials and the knowledgeable use of specialist techniques. An estimated £0.6 billion is spent on repair and maintenance of traditional, pre-1919 buildings ever year in Scotland. With nine in every ten pre-1919 buildings having basic repair needs, and demand for repair and maintenance outstripping new build, skilled heritage construction tradespeople and businesses will continue to be needed. 4.4 The most common specialist heritage skills gaps identified by building contractors were: 4.5       Carpentry and bench joinery Plastering (lime) Traditional glazing Lead work Decorating Slate roofing A report to Scottish Ministers by the Historic Advisory Council echoed this, with stone, lead, plaster and wood reported as the key shortage areas, along with a general demise in the availability of workers with good vernacular building skills due to retirement. 4.6 Lack of awareness amongst customers and clients means that new build and replacement is often chosen over repair and conservation, and traditional skills are regarded as an expensive luxury. 4.7 12 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 In addition to traditional building skills, the retrofitting of energy efficiency measures and renewables to traditional buildings and buildings in heritage settings is a growing element of the heritage construction sector. Traditional buildings can be seen as difficult in terms of energy efficiency measures, but this is largely down to lack of awareness and a poorly trained workforce. Retrofitting and energy efficiency are strategic priorities at a national level, and as well as reducing carbon emissions can ease fuel poverty. 4.8 Traditional building techniques and materials are increasingly being used in the construction of new design, whether as part of extensions and alterations to existing buildings, or for new buildings and structures. This ranges from the use of drystone dyking techniques to build benches and garden features through to the construction of timber framed houses and straw bale and lime buildings. Architecture and Design Scotland promote the use of traditional materials in new build, and a number of local authorities encourage the use of traditional materials in their planning and design guidance in order to minimise the impact of new build on sensitive settings. 4.9 Heritage Skills for Management of Landscapes and Natural Heritage Around 150,000 people are employed in Scotland in the land and environment sector, with 96% of these people working in businesses of 10 or less people. It is thought to be a highly skilled yet under qualified sector. During the period 2010-2020, Lantra predicted that 12,000 more people would be need to enter the land and environment sector, the majority of whom would be expected to have a qualification at equivalent to SVQ level 4 or above. 4.10 Turnover in land maintenance and management roles is very low, with few vacancies. When vacancies cannot be filled, lack of skilled candidates is cited as the main factor. 4.11 The roles played by those working in farming and land management are changing, and this is altering how people use traditional skills in their working life. Increasingly, farms and estates are being staffed by much lower numbers of people and older workers are retiring without succession planning. Young people are less likely to follow in the family footsteps in to work on farms, particularly in upland areas. Existing and new workers are taking on a wider range of roles, due to a combination of diversification and reduced employee numbers, meaning that they require a greater range of skills. 4.12 Changes to the grant system, particularly for boundary work on farms, is leading to less use of external, specialist contractors for boundary repairs and more in-house repair work by untrained farm/estate workers. 4.13 The situation in Scotland around forestry, and associated forestry, trees, and timber skills, is different to that across the rest of the UK and Europe. Scotland has huge areas of forest owned by individual landowners, although many who actually work in forestry will never own their own forest or woodland. Large areas of woodland have little or no management in place, which can lead to long term decrease in quality of habitat, and there are also changes in felling and planting patterns in this vital economic asset. 4.14 Skills Development Scotland has recently commissioned a study looking at the skills needs in the forestry sector. The report cites an aging workforce, a lack of forestry learning at degree level, and lack of capacity for training by employers as key issues facing the sector in coming years. There is a need for increased numbers of workers skilled in practical and professional forestry particularly in terms of wood fuel energy, forest tourism, sustainable construction and timber engineering, and planting, felling and estate management. There are 4.15 November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 13 currently a number of initiatives to increase community management and ownership of woodlands, but many communities have a desire but not the necessary skills to get involved. Skills for Heritage Interpretation and Access Tourism is one of the most important industries in Scotland, and the historic environment is a major contributor to Scottish tourism. Figures available from 2012 suggest that 28% of adults in Scotland had visited an archaeological or historical site in the previous 12 months, and around 14 million tourists visited heritage attractions in the same year. Heritage, history and culture are regarded as the main reasons for visiting Scotland by many visitors. 4.16 Heritage skills for employment in the tourism sector are two-fold. Individuals require a level of knowledge about the heritage they work with, but also skills to interpret or provide access to that heritage, whether it is natural, built or cultural heritage, tangible or intangible. These skills include leading guided walks, cycle rides, boat/canoe trips, or horse rides, wildlife or night sky photography, giving talks and presentations, planning and preparing routes, trails, or interpretation panels, storytelling, and much more. 4.17 Employment in these heritage skill areas falls predominantly in to two groups; those employed by large organisations that manage heritage sites and places such as NTS, Historic Environment Scotland, or the RSPB, private owners of heritage sites and places that are open to the public, and those working on a self-employed basis or for micro/small businesses providing these services for heritage owners/managers. 4.18 Published data relating to skills needs specifically for heritage interpretation and access could not be found, but with nature and history based tourism an increasing part of the economy, it is highly likely that these skills will be needed in future, particularly in remote and rural areas such as the Galloway Glens. 4.19 Heritage Skills Training in Scotland The Skills for Scotland Strategy (2010) states that a skilled and educated workforce is essential to improve productivity and sustain economic growth. This includes professional, technical and vocational heritage skills, with trained, skilled individuals contributing to economic growth through employment in heritage construction, landscape management and rural work, heritage management, and heritage tourism and interpretation. 4.20 There are concerns in the spheres of natural heritage and built heritage around retirement of skilled workers, and lack of succession planning, with a fear of skills being lost without the provision of suitable training to plug the gap. For example in the UK construction workforce, there are fewer younger workers and more older workers employed on traditional building projects. This highlights the importance of recruiting younger workers, providing specialist training, and enabling older experienced workers to pass on their skills, and is of particular relevance to the Galloway Glens, where the national picture is magnified by an aging population. 4.21 A number of recent initiatives indicate a move towards addressing the traditional skills gap, with, for example, the development of new modern apprenticeships in subjects like estate management, the creation of the Engine Shed (a new technical building conservation and training hub in Stirling) by Historic Environment Scotland, and a number of heritage skills training programmes running through organisations such as the Scottish Forestry Commission or National Trust for Scotland, and the Scottish Traditional Building Centre at Fyvie in Aberdeenshire. 4.22 14 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 Accredited training and qualifications in heritage skills in Scotland are offered by a combination of different organisations and bodies, including the SQA, colleges and schools, universities, and private training providers such as the Scottish Lime Centre and Rural Skills Scotland, and various charitable bodies. The system can be difficult to navigate. There is considerable variation in the existing qualifications related to traditional skills in particular, with some qualifications officially available but in reality not offered by any training providers, and other skills have no qualifications attached. Across the board, the depth and quality of training is considered to be variable, and the availability of skilled trainers is a problem. 4.23 Apprenticeships associated with various heritage skills are available, supported by Skills Development Scotland, including a number of new apprenticeship options that have only recently come on stream. Apprentice wages are funded by employers, with Skills Development Scotland covering associated training and qualification costs. Specialist options relating to heritage skills are available as Modern Apprenticeships , or as part of more generic Modern Apprenticeships. However, many employers are unaware of the options available within apprenticeships, and micro and small businesses are deterred from employing apprenticeships by perceptions of costs and bureaucracy. 4.24 Specific trade bodies, such as the Dry Stone Walling Association, offer training and accreditation related to their own craft. However, some heritage skills, such as blacksmithing, are highly specialised, and often require individuals to travel or live away from their homes for extended periods in order to obtain a high quality training experience. 4.25 Economic viability is a key issue in the provision of training, as the training market is commercial and low numbers of enrolled trainees, whatever the training mechanism, can result in lack of opportunity. This has resulted in a loss of specialist heritage training through colleges in particular, but the gap is increasingly being filled by private training providers offering assessment through on the job training, or in some cases via remote learning. 4.26 The highly specialised nature of many heritage skills, and a lack of qualifications and clear pathways in some of these skills, can mean that those wishing to enter heritage trades and professions find it hard to access good quality advice both locally and online. This particularly impacts on young people in schools and colleges, as many careers advisors have limited knowledge of the sector and are therefore unable to provide the right advice, signposting, or to set up work experience. 4.27 Technical and professional heritage skills training, such as archaeology, ecology, or building surveying is usually offered by universities and colleges at HNC/D or degree level. However, many courses such as architecture or town planning do not include heritage elements as a standard part of the course. CPD is also an important aspect of heritage skills training for technical and professional roles, but increasingly employers are cutting back on CPD opportunities for staff in order to save money. 4.28 Informal heritage skills training, and locally specific training, is often delivered through other initiatives such as Conservation Area regeneration Schemes or Landscape Partnerships, such as rural skills training for young people delivered by the Living Loch Lomonds Landscape Project, or traditional construction training offered by Selkirk CARS. 4.29 November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 15 Heritage Skills Training in the Galloway Glens Current and recent provision Current and recent heritage skills training in the Galloway Glens is sparse, with few opportunities for training in any heritage specialism whether vocational, professional, or technical. 5.1 Past initiatives, including those run through a previous landscape project, focused on traditional land and building skills. This training was aimed at a range of audiences, and although people developed heritage skills there was little measureable impact on the economy or in terms of jobs. Upskilling courses, such as lime mortar sessions for builders, have been attended, but no information is available on whether those attending went on to apply their new skills in their day to day work. 5.2 It is likely that there is a high level of skill sharing of traditional skills occurring on an ad hoc, hidden basis, with those involved in farming, land management, or construction passing down their skills to younger people as the need arises. This is particularly thought to be the case with skills such as drystone dyking, with work to small sections often done ‘in-house’. In many ways, this informal skill sharing is how traditional skills have been passed on for generations, however with no accreditations, skills can become diluted and bad habits magnified, and younger workers do not gain qualifications to allow them to develop or progress their careers. 5.3 Castle Douglas High School offers a National 4 qualification in Rural Skills, with 10 students currently enrolled. The school also reports a higher than average number of pupils studying history and geography at higher and advanced higher level, suggesting a keen interest in heritage amongst young people. It is not known whether these young people progress in to careers in heritage, but the school is keen to support initiatives to encourage these students to take up heritage skills training and work. 5.4 Dumfries & Galloway College offers no specialist heritage construction training. The college recently considered the feasibility of running a full time programme in this area, but concluded that the minimum number of students to make this course viable would be 14, and decided there was not enough demand. The college has construction apprentices but none are specialising in heritage trades. The number of apprentices in the Galloway Glens working towards heritage related qualifications is not known, but the consultation process did identify at least two apprentice stone masons working locally. However, training for these apprenticeships is via college in Glasgow. Until recently, apprentices were employed by the Scottish Forestry Commission at the Galloway Forest Park, but this programme has now ended. 5.5 The University of Glasgow and the Crichton Institute at the Crichton Campus, Dumfries, act as a hub for a range of professional and academic heritage skills learning and research opportunities for students, professionals, and community/volunteer groups. Formal taught courses are available, with uptake growing, in subjects including Tourism, Heritage and Sustainability, and Environment, Culture and Communications. The student body comes from across Scotland, England, and other countries, with low numbers of local young people enrolling. Many of the taught postgraduate courses include an element of work-based learning or independent research; some of these projects are located in Dumfries and Galloway. 5.6 The Crichton Institute hosts researchers and provides reports on numerous issues relating to the heritage sector locally and further afield. The Solway Centre for Environment and Culture runs a number of community and volunteer programmes including lectures series, archival mapping and community archaeology activities. 5.7 16 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 It was very difficult to get a clear picture of what training is taking place within the farming sector locally. Feedback from the NFU Scotland local branch suggests issues with succession planning, as young people are not moving in to farm work, particularly in the upland areas. However, a new initiative is currently running at Castle Douglas High School for young people to obtain a Dumfries and Galloway Employability Award in Agriculture, through a pilot partnership project with the NFU Scotland and SRUC Barony. 5.8 It was also difficult to establish the current training and heritage skills needs within the sphere of the estates in and around the area; the umbrella body Scottish Land and Estates, some individual estate owners, and land agents reported a willingness to get involved in training, and in some cases a lack of suitable candidates locally when recruiting staff. However, training initiatives are not running locally, new estate management qualifications have only just come on stream, and the barriers of cost need to be considered to increase training opportunities. 5.9 A number of training initiatives relating to specific heritage skills have also been delivered locally in recent 5.10 years:      The Dry Stone Walling Association runs around 3 practical training courses, with progression opportunities for qualification testing, in and around the Galloway Glens area every year. Over past years, these courses have included a number of heavily subsidised places for young people, which was successful in attracting potential career wallers/dykers as opposed to the usual hobbyist audience. It is not known how many of the young people who attended went on to use their skills in employment. The Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere ran a Dark Sky Ranger training programme, training and supporting approximately five people in skills associated with the Dark Sky Park. At least two of these trainees now run successful heritage tourism enterprises as a result of their training. The National School of Heritage Gardening is based on the NTS Threave Estate, and offers accredited training in horticulture and practical gardening in a heritage setting. Threave is the only venue to run this kind of residential training in Scotland, and currently have 6 resident students on their one year course, along with 4 additional students. The School of Heritage Gardening is currently under review by NTS however, and if it continues is likely to have to become more commercially viable. The Connecting in Retirement project at the CatStrand in New Galloway runs a successful Men’s Shed, where local retired people skill share with others, particularly skills in traditional joinery and woodcarving. This project hopes to expand in future years, and is interested in intergeneration skill sharing. Home Energy Scotland offers occasional awareness raising events in Dumfries and local towns specifically aimed at those who own or manage historic and traditional buildings. Energy Efficient Scotland are responsible for training contractors in retrofitting, but are not thought to offer any training locally at present. On the periphery of the project area, there is some activity in terms of specialist heritage skills training at the present. At Dumfries House, Ayrshire, the Kuanyshev Traditional Building and Crafts Centre offers traditional building and land management training to young people through the Prince’s Trust, and the Conservation Area Regeneration Scheme at Stranraer is about to begin a programme of traditional building training. 5.11 Generic employability training and qualifications are widely available in the project area, with support in particular through Dumfries and Galloway Total Access Point. The Dumfries and Galloway TAP Employability Award is registered through SQA, and should be considered alongside specialist qualifications in the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership project heritage skills training programme. 5.12 November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 17 Dumfries and Galloway Total Access Point (D&G TAP) offer support and guidance for young people, and those who are seeking work or progression around all aspects of employment and training. D&G TAP also have a number of dedicated members of staff who liaise with employers on issues of training and recruitment. The involvement of D&G TAP on a strategic and day to day delivery basis will be vital to the success of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme heritage skills training scheme. 5.13 Future needs Overarching themes around future heritage skills needs emerged during the consultation process, mainly around issues of qualifications and accreditations. 5.14 There was a split amongst those consulted about the value of accredited training in terms of heritage skills. Most employers and potential participants consulted did not consider formal qualifications in particular specialisms as a priority, and were more concerned with experience and employability. In contrast, amongst consultees in the education/training sector there is a much stronger focus on accredited training and qualifications, and on clearly defined pathways for work experience and training. 5.15 A balance needs to be struck between these two viewpoints, and a mix of accredited and non-accredited training mechanisms will be recommended. Training aimed at young people in particular will need to have more emphasis on qualifications and defined pathways than that aimed at upskilling existing workers, as it will ensure that training has a more rounded and longer lasting value to young people as they move through their careers. Our recommendations will identify available qualifications for each heritage skill, and in addition will set out progression options for those participating in each activity. 5.16 There was concern across the board that training must be linked to sustainable economic activity and positive personal outcomes for participants after the lifetime of the project, building a strong legacy. There was concern amongst stakeholders that training activities should avoid creating a situation where certain skills were oversupplied in the region as this could disrupt an already sensitive market, for example training a large number of additional drystone dykers will not result in an improved network of dykes in the long term unless it is backed by funding to carry out repair work, it is more likely to put existing dykers out of business. 5.17 A significant number of stakeholders highlighted the importance of generic skills training as part of developing a stronger heritage skills workforce. This includes skills for employability and transferable skills and qualifications amongst young people, and skills in areas such as marketing, business development and growth, and business finances for those looking to establish heritage skills businesses or to expand in to the sector from an existing mainstream base. This training could be integrated in to heritage skills courses, provided in parallel, or accessed via mentoring and networking mechanisms. 5.18 18 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 Audiences The following audiences were identified on the basis of desk based research, local demography and population information, and the consultation process. 6.1                School students College Students University Students and Researchers Young people (16-25), including school leavers Farmers and land managers, and those working on farms Owners of traditional buildings (private homeowners or property owners) Forestry, trees and timber workers Professionals currently employed in the heritage sector locally Professionals working in roles associated sectors Estate Managers and estate workers, including gamekeepers, ghillies, foresters, etc Public and Charity Sector Organisations and their staff Day visitors to the area Tourists on longer visits including at least one overnight stay Community and Volunteer Groups Graduates, in particular graduates wishing to return to the Galloway Glens area Participants in the training activities offered through the Landscape Partnership Scheme should be drawn from as wide a range of the identified audiences as possible, with recommendations for training targeted at different audience groups. It is thought that the majority of those engaged in the training activities will be resident either in the project area, or on the periphery of the project area across the wider Dumfries and Galloway area. 6.2 There is a strong focus on young people in the training recommendations, in order to maximise the potential economic benefit, and to tackle in a very limited way some of the issues around the migration of young people out of the Galloway Glens area. However, experience from other training programmes, particularly bursary schemes run by the National Heritage Training Group, suggests that adhering to a strict age cap can result in a poor outcome; it is more important to provide opportunities to the ‘right’ candidate on a case by case basis. For this reason, it is suggested that all training activities, bar the Heritage Schools Programme, be offered to participants of any age who are seeking training, progression, or employment in the sector. 6.3 November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 19 Barriers to Heritage Skills Training Various barriers to the successful provision of heritage skills training have been identified, falling in to two main groups: barriers to participation, and barriers to successful delivery. Overwhelmingly, the two main barriers identified by all those consulted were transport and cost. 7.1 Barriers to participation in training The following barriers to participation in training were identified: 7.2       Transport - Transport was identified as the single largest barrier likely to prevent people in the Galloway Glens accessing training opportunities. The rural landscape, with small scattered settlements spread over relatively long distances and linked by winding roads means that travel around the project area is difficult even for those with access to a private vehicle. Cost - Cost is key factor for employers in participating in training opportunities. This includes the financial cost of training or qualifications for their staff, but also the financial impact of loss of productive work time if staff are attending training. Lack of awareness of heritage skills, and lack of understanding of the benefit heritage skills training can have on a career or business Lack of awareness of what heritage skills are, and how they help us to protect, conserve, and share the landscape, ecology, history, and culture of the area Culture of not expanding businesses or skills – many consultees reported a general culture of individuals and employers being satisfied with ‘just getting by’ and not wishing to further invest or expand their business. Low aspirations, particularly amongst young people, about the opportunities available, and in particular a poor perception of the types of employment in the rural economy. Young people in the Galloway Glens face a number of barriers to accessing any form of training, including training in the heritage skills sector, and are in many cases more adversely affected by these barriers. The population of young people in the area is very small and scattered, particularly away from Castle Douglas and Kirkcudbright, and as such needs and barriers must be considered on an individual basis. Key factors effecting young people include social and rural isolation, with associated mental health issues, a poverty of aspiration and a lack of awareness of the types of careers available, as well as issue around transport poverty. 7.3 Barriers to delivery of training The following barriers to the delivery of training were identified: 7.4    20 Cost of provision of training Lack of skilled trainers and mentors – this reflects the small population, combined with the low level of specialist heritage skills work that is carried out by those who are qualified in their specialism. Whilst trainers can be brought in to deliver courses, it can be hard to set up mentoring schemes and on-the-job training when existing skills are so sparse. Lack of commitment to training - uncertainty, particularly economic uncertainty, means that employers are less likely to take on trainees or to send existing staff on courses unless they are convinced of the value in real terms. Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016    Lack of central coordinator to organise and promote heritage skills training in the area, resulting in disjointed marketing, repetition of opportunities, minimal networking possibilities, and lack of learning from previous initiatives Bureaucracy – high numbers of small businesses in the area are likely to be disproportionately affected by the bureaucracy involved in taking on an apprentice Lack of available qualification/accreditation options, and confusion over the value of accredited training. Barriers to increasing economic heritage skills activity In addition to the barriers identified relating to training in heritage skills, a common theme across all respondents was that there is a culture locally of not increasing workload or growing businesses by branching out in to new skill areas. This in many ways was thought to be linked to quality of life, wellbeing, and lifestyle choices, with micro business owners and self-employed people choosing to maintain a steady level of economic activity and pair this with leisure time, rather than to take on a larger or more complex workload. 7.5 7.6 This perception is purely anecdotal, but should be considered when developing the training programme. November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 21 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens – Addressing Current Needs This section offers an overview of the training needs and opportunities in ten specific heritage skill areas thought to be of most importance to the Galloway Glens area. Each specialist area is considered, and a number of potential training activities are suggested. A more detailed training programme to be delivered through the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Project is then proposed. In addition, we present three businesses cases for ideas that have emerged during our research. 8.1 Heritage Construction – Repair and Maintenance The following conclusions and recommendations have emerged from the consultation process. 8.2        There are a very small number of built heritage specialists operating in and around the Galloway glens area, including at least two specialist joinery companies and one stone masonry business. It is unlikely that the local or regional market could support any more highly specialised heritage construction businesses. In contrast, almost all mainstream construction companies in the area report that they provide heritage skills services, and that they regularly work on traditional buildings. Construction workers operating in the Galloway Glens for the most part do not have any specialist training. Little formal specialist training is available. Much of the work on traditional buildings is repair and maintenance work, and this is likely to continue to be the case. Repair and maintenance work on traditional buildings often requires a number of different heritage specialists on one project, for example repairing a small section of roofing, replacing lead flashing, and cutting in new sections of wooden windows. If this work is done badly, the overall character of any area can be damaged over time. Insensitive repair and maintenance can also cause long term problems. In particular, traditional windows are difficult to reinstate once removed. Listed building consents are increasingly requiring clients to use lime mortars and other heritage materials. For some skills, including use of lime, a lack of confidence on the part of both contractors and clients is an issue. Dumfries and Galloway Built Environment Awards (biannual) recognise and celebrate good quality design and craftsmanship and include an award for the best conservation/conversion project Recommended Training Activities Upskilling courses and masterclasses, paid bursaries or apprenticeships for young people, mentoring and support to encourage micro/small construction companies to expand their services, awareness raising activities 8.3 Heritage Construction – Energy Efficiency, Renewables, and Retrofitting The following conclusions and recommendations have emerged from the consultation process. 8.4   22 No specialists in retrofitting or energy efficiency in traditional buildings were identified as active in the Galloway Glens or surrounding area Fuel poverty is an issue for householders in Dumfries and Galloway, many of whom live in traditionally constructed properties. Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016      Energy efficiency and carbon reduction is a priority nationally. Information on energy efficiency in traditional buildings is contradictory, particularly in terms of windows and glazing, although there are specialist companies in the region who make and fit new timber windows and can supply secondary glazing. There are a very small number of built heritage specialists operating in and around the Galloway glens area, including at least two specialist joinery companies and one stone masonry business. It is unlikely that the local or regional market could support any more highly specialised heritage construction businesses. In contrast, almost all mainstream construction companies in the area report that they provide heritage skills services, and that they regularly work on traditional buildings. Construction workers operating in the Galloway Glens for the most part do not have any specialist training. Little formal specialist training is available. Recommended Training Activities Upskilling courses and masterclasses, awareness raising activities, support for new or expanding businesses in this specialism 8.5 Construction – Specific local building techniques The following conclusions and recommendations have emerged from the consultation process. 8.6      A decline in tradespeople who understand and have experience in local vernacular styles and techniques was identified as an issue at a national level. In the Galloway Glens area, this includes stone buildings, clay bonded buildings and rendered buildings. Carpentry and joiner skills are required for the construction of doors, windows, staircases, and structural timber work, and roofing is usually slate. Repair, consolidation and conservation of clay bonded buildings and monuments was mentioned as a priority skill area by consultees both locally and at the national level. Historic Environment Scotland believes that around 20% of traditionally constructed buildings include elements of clay building or bonding, but this material is often not identified until during construction work. Consolidation work to local buildings is increasingly likely to be funded by wider landscape schemes rather than on a case by case basis. There is likely to be an untapped market for using traditional techniques to create good quality, distinctive new design in the Galloway Glens area, for new build or extensions to existing properties. In particular, there are opportunities for small scale construction projects using drystone techniques and timber framing. Recommended Training Activities Intergenerational training and skill sharing, bursaried placements or workforce ‘swaps’ between contractors, 8.7 Upland Path Creation and Maintenance The following conclusions and recommendations have emerged from the consultation process. 8.8  Creation of new pathways and repair of existing will be vital for increasing heritage tourism in the Galloway Glens November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 23      There are currently no specialist providers in the region and recently work has been carried out by those from further afield as a result. Previous training initiatives did provider contractor training for local companies in path pitching. There is likely to be an increase in the amount of paths and access work during the lifetime of the Landscape Partnership Scheme, but the level of this work going forward after 2023 is potentially low due to squeezes on local authority and grant funded projects. Locally, there are very few, if any, skilled contractors carrying out large scale path creation or repair and maintenance work, and there are no training opportunities in this area. However, further research is necessary to establish the level of demand for this work in both the Galloway Glens and across south west Scotland. Tendering and procurement processes often prevent small, local contractors from applying for larger contracts on these kind of capital projects. Although not a training issue, this should be explored with employment and business support services at Dumfries and Galloway Council. Recommended Training Activities Upskilling courses, support and mentoring for new businesses 8.9 Land and Estate Management The following conclusions and recommendations have emerged from the consultation process. 8.10       Dumfries and Galloway Council lost the majority of its in house countryside ranger services recently, and is now focusing on strategic approaches to landscape management rather than practical support. The skills of staff from this service have not been lost, as a large number are now working privately in the local region. Agencies employing land maintenance and management staff in the Galloway Glens area include the NTS, Historic Environment Scotland, the Galloway Forest Park, and the RSPB. Estates and farms in the Galloway Glens are employing less workers, but workers perform a wider range of skilled heritage tasks. Specialist heritage tasks are increasingly being carried out in-house by farmers and estate workers, rather than contracting in external companies. Workers carrying out heritage skills tasks tend to be unqualified, having learnt techniques from peers and previous generations. The School of Heritage Gardening at Threave is currently unique in Scotland in offering full-time, accredited training focused specifically on heritage gardening and horticulture. There may be opportunities for this training to be expanded, to make it more accessible to local people, to offer a range of shorter or non-residential courses, and to create links with local schools. It has not been possible to fully understand the need or demands for these skills during this research process, but the current National Trust for Scotland review processes for the Threave School of Heritage Gardening should aid the development of training recommendations in this area going forward. Recommended Training Activities Bursaried placements or apprenticeships for young people, shorter work experience placements, or day release placements for young people, awareness raising, upskilling courses 8.11 24 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 Trees and Timber The following conclusions and recommendations have emerged from the consultation process. 8.12            Forestry, trees, and timber work are key industries in the Galloway Glens area. The landscape is dominated by forests and wooded areas. . Commercial forests are very well managed in some of the project area, with high levels of felling, often carried out by external contractors. However other areas of forest and woodland are either under minimal management or not managed at all. There are currently very high levels of timber felling in the area, but this is in part a short term peak due to the current need to fell larch in an attempt to halt the spread of disease. Timber processing is a shortage area at present, with more timber being felled than can be processed locally. External contractors are currently used for processing of timber. The large scale commercial operations are not considered within this report in terms of training needs, but there is a clear gap in terms of local skill levels and engagement in the sector. This skills gap could be filled with small scale training in practical and technical aspects of forestry, timber processing, and wood occupation skills for individuals, micro businesses, and community organisations. Such training would allow value to be added to timber locally, within the area and by local people. There are training needs within the trees and timber sector in terms of both practical training such as use of chain saws, coppicing, and timber processing, and in terms of technical skills in woodland management. In addition, there are opportunities for traditional skills training in this area with techniques such as horse logging, green woodworking, and willow weaving. The Southern Upland Partnership has in past years run projects relating to trees and timber, such as shared machinery initiatives. The Scottish Woodlot Association reports a high level of interest from individuals and communities wishing to manage a woodlot, but this interest rarely transfers to action due to a lack of confidence and a lack of skills. The South West Scotland Community Woodlands Trust has been active and very successful as a model for engaging people with local woodlands. Both organisations could potentially be engaged as partners in developing and delivering training. There is interest at the local level in community management of woodland, possibly linked to fuel poverty which is high in Dumfries and Galloway. There has been a recent decline in training opportunities in forestry locally, with the end of apprenticeships at the Galloway Forest Park. There may be opportunities within Dumfries and Galloway, and further afield, to increase the volume of timber-based construction work, including use of traditional timber skills for doors, windows, garden buildings and porches, and the use of non-standard timber and traditional techniques in new build, such as holiday lodges, new office space, and tourism buildings. Recommended Training Activities Bursaried placements or apprenticeships for young people, shorter work experience placements, or day release placements for young people, programme of training and support for communities and individuals who wish to set up small forestry enterprises, training and awareness raising around timber building in the twentyfirst century. 8.13 November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 25 Raising Awareness and Aspirations The following conclusions and recommendations have emerged from the consultation process. 8.14    Land owners and managers, and property and home owners, are often unaware or confused about specialist heritage skills, what they are, and why they matter in the conservation of natural and cultural heritage. Awareness raising is necessary if we are to increase the market for specialist heritage skills, as without understanding people will not choose to appoint those with the right skills or will not seek suitable advice. School students and young people are unaware of the opportunities offered by the heritage sector. There is a poor perception of employment in land based or construction skills, combined with a poverty of aspiration to achieve a fulfilling career. People are unaware of the opportunities available in professional heritage roles Recommended Training Activities Schools programme, homeowner training, heritage skills festival 8.15 Heritage-based Tourism The following conclusions and recommendations have emerged from the consultation process. 8.16          26 The Galloway Glens has a range of tourist attractions for visitors, many within the sphere of heritage based tourism. Castle Douglas, Kirkcudbright and St John’s Town of Dalry are the hubs for accommodation and food, and the wider landscape is packed with natural and cultural heritage that could be further developed for heritage tourism. Loch Ken has traditionally attracted fishing tourism, but local opinion is that this is in decline. There are opportunities to increase heritage tourism based on the loch and surrounding water courses and landscape. Galloway Forest park, including the Dark Sky Park, Threave Castle and Estate, the Southern Uplands Way and the Red Kite Trail are key existing components which could be built upon A number of small businesses have begun to successfully develop heritage tourism, notably Solway Tours (genealogy and history) and Nocturnal Wildlife Tours and a number of night photography businesses. Training for heritage tourism tends to be informal, in-house, and on the job. The focus is on providing workers with knowledge of heritage rather than the skills to share such knowledge or to increase success and engagement. Feedback from Historic Environment Scotland Visitor Services (who run Threave Castle and other sites in the area) suggests that those employed in roles such as tour guide or interpreter are increasingly needing a wide knowledge base, for example requiring knowledge of history, wildlife, and the wider landscape rather than just one strand. This is likely to be more true within private heritage tourism companies. General tourism networks are active in the area, but there are no networks or skill sharing opportunities specifically for heritage-based tourism activities Unexplored opportunities to expand were identified by consultees, including increasing pathways around Loch Ken, high-end bespoke tours for ‘special’ visits to red kite feeding stations or hidden gems of the area. Work in the tourism sector as a whole is seasonal and often low paid. Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016  Heritage tourism initiatives are likely to be more sensitive to the impact of increased visitor numbers to the area than mainstream tourism activities Recommended Training Opportunities Skill sharing and networking events for the sector, support for self-employed and micro businesses to expand 8.17 Drystone Dyking, Fencing, Hedgelaying and other boundary work The following conclusions and recommendations have emerged from the consultation process. 8.18      The current situation around drystone dyking in the Galloway Glens is more complicated than it first appears. Consultation resulted in mixed reports about the situation, but drilling down suggests that although a lot of dyking work is taking place, a large amount is not being carried out by professional contractors, but is instead being done on an as-and-when basis by farmers and other workers on the land. This is resulting in patchy quality; some dykes are repaired well by individuals who perhaps have no qualifications but have extensive experience, but others are being filled with cement or having guard fences added alongside. There is some suggestion that cement is being used as it is thought to make the dykes stronger, or thought to act as a better defence against water run-off from fields to roads and villages. This shift away from contracting qualified, experienced dykers is thought to be largely as a result of changes to the grant structure for farmers; with the demise of the Rural Stewardship Scheme grants are no longer available to rebuild or improve the dykes, so famers are taking on this work themselves. Qualified dykers are reported as busy but not overworked, although at least two local men has recently retired. Professional dykers are increasingly using their skills on garden features, benches, and other decorative features. Existing dyking, fencing and hedgelaying contractors are busy but able to able to meet demand. As in other specialisms, large contracts are often subject to procurement processes which exclude small local businesses. Succession planning is needed if we are to maintain the current level of skilled dykers, and other boundary specialists. Recommended Training Activities Upskilling courses and masterclasses, paid bursaries or apprenticeships for young people, training and awareness raising for landowners, research in to impact of boundaries of all types in relation to water run-off and flooding. 8.19 Technical and Professional Heritage Skills The following conclusions and recommendations have emerged from the consultation process. 8.20    There are not thought to be any conservation accredited architects based in the Galloway Glens or surrounding area, but architects locally are working on traditional buildings, particularly conversion and extension work to dwellings. There are only 1-2 independent commercial archaeologists working in the region as a whole. The major commercial employer of heritage skills technicians and professionals is Natural Power, who have around 90 staff in these roles locally, including ecologists, hydrologists, and others employed on November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 27     work such as environmental impact assessments and installation and operational management of natural power infrastructure. The third and public sector employ a large number of heritage professionals. With cuts to public spending, these roles are changing, with individuals becoming responsible for wider remits and therefore requiring a greater range of specialist knowledge. Building recording work is increasingly requested as part of planning consent, but only 2-3 people in the wider region have this skill set, suggesting an opportunity for an increasing amount of paid work for newly trained specialists. Building recording could be an additional skillset for archaeologists, architects, or building surveyors. A small but significant number of people are employed in specialised roles in the commercial, public or third sector in the Galloway Glens, for example ecologists, conservation planners, hydrologists. Retention of these workers in the area can be difficult as career progression opportunities are limited, and conversely safeguarding of these jobs is crucial in a time of austerity in public services. Retention and recruitment issues need to be addressed within this area. Squeezes across public and third sector mean that professionals are increasingly dealing with work that is outwith their specialism. Skill sharing and CPD can counteract this, and allow heritage skills to remain fresh and in line with current best practice. Recommended Training Activities Upskilling courses, CPD/networking events, student training and research placements, internships for recent graduates returning to the area after study in other regions. 8.21 28 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 Proposed Training Programme Overview The proposed recommendations in this training plan are not exhaustive, but offer a response to the heritage, economic and training needs identified through the research and consultation process. Training activities will need to be further expanded and refined in light of the wider Landscape Partnership project activities, in collaboration with those leading on capital works and other programmes of activity. The recommendations provide an idea of the depth, nature, and scope of training that could be undertaken through the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership project. 9.1 A proposed suite of recommended training activity is detailed. Costs are outlined for each element where possible, but are subject to change and should be considered as a general guide only. 9.2 Outline costs include an allowance for transport to and from as many activities as feasible, as this was the key barrier to participation in training. This allowance could be to cover shuttle minibus costs to transport participants to locations across the project area, but also includes travel costs for training providers from out with the project area, as this will increase the deliverability of the training. 9.3 All training is to be delivered free of charge for trainees. This addresses some of the identified cost barriers preventing participation, and also builds on experience gained by NECT during the delivery of heritage skills training initiatives in Cumbria and North East England, which suggested that people are unwilling to pay for these types of training in the current economic climate. 9.4 In addition to the recommended training plan, three Business Cases are presented, considering ways in which the range and scope of heritage skills activity in the Galloway Glens could be expanded during the Landscape Partnership project. These can be found in Appendix Three. 9.5 9.6 See the table on the following pages. November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 29 [insert table] 30 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 Appointment of part-time Heritage Skills Coordinator for the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Responsibilities to include: Coordination of all aspects of heritage skills training programme Liaison with education and training providers, youth/community support workers, D&G TAP, hosts and venues, local, regional and national agencies, land owners/managers, private sector and others Marketing and Promotion of Heritage Skills and Heritage Skills Training Opportunities Act as ‘knowledge and information hub’ for Heritage Skills in Dumfries and Galloway, maintaining comprehensive database of contacts and activities Champion heritage skills in the Galloway Glens at all levels from strategic to on the ground delivery Delivery of heritage schools programme (9.10) Liaison with Landscape Partnership members, in particular Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere Partnership Creation and Management of Heritage Skills Database 9.1 9. 2 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens To include details of heritage skills providers, Activity 9 All All Audience(s) Research process suggests that there is currently no cohesive People and communities will be more aware of heritage skills Heritage Skills Training programme will be delivered in a cohesive manner, with clear links between different elements Benefits N/A N/A Training Providers, Hosts, and Venues To be managed and promoted by the Heritage Skills Coordinator Line management by Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Board or Staff Salary and associated on-costs in line with Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership staff structure Office base and associated equipment Costs and other resources N/A N/A Qualifications & Accreditation, Progression Opportunities Novermber 2016 Level of use (number of searches or contacts made) Increased awareness of heritage skills amongst decisionmakers, land owners/manager, commercial sector, education sector, and local communities. Delivery of successful heritage skills training programme. Targets and measures of success Initial focus should be to promote MA’s to those employers who are already taking on school leavers but are not currently offering them training. 3 x Estate Management 3 x Estate Maintenance 2 x Environmental Conservation Modern apprenticeships in Rural Skills Develop in close partnership with Dumfries and Galloway TAP and with Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere To include local, regional, and national information heritage skills training providers and training opportunities, potential training placement hosts, and other useful contacts in the sector Activity Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 9.3 9 College leavers Young people including school leavers Audience(s) Natural heritage Addresses need for succession planning by estate owners/managers Recognised, accredited work based training will establish young people in heritage careers information hub for stakeholders to access if they wish to find out more about heritage skills, and in particular no central point to assist in finding work placement opportunities or qualifications in heritage skills sector for young people. This database would address that need. Benefits Rural Skills Scotland can provide training and assessment element of MAs in Rural Skills Privately owned estates, agencies such as Galloway Forest Park or RSPB Training Providers, Hosts, and Venues Heritage Skills Coordinator input required to Qualification costs are covered by Skills Development Scotland Wages for apprentices are covered by the employer Costs and other resources MA in Rural Skills Progression in to work or further study Qualifications & Accreditation, Progression Opportunities Novermber 2016 Progression of apprentices in to work Number of suitable candidates recruited Number of apprenticeships established Targets and measures of success 12-18 month Heritage Skills Bursaried Placements 9.4 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 5 x fulltime placements to encompass work based learning an SVQ 2 or 3 in a heritage skill through On Site Training and Assessment an employability qualification such as the D&G Employability Bronze Award Functional Skills training as necessary Activity 9 Young people are better equipped to conserve and manage heritage Career Changers Unqualified workers in similar roles Young people gain experience and recognised qualifications Offer training to those who are currently employed in similar roles without a training element Promote value of accredited training to school leavers and landscape will be better managed Benefits Young people including, but not exclusively, school leavers Audience(s) Firm expressions of interest have been received from Solway Tours and Potential hosts include RSPB, Galloway Forest Park, Solway Tours, estate owners, farmers. Training Providers, Hosts, and Venues This includes bursary payments, OSAT qualification costs, travel allowance for Cost per placement = £24,000 £120,000 Promotion to employers through D&G TAP promote this opportunity with potential employers – there is a risk that employers are adverse to taking on apprentices due to perceived costs and bureaucracy, although anecdotal evidence suggests they are willing to take on unqualified young people in similar roles. Costs and other resources Possible qualifications include: SVQ 2 in Estate Maintenance SVQ 3 in Estate Management Scottish Tour Guides Association Blue/Yellow Accreditation Qualifications & Accreditation, Progression Opportunities Novermber 2016 Number of young Number of young people completing placements Number of placements established Targets and measures of success Trainees to work on specific projects within the Landscape Partnership Scheme, and could be drawn from a range of backgrounds, eg School leaver considering Series of 3 x 6-12 month full time placements within the Landscape Partnership team, developing skills in heritage management and heritage project delivery. 6-12 month Bursaried Placements within the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership team Career Changers Recent graduates Young People Micro/Small businesses who wish to grow Areas of learning likely to include: Heritage Construction (Joinery, Stone or Roofing are thought to be most relevant economically and offer the best opportunities for long term career sustainability) Land Maintenance or Land Management on estates/reserves/farms Forestry, trees and timber occupations Heritage Tourism – interpretation or guiding, and research skills Organisations represented on the Landscape Partnership Board should be encouraged to take on a bursaried placement trainee or intern Audience(s) Activity Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 9.5 9 Promoting the value of training a Young people are better equipped to conserve and manage heritage Young people gain experience and recognised qualifications Promote value of accredited training to school leavers Existing skilled workers pass on their skills to a new generation the Loch Ken RSPB Reserve Manager Employers address succession planning and business growth issues by training potential new staff with low financial risk Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Training Providers include Rural Skills Scotland, Scottish Traditional Skills Training Centre, STGA, Dumfries College Training Providers, Hosts, and Venues Benefits Selection of qualification will be dependent on placement and candidate. Qualifications & Accreditation, Progression Opportunities SVQ 3 Heritage Skills (Construction) £24,000 per 12 month placement to include bursary, qualification costs, travel allowance, and recruitment. £72,000 Progression to employment in the sector regionally or further afield, or to further study Selection of qualification dependent on candidate Placement hosts to input resources in terms of supervision Progression options and training of the include moving in to trainee direct employment by host Promotion to potential host employers through D&G TAP trainee, recruitment. Costs will vary depending on length of placement and qualification Costs and other resources Novermber 2016 Number of trainees progressing to further training or work in the sector Number of placements people achieving SVQ 3 or equivalent Targets and measures of success 12 x 2 day up-skilling sessions for existing workforce to better understand heritage aspects of their work and learn traditional Up-skilling Courses – Built Heritage and Landscape/Natural Heritage Deliver over 1 day per week over 6 weeks 10-12 trainees per course 6 x 40 hour courses for mainstream construction workers to develop and consolidate traditional skills in one of the following areas: Stone Masonry and Lime Carpentry and Joinery Traditional Roofing Master Craft Training – Traditional Building Skills One of these three placements should ideally be working across both the Landscape Partnership and the Biosphere teams. future options, graduate returning to the area after study, career changers. Activity Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 9.7 9.6 9 Workers in Mainstream construction employees and businesses People will be better trained to conserve and manage the historic environment Micro/Small businesses or selfemployed expand their services Traditional buildings will be better cared for Construction college leavers who are not working Potentially suitable for school students with a particular aptitude for DT/practical work People will be better trained to conserve and manage the historic environment new generation to other partners and organisations in the region Benefits Mainstream construction employees and businesses Audience(s) Rural Skills Scotland, Scottish Lime Centre, members of the South West Community Training to be at college or on live sites in the Galloway Glens Dumfries and Galloway College to provide training Training Providers, Hosts, and Venues No associated qualification Progression Enhanced work options, or further £1500-£2000 training costs per course, plus venues, tool hire, Progression Enhanced work options, or further training in particular specialism Per course: £3000 training costs for each 40 hour course £57.50 materials and registration per student per course £24,000 No associated qualification Qualifications & Accreditation, Progression Opportunities £22,140 Costs and other resources Novermber 2016 Number of students attending (12 courses would result in a maximum of 144 Number of businesses offering specialist heritage services Number of students attending (6 courses would result in a maximum of 72 trained people over 5 years) Targets and measures of success School students with a particular aptitude for DT/practical work Volunteers Training in heritage knowledge Skills training in practical areas such as leading guided walks, developing trails 4 x 2 day up-skilling courses for existing workforce and owners of tourism businesses to develop skills in nature or heritage based tourism Potential new tourism workers and business owners Existing tourism workers and business owners Micro/Small businesses or selfemployed expand their services Construction College students Master Classes – Heritage Tourism Natural heritage and the landscape will be better cared for Businesses will be able to exploit the heritage of the area in a sensitive way People and communities will be better able to celebrate and share their heritage People will be able to explore new career options Traditional buildings will be better cared for. forestry, land/estate maintenance and management skills in the following areas: Stone and Lime Joinery Dyking Fences and Hedgelaying Roofing Upland Path Creation and Maintenance Timber building Benefits Audience(s) Activity Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 9.8 9 Business mentoring and support from D&G Council and Visit Scotland, Historic Scotland, National Trust for Scotland, and the Scottish Tour Guide Association TGA are potential training providers Potential sites include Kelton Mains (NTS), Galloway Forest Park, RSPB Loch Ken To be delivered at venues across project area, preferably on live projects. Woodlands Trust, members of the Upland Path Advisory Group. Training Providers, Hosts, and Venues £8000 refreshments, etc. Costs and other resources Progression – Enhanced work options, expansion of existing businesses, or establishment of new businesses No associated qualification Qualifications & Accreditation, Progression Opportunities training in particular specialism, including 9.6 (Master Craft Training) Novermber 2016 Number of new or expanded heritage tourism businesses Number of people attending Number of people progressing on to Master Craft Training or other training opportunities Number of businesses offering specialist heritage services following training trained people over 5 years) Targets and measures of success 10 x 1 day taster sessions including general talks on heritage conservation in relation to buildings, and a practical taster session in one of the following: Stone and Lime Joinery Roofing Awareness Raising – Home/Property Owner Taster Days These 4 courses over 5 years should be developed so that people can attend one course or all five as a series. This will support the development of a heritage tourism network. Could be expanded to cover the Galloway Glens and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere Training will be discursive and based on skill sharing Business support and mentoring Activity Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 9.9 9 Home and property owners in the Galloway Glens and surrounding area Audience(s) People and communities will be better informed and aware of the needs of traditional buildings, and more likely to engage trained specialists to work on them. Traditional buildings will be better managed and conserved. Benefits Delivered by Heritage Skills Coordinator and one paid specialist (local or regional, eg David Little Stone Mason or Historic Environment Scotland Technical Team) Hosted by community venues around the project area others Training Providers, Hosts, and Venues £5000 Costs and other resources N/A Qualifications & Accreditation, Progression Opportunities Novermber 2016 Increase in use of specialist contractors. Changes in values and attitudes Number of people attending Targets and measures of success This will be targeted at young people with an interest in history, geography, DT, or practical/outdoor work Annual Careers Event to bring students together from all 3schools to try out heritage Raising aspirations & awareness of heritage careers across the three secondary schools in the area through a programme of in school, out of school, & work experience activity, to be coordinated by the Heritage Skills Coordinator. Heritage Schools Programme Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 9.11 Awareness Raising – Heritage Skills Festival 9.10 Annual Heritage Skills Festival bringing together those working in the sector to promote heritage skills to a wider audience and to celebrate and promote the services they offer. Practical demonstrations Meet the craftsperson Advice from the professionals Promotion of rest of the Heritage Skills Training Programme Activity 9 School Students Teachers Youth Guarantee Staff Local communities, volunteers, home and property owners, land owners/mangers tourists and visitors Audience(s) Perceptions of Heritage Skills work will be improved Better signposting and careers advice for young people Raising of career aspirations Increase in number of young people progressing to heritage skills training or employment after People will better understand heritage careers and training opportunities People and communities will have a raised awareness of need for and value of heritage skills work to ensure on-going conservation of the area Benefits Local agencies and commercial companies, local estates/farmers to deliver training, classroom sessions and events, with support from Heritage Skills Coordinator. Payment for services at usual day rate. Additional input from HS, NTS, RSPB, Threave Estate may be a suitable venue, or central location in Castle Douglas Training Providers, Hosts, and Venues To include transport costs for students, practical training sessions in school, and costs of heritage workers to attend and deliver practical sessions and the careers event £90,000 In-kind contribution of venue Mix of in-kind & paid demonstrators/stan dholders £25000 Costs and other resources No qualifications in heritage skills. D&G Employability Award Prince’s Trust Personal Development and Employability Skills Award and Certificate Progression in to heritage work or heritage training on leaving school, including other N/A Qualifications & Accreditation, Progression Opportunities Novermber 2016 Number of young people participating Number of young people progressing to heritage based work or study Initial and Summative evaluation of student perceptions of heritage skills Changes in attitudes/values towards heritage and heritage skills Number attending Targets and measures of success Microbusinesses existing and potential, Social Enterprises Community or volunteer groups Initial event to raise interest and awareness of forestry careers and ways to get involved in forestry for career seekers and communities Short courses in practical forestry and woodland management training, aimed specifically at individuals or groups who wish to take over the management of an area of woodland/forest, including chainsaw skills, logging and processing, coppicing, use of mobile saw mill machinery, etc. Young people who are interested in forestry careers Forestry, trees and timber workers Audience(s) Trees and Timber Training and Mentoring Programme skills. Link to 9.10 Bespoke work placements for young people with local employers. Heritage Skills Coordinator to work with Youth Guarantee workers in schools to increase number of heritage placements offered/taken Annual 6 week Have a Go Heritage programme for 24 students each year, selected by the schools. Practical skills sessions, visits to see heritage skills on the ground, and classroom sessions from heritage professionals. Final session to be inspirational visit to a heritage hub outwith the project area, eg Engine Shed or Dumfries House. Activity Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 9.12 9 Better management of woodland, local level management and engagement in woodlands Addresses fuel poverty issues and provides opportunities to add value to tree felling on a small scale school Benefits Galloway Forest South West Community Woodlands Trust has links to suitable trainers and has wealth of expertise Scottish Woodlot Association to act as training provider for initial course and ongoing support Galloway Forest Park, Biosphere, and D&G Council, as well as Rural Skills Scotland, Scottish Lime Centre, Prince’s Trust (Dumfries House) and others. Training Providers, Hosts, and Venues £20,000 Costs and other resources Progression for community/ volunteer groups to take over management/ ownership of woodland. Progression to career in forestry or creation of micro business Qualifications & Accreditation, Progression Opportunities recommendations in this report. Novermber 2016 Number of new or Number of Woodlot Licences in place by end of project (2) Number of people attending course (8) Number of people attending initial interest event work Targets and measures of success 10 x Heritage Skills CPD Networking and Training Sessions across full range of heritage skills (2 per year). Examples to include working with lime, managing heritage tourism, ecological surveying in Heritage Skills CPD Network Support for creating specific woodland management plans for those who wish to progress with a Woodlot Licence, Community Asset Purchase of woodland or similar Continued mentoring both by professionals and peers, creation of support network Activity Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 9.13 9 Professionals out with the heritage Heritage Professionals in private, public and charity sector This opportunity is particularly suitable for promotion across the Galloway Glens and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere to increase the potential audience size Audience(s) Heritage will be better managed, as professionals will have up to date skills and knowledge Economic opportunities for foresters, and those in wood occupations such as timber construction, carpentry, green woodworking Communities and individuals could take over the management and maintenance of small areas of woodland for community benefit or as commercial enterprises Increased access to privately owned heritage Benefits All Landscape Partnership members should be involved, with each partner delivering 1 x ½ day session across the 5 years. Association of Pole Lathe Turners and Green Woodworkers (Scottish Borders Group) Steffi Schaffler – Horse Logging Training, mentoring and support John Williamson – Chainsaw training Park may be a potential training venue Training Providers, Hosts, and Venues In kind contribution of c. 1 day at professional day rate per Landscape Partner to deliver £2000 Costs and other resources N/A Qualifications & Accreditation, Progression Opportunities Novermber 2016 Number of new joint initiatives Number of attendees reviewed Woodland Management Plans Targets and measures of success 3 day course in technical aspects of building recording, including classroom sessions and onsite recording Technical Training – Historic Building Recording 2 x Training events for energy efficiency installation companies to raise awareness of the possibilities and limitations in traditional buildings 2 x CPD events for professionals, particularly grant givers) to focus on clarification of the issues in the ‘greening’ of traditional buildings 5 x Heating Your Historic Home events for home owners/property managers Energy Efficiency and Retrofitting Training Archaeologists, building surveyors, architects, technical/professi onal construction students, university students in Construction trade workers and micro/ small businesses Heritage professionals Home and property owners sector who deal with heritage issues under other roles water courses, retrofitting in traditional buildings Establish virtual network of heritage skills professionals in the Galloway Glens area Audience(s) Activity Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 9.15 9.14 9 Gap in the market for local building surveying expertise will be filled Heritage will be better managed and understood Energy efficiency will be increased Heritage will be better managed Professionals will be better placed to support people and communities in managing heritage Benefits Andrew Nicolson (Dumfries and Galloway Council) to advise on best trainer from a commercial archaeological fieldwork unit. Scottish Traditional Skills Training Centre Energy Efficiency Scotland Training Providers, Hosts, and Venues No qualification available Unknown – may be accreditations available for retrofitting companies Qualifications & Accreditation, Progression Opportunities £3000 for trainers Progression – include £900 for venue/refreshments skill set in existing or new business £3900 Energy Efficiency Scotland and other bodies within the energy efficiency sector are likely to be able to cover costs. training session to peers Costs and other resources Novermber 2016 Number of historic buildings surveyed during course (2) Number of people attending (8) Number of traditional buildings with energy efficiency measures added during project lifetime Numbers attending each element of training Targets and measures of success Programme of 3 x one day events for building contractors, architects, planners, surveyors, and others in the built environment sector focusing on structural timber, traditional wooden building techniques, and use of local, non-standard timber in construction. Trees and Timber – CPD Events Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 9.17 Academic Study and Research Placements 9.16 10 x 6-8 week placements as part of MSc and other postgraduate programmes Activity 9 Building Contractors Built environment professionals University of Glasgow students BA & MA or PhD Possibly opportunities for a similar activity with interested school students related disciplines. Audience(s) Increased awareness of wood as a building material, and encouragement of use of local timber supplies and traditional wood construction techniques New research Benefits £2000 In kind resource contribution of supervision and time by hosts, who receive research in return Potential hosts include all Landscape Partnership members Architecture and Design Scotland Placement costs to be borne by the university Costs and other resources University of Glasgow at The Crichton Campus Potentially to run at Balmaclellan Parish Church, which is in need of recording, as an initial training site, with follow up day at another site. Training Providers, Hosts, and Venues N/A Student research work Qualifications & Accreditation, Progression Opportunities Novermber 2016 Number of new, high quality timber structures in the project area Number of people attending Feedback from Students Number of businesses offering building surveying in the area at the end of the project Targets and measures of success Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 20 x Short paid placements in all areas of the sector, to include technical, practical, and professional heritage skills roles, including placements within the Landscape Partnership organisations. Trainees to be paid a bursary to cover living costs whilst on the placement, and hosts to be paid for time invested in providing the placement opportunity. 1-3 month paid internships Career changers Young People including school and college leavers Building Contractors Award for the best use of Heritage Skills to be created as part of the Dumfries and Galloway Design Awards for 2020 and 2022 9.19 Built environment professionals Dumfries and Galloway Heritage Construction Award 9.18 Audience(s) Activity 9 People will be able to develop basic skills and identify their own abilities and aptitudes in a particular aspect of heritage skills Promotion of heritage construction craftsmanship, celebration of traditional techniques and materials within the context of new build and conversions Benefits Public sector and third sector organisations SMEs in Galloway Glens Heritage Skills Coordinator to promote across the sector Dumfries and Galloway Council (Carolyn Howarth) Training Providers, Hosts, and Venues Heritage Skills Coordinator will be crucial in securing placement positions, with support from D&G TAP employer engagement officers and youth guarantee workers in schools. £40,000 for bursaries. £20,000 to cover placement costs for hosts £60000 N/A Costs and other resources Progression on to further training, including other aspects of this programme No qualifications N/A Qualifications & Accreditation, Progression Opportunities Novermber 2016 Numbers of people progressing to further training in the sector Number of entrants Targets and measures of success Appendix 1 Original Long List of Heritage Skills Geology/Minerals Prehistory Settlements/Fermtouns/Planned Towns Buildings/Structures/Archaeology Landscape/Crofting/Smallholdings/Transhumance & Subsistence Mining Religious Heritage/Covenanters/Pilgrimage Routes/Long Distance Routes Military/Battles/Borders/Defensive heritage Monuments/Memorials/Cairns Social/Oral History/Legends/Genealogy/Community Survey Artistic and Literary Traditions 20th Century/War Graves Drystone Walling/Dyking/Drainage/Cobbling Hedging/Coppicing Forestry/Woodland/Horse-Logging Habitats/Peatlands/Bogs/Moss-Heaths/Margins/Fen Water Courses/Lochs/Tarns/Wetlands/Estuary Designed Landscapes/Gardens/Arboriculture/Horticulture Lime/Stone Masonry Carpentry and joinery Roofing Clay Buildings Brick/Tile/Terracotta Plaster/Harling/Render Decorative Arts/Glass/Ceramics Blacksmithing and Metalworking Engineering/Hydro/Canals Industrial Heritage/Milling Visitor Management Exhibitions/Interpretation Trails/Access/Waymarking Sailing/Watersports Fishing/Hunting/Shooting/Game Outdoor Pursiuts/Biking Shows/Festivals/Riding the Bounds Artisan Crafts Markets/Food Heritage Centres Virtual Glens/Branding/Markets/Tourism Publications International Historical Connections November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 31 Appendix 2 Consultees Roz Artis, Scottish Lime Centre Gemma Blackburn, Youth Guarantee Coordinator, Castle Douglas High School Andy Brown, Scottish Woodlot Association Nic Coombey, Dry Stone Wall Association and Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere Roger Curtis, Historic Scotland Custom Home Build (group of contractors who work together on new and conservation building projects) Gery Donnelly, Headteacher, Castle Douglas High School Teresa Dougall, NFU Scotland Raymund Duff, Dry Stone Waller Ed Forrest, Southern Uplands Partnership GS Construction Alan Green, Martin and Green Builders Ian Hall, Joiner Kenny Hilsley, Dumfries College Robin Hogg, Galloway Cycling Tours Stuart Holmes, Historic Scotland Euan Hutchison, Natural Power Anna Johnson – check job title Brian Jones, Connecting in Retirement and The Men’s Shed project Helen Keron, CatStrand Sarah Jane Laing, Scottish Land and Estates McNabb Laurie, Development Officer Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership David Little, D & S Little Stone Masons Donald MacLeod, University of Glasgow at the Crichton Campus Jim Maginess, Dumfries College Mizzy Marshall – check job title Crystal Maw, RSPB Ralph Maxwell Joinery Marie McNulty, Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere BJ McQuarrie Plastering Karen Morley, Countryside Development Officer, Dumfries and Galloway Council Kerry Monteith, Dumfries and Galloway Employability and Skills Jim Moss Joinery Andrew Nicolson, Archaeologist, Dumfries and Galloway Council R J Osborne, builder Alan Patterson, Threave Rural Estates and Land Agents Scott Petrie, Rural Skills Scotland John Raven, Historic Scotland Lyndy Renwick, Galloway Forest Park Chris Rollie, RSBP Cowan Scott, Nocturnal Wildlife Tours Adam Smith, Smith and Curtis Blacksmiths Solway Tours 32 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 Pam Taylor, Stranraer Conservation Area Regeneration Scheme G M Thompson & Co., Estates and Land Agents Richard Woodmass, Dry Stone Waller Chris Wood-Gee, D&G Council Energy and Sustainability Team Leader Oscar Yerburgh, Barwhillanty Estate November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 33 Appendix 3 Business Cases for Heritage Skills Activity in the Galloway Glens Business Case 1: Upskilling SMEs This is an outline Business Case for the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership. The Business Case has two purposes: firstly, to provide an example of how the objectives of the partnership can be achieved, and secondly, to demonstrate to supporters the benefits of making training a key part of economic planning. It is a template that is geographically and sector-specific as a response to the findings of consultations, but it is not tailored to one organisation for reasons given below. The document is in two sections: Part A sets out baseline knowledge about the sector gleaned from consultations; Part B comprises a simple rapid SWOT self-assessment audit for SMEs from which they can prioritise their business needs and opportunities, which they then adopt and apply recommendations in a bespoke way realistically to fit their circumstances and the objectives of the Galloway Glens Partnership. Part A: SMEs in Galloway Glens Galloway Glens is predominantly characterised by very small, diverse, dispersed, home-grown SMEs. They usually operate as home businesses, remote working, servicing tourism or outdoor related activities, with limited demand infrastructure. Their supply chains are probably quite short and consequently their resilience to wider economic forces (VAT, price sensitivity, competitive procurement, supply and demand) more insulated, but so is their ability to respond quickly to exploit opportunities as they arise. There is no shared or co-ordinated branding, marketing or business support network bespoke to their needs; this is largely a self-help economy. Consultations strongly advocate going with the grain of the self-help economy but coaxing some collective sharing of services or overheads to improve cost effectiveness. Branding is a key part of economic development of dispersed rural businesses; NECT’s work on the Settle-Carlisle Railway showed that sourcing (or provenance for foods) by identification with a desirable location and coherent local economy counts for customers, whether at the doorstep or, more significantly, achieving visibility to much bigger online markets. A ‘sum-of-the-parts’ marketing campaign adds value without detracting from the distinctiveness of each business. SMEs generically do not invest as much as other businesses in marketing, business development (including staff training) and succession planning. The self-help economy of Galloway Glens not only illustrates this rule but the area’s remoteness means the modest business infrastructure incurs disproportionate down-time costs awaiting spare parts or supplies, or travel time required for when face-to-face meetings are best. The sector may be immune to some of the risk excesses of urban economies but local businesses have probably not advanced much during the current economic downturn to strengthen their resilience or enhance their performance. Participation in seminars and access to business support mentors through the Dumfries and Galloway Chamber of Commerce requires greater motivation. Take-up of other opportunities such as work experience and trainees requires greater resolve from SMEs than larger organisations. Consultations revealed quite a robust self-sufficient business mind-set but one where training, forward planning and succession usually are not a priority. This template shows how SMEs would benefit if these were included. 34 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 Part B: Forward planning 1 Self-assessment audit SMEs indicate the answers most appropriate to them and then prioritise the three most important issues: Tick the answer(s) most relevant to you 1 2 3 In the last five years has your turnover dropped, stayed the same or increased? dropped same increase If it has dropped or stayed the same, was it because of lack of resources/expertise, your choice or external factors beyond your control? lack of resources /expertise choice external factors If it increased, what would help make it sustainable? develop managem’t increase capacity maintain current level In the last five years have you found running your business harder, the same or easier than previously? harder the same easier Do you have plans for the future of the business – are you having to concentrate just on the immediate future, or are you expanding current work or developing new lines, or do you have a succession plan to continue the business when you stop? no plans beyond dayto-day expand/ develop succession plan If you or another key person in the business was suddenly taken ill, what is your contingency: you have none, you have someone to keep things ticking over but not at normal levels, or you have people who can continue without loss of business? no contingency tick-over continue normally If you thought you could increase your turnover, say by 20%, how would you do that: better marketing, improve your product, or rely on your instincts? marketing improve product rely on instincts Are there aspects of running your business in which you feel vulnerable – you need advice or training but can’t get it, which is holding you back, or you know you need help and where to get it, or you’re fine? need advice/ training getting advice/ training no requirement How important is the location of your business to its success – critical, useful or irrelevant? critical useful irrelevant How much is the location of your business a problem lack of ready – you can’t readily access supplies or technical access to support, you have to plan ahead and sometimes get support caught out, or you can cope with most routine issues? plan ahead, sometimes get caught out no routine issues How easily can you recruit staff or contract help with appropriate skills when you need them – almost impossible, or it is possible but it takes a lot of time and cost searching, or there is a good pool of people locally? almost impossible takes time to recruit good pool locally of people with skills Are your premises an asset or an overhead – their location and character are an asset but could do more to help the business, or they are important but not an issue, or they are irrelevant and just an overhead an asset but would benefit from investment important but not an issue an overhead In the local economy, is your business – a regular regular occasional not at all November 2016 Priority? Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 35 supplier or client, or only occasionally, or not at all? How important is it to be up-to-date on your markets, critical and management and compliance issues? ongoing useful but not critical low priority Total in each category 1, 2 or 3: In column 1, SMEs are identifying where their main needs and vulnerabilities are, which might be internal and specific to their business (including a need to improve what they do, or seek advice or increase capacity, or forward and succession planning, or improving their marketing and supply chain), and if or how their business is helped or impeded by the location and relationship to the landscape and local economy (an asset or liability, access to essential infrastructure, recruitment). Column 1 is about SMEs that need support to survive or thrive. In column 2, SMEs may be more philosophical about life and its limits, accepting that there are both benefits and drawbacks to being in a rural landscape, they can cope with most things but are not too ambitious. Column 2 is more circumstantial about the state of the sector and its relationship to the location, rather than the specific needs of individual SMEs. In column 3, SMEs are revealing their strengths that make up the self-help economy. The Partnership’s reaction to column 3 could be to encourage successful, strong SMEs to share their expertise and spare capacity or resources with others locally. The more SMEs scoring in column 3, the stronger and more resilient the economy; only a few scoring in column 3 means the SME economy as a sector in Galloway Glens is vulnerable, or stagnant, and in need, and will indicate if there is economic inertia. The three priorities selected by each SME will indicate how they see their own their own strengths and weaknesses, and the importance of their relationship to their location, cumulatively providing a steer for the Galloway Glens Partnership how best to engage SMEs (and which ones), especially using training in working towards sustaining a collective rural economy having a dependency on and contribution to the landscape. 2 Upskilling SMEs It would be a remarkable local economy which had no gaps and weaknesses, no needs or desire to explore new opportunities. Assuming from consultations that all those are present to varying degrees and that SMEs’ responses to the questions refines the focus of priority, the aim is to identify how the Landscape Partnership can safeguard the current self-help economy of SMEs and target support for development enhanced by the relationship between the economy and the landscape. The aim for the landscape partnership is to work with the grain of the organisations from all three sectors to safeguard and improve the local economy upon which the area depends. This business case concentrates on SMEs which are the lifeblood of private enterprise in Galloway Glens. To engage that sector to help achieve its aims, the Partnership needs to have relevance and add value to individual SMEs; this cannot be a ‘herd’ solution. Needs, gaps, vulnerabilities and opportunities suggest self-help is not infallible and that some form of training is required. Given the economic profile and context of Galloway Glens, the main target areas are likely to be as follows, allied to the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) showing whether the intervention of the Partnership has contributed measurably to its objectives through raising the game of individual SMEs (see over): Expectations need to be realistic, therefore the pitch and pressure on SMEs to participate must be managed. To achieve sustainability post-Partnership, resource formats should be for self-help and peer-to-peer mentoring. 36 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 SME business need/ market opportunity KPIs of the Landscape Partnership economic objectives Update/improve marketing (work gathering) Quantitative: No. of SMEs completing training; Google Analytics Qualitative: client/user/public satisfaction; place-based branding Upskilling existing and recruitment of new staff (competence and capacity building) Quantitative: jobs safeguarded/created; net area economic gains Qualitative: accreditations attained; increased standards Communication (interpretation/learning and visitor experience) Quantitative: improved/new media (gateway, on-site, online) Qualitative: TripAdvisor/visitor ratings, site/staff feedback 3 Delivering economic gains through SMEs in Galloway Glens Achieving the objectives of the Partnership through development of indigenous SMEs is a collaborative exercise requiring matching of roles, provision and need. This cannot be a one-size-fits-all business plan solution, rather a methodology within which the Partnership adds value to existing providers and networks, and leaves a sustainable post-project legacy characteristic of and made workable by the self-help economy. In Section 2, three priorities of upskilling were identified arising from consultations. There are three categories of training and support provider that can address those priorities: the Partnership, the SMEs themselves (either individually or working together) and third parties who offer specialised services, such as the Council or the Dumfries & Galloway Chamber of Commerce. This section looks at the matrix of need and provision. 3.1 Role of the Partnership The Partnership’s role as a public body is to build capacity in the SME sector, not provide support for individual SMEs that could be construed as giving one a commercial advantage over another. More specifically, the Partnership’s remit is the relationship of SMEs to the landscape setting, strengthening the sustainability of the area through its economy, so the role must have clear terms of reference that prevent mission creep to intervention in wider economic activity. Moreover, the Partnership must apply due diligence, not purporting to offer services or expertise or advice for which it does not have the requisite expertise or mandate. Therefore, for SMEs, it is suggested that the Partnership’s role in helping to upskill SMEs must be available to the whole sector and not be selective, that it will concentrate on HLF Landscape Partnership criteria which are about the relationship of SMEs to the landscape and its associated economy, and it will be delivered through not-for-profit (cost recovery or free of charge) activities which add value through quantitative and qualitative outcomes. 3.2 Responsibility of SMEs including peer-to-peer networks SMEs are beneficiaries only in as much as they then contribute into the welfare of Galloway Glens directly and indirectly through their economic activity. SMEs need to commit to both the principle of betterment and the demands of forward planning through investment and training. Though SMEs inherently by definition operate independently, the presumption and indeed pre-condition of participation in and benefitting from Partnership opportunities will be collective. This could be thematic (tourism, crafts) or geographic (clustering of resources) or whatever networking model will raise their game as a sector and their contribution to the Galloway Glens. 3.3 Third party support Even for the more remote rural areas, business support is available, albeit by telephone or email if not always in person. The two leading providers are the Council and Dumfries & Galloway Chamber of Commerce, but there are other sources of support tailored more specifically to SMEs operating in specialist sectors. As pre-existing agencies, and ones that will outlive the Partnership, these need to be an integral part of investing in upskilling SMEs and providing post-Partnership support. These agencies can and do provide bespoke support for individual SMEs, especially the Chamber of Commerce which has a mentoring programme as well as a raft of services made November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 37 cost-effective through membership. For this reason, as well as the terms of reference of the Partnership, it is assumed that capacity building through assistance with individual organisation business plans will come from the Chamber and other advice from the Council and specialists. It is proposed that the Partnership includes in its budgets and frameworks, financial provision and support for the Chamber in delivering a package of services against predetermined outcomes for the duration of the programme, thereby ensuring that this aspect of the Partnership’s objectives is properly resourced. The matrix of need and provision looks like this: Marketing Capacity building Visitor experience & Interpretation Galloway Glens Partnership SMEs self-help Partnership activities & training Infrastructure – improve broadband & transport Partnership activities & training Peer-to-peer collaboration, branding & delivery forward planning, staff training & recruitment Participation in Partnership Sector promotion Business mentors Scottish Tourism & established partners Third Party support 4 Risk assessment Any initiative (or even failure to take the initiative) incurs risk. Successful engagement of SMEs in the economy of Galloway Glens is dependent upon the SMEs ‘buying into’ the aims of the Partnership and backing that up with reliable participation. There also are risks arising from the fixed-term of the Partnership and the extent to which third parties will deliver support in a timely and appropriate way. Examples of the risks, how these might be measured and mitigated are as follows (see over): Contingencies for the above projections are:    38 If the Partnership was not created, unable to perform to the expected level, or unable to engage with SMEs as a sector, what is the trajectory of business within Galloway Glens? Is it a sustainable sector or, if not, what are the consequences of decline? The Council and Chamber of Commerce would have to be the safety net. If the SMEs don’t buy into the Partnership vision and plan, does that prejudice their own future as well as that of the Partnership? For tourism and environmental businesses dependent upon public customers, the risk of non-participation may be low but real, but others operating ‘limited network’ savvy and selfsufficient businesses may well continue to plough their own furrow perfectly well based on their own acumen and will upskill or recruit as and when they deem appropriate. If the third parties were unable to offer support, where would that specialist expertise come from? Further afield: national agencies and sector networks, which probably is not second best but an essential source of any way forward. Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 Impact before action* Need Risks Mitigation Impact after action* Partnership n/a (no P’ship) The Partnership engenders support among SMEs and can deliver what they need within its terms of reference That SMEs remain unconvinced and only cherry-pick what they like Partnership activities programmes supported by financial incentives: free/subsidised support; preferential training opportunities 2 SMEs 4 To recognise need for business development and training; to move from self-help to sector help; to develop an area-based brand That SMEs don’t see the need for training or investment, or they see view sharing with suspicion, or location is irrelevant to business Use case studies to demonstrate benefits of forward planning, training, recruitment, succession planning & place-based branding 2 Third parties 3 To increase business visibility of SMEs in Galloway Glens as part of Dumfries & Galloway That third party return on investment does not warrant support Partnership establishes a support programme/ fund to subsidise mentoring and services 1 * Risk scale: 1=low, 5=high 5 Sensitivity analysis A matrix of three needs against three provider categories multiplies the sensitivity of the objectives to factors dictating success. Achieving even a measure of success therefore requires tuned management and concerted consensus among as many of the contributors as possible. Even the Partnership is a complex sensitive matrix, dependent upon co-operation and effective contributions from all individual partners. The strategy should be to convert the uncertainty of variables into reliable certainties – expressions of interest into defined delivery tasks. This should begin within the Partnership, then the third parties and then the target audience, the SMEs, but ideally with some ‘on board’ SMEs involved throughout the development stage to act a sounding board. November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 39 Business Case 2: Partnership Pilot Project – Threave Garden and Estate: Kelton Mains This is an outline Business Case for the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership. The Business Case has two purposes: firstly, to provide an example of how the objectives of the partnership can be achieved, and secondly, to demonstrate to supporters the benefits of making training a key part of economic planning. This Business Case is an essential pilot by one of the Galloway Glens Partnership members to lead by example. Whereas Business Case 1 is aimed at a sector, SMEs, to benefit all in a target audience, this is a demonstration project, because one stream of the Partnership’s aims is to deliver enhanced management of the historic landscape, built and natural. Therefore the Business Case is in the form of a template that can be adapted for other projects, encouraging more projects to be undertaken in the wake of the pilot, but also providing the Partnership with a consistency of approach and in a form enabling it to aggregate and measure outcomes against HLF criteria. A simple template is more adaptable and more likely to be adopted by other projects. By definition, a pilot project is intended as a catalyst for others to follow – a principle fundamental to the success of the Partnership. The document is in two sections: Part A sets out baseline knowledge about the project gleaned from consultations; Part B comprises an outline assessment audit of the project from which it is possible to prioritise its business needs and opportunities, which can then be adopted and applied in a way realistically to fit the circumstances of the property, National Trust for Scotland, and the objectives of the Galloway Glens Partnership. Part A : Threave Garden and Estate – Kelton Mains Farmhouse In section 3a of the Round 1 submission to HLF for the Landscape Partnership, ‘Kelton Mains Restoration’ is included as one of the proposed ‘Prosperity’ projects the Partnership will deliver. Kelton Mains is part of the National Trust for Scotland’s Threave Garden and estate. The reason for its inclusion is stated as ‘exploring a new use for a listed building on the Threave estate, providing a focal point for interpreting the landscape through information and education.’ This has been identified within an initiative for a new management regime of natural and cultural heritage experience/education resources. Kelton Mains is already popular for walking, birdwatching, and osprey viewing but this project is an opportunity to provide additional interpretation facilities at Kelton Mains farm. Kelton Mains farmhouse is listed grade B. It was built of rubble on boulder lower masonry in the mid-eighteenth century, extended in the nineteenth, and forms the centrepiece of a U-shaped composition with outbuildings. An historic building survey was conducted in 2008; it is generally structurally sound and not at immediate risk. Refurbishment of the farmhouse through the Partnership will achieve objectives at various levels: as a stimulus project by one of the partners to demonstrate the values and benefits of participating in the landscape partnership; as a development implementing the new management regime; as a new focal resource to enhance interpretation of the landscape justified by the evidence of current popular demand; it will bring a currently disused historic building back into productive use; the development and operational stages each present distinctive opportunities for engagement through traditional skills training, education and an improved visitor experience; holistically, it will be a model of the Partnership’s aims of sustainable landscape management. 40 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 Part B: Forward planning 1 Project justification, brief and resources audit Threave has built its USP on specialist training and public access to experience the achievements of students; education is embedded in the sector and public perception as a place created by and dependent upon learning. The historic estate is now in multiple ownership with Threave Castle in the guardianship of Historic Scotland (ticketing from NTS) and other parts in private ownership, including an open farm with rare breeds. Kelton Mains had been a manor house before losing its status. All activities are classed as ‘countryside’ properties with buildings very much part of their landscape. The NTS School of Heritage Gardening based at Threave provides up to 12 bursary training places and opportunities for volunteer interns on courses from one to four years, part- and full-time; collaboration with the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh (RBGE) leads to the four year Diploma course. Students can be based at other NTS or partner properties in their second year. Accommodation is available in the house at Threave for single students. All NTS properties have or are working towards having management plans that cover future development as well as cyclical and routine maintenance. Development can be in-house within allocated budgets or through external partnerships and funding opportunities. Some funders such as HLF have frameworks with NTS and other regular applicants to help plan demand on resources; this means individual properties can only bid for HLF grants within the national framework. NTS has been undergoing significant management and budgetary change over recent years and so cost control has a particular importance, both during project expenditure and as a long-term impact on capital and revenue budgets. All of this has not stopped investment in its tracks but it does mean there is stricter environment of due diligence for new initiatives to prove their worth. The advantage of participating in a landscape partnership for NTS or any partner is access to new external funds and the resources these unlock, especially if in-house resources are stretched. Participation does involve give and take, so gains do not come without cost to the property budget or staff resources. The ornamental gardens around the house and walled garden are the focus of student work and visitor enjoyment. The wider setting includes woodland, wetland and riverside walks; it is to this context which this project contributes. It aims to:      Extend educational activity and public access of Threave into the wider landscape Build upon Threave’s national USP of formal and non-formal landscape/horticultural training Bring a listed building back into use, consistent with the NTS ethos of exemplary care of heritage Increase the capacity of Threave in accordance with NTS and property forward plans Enhance the visitor experience The farmhouse and outbuildings are in fair condition but lack of use and future uncertainty makes them vulnerable to decline and a low priority even for routine maintenance, increasing the cost year-on-year of later investment. The property has the benefit of an historic building survey but there is a need for an options study and feasibility test of strategic fit, practical adaptability, budgetary implications and added benefits that will inform a project brief and enable a firm commitment to be made by NTS and incorporation into the Galloway Glens Partnership programme. The process of how capital projects begin and develop is in itself a learning opportunity drawing upon landscape, archaeology, building, historical research and business planning skills. This will form part of the project in which students from nearby colleges and schools can participate in the journey for Kelton Mains. November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 41 2 The Kelton Mains project within the Galloway Glens Partnership Plan The project will deliver the following outcomes during implementation (investment, engagement opportunity) and yield long-term improvements for the area: Kelton Mains business need/market opportunity KPIs of the Landscape Partnership economic objectives Strengthen Threave through enhanced landscape access and interpretation Quantitative: capital investment; building/site re-used Qualitative: student/public appreciation of holistic landscape Create new learning opportunities about landscape matched to relevant audiences Quantitative: students involved in development and operation Qualitative: learning attainment Enhance Threave’s USP contribution to Galloway Glens Quantitative: Threave KPIs improved; net area economic gains Qualitative: TripAdvisor/visitor ratings, staff/student feedback The building is a former house, so its adaptability for new uses is relatively limited: field study centre, sheltered/wet weather interpretation, education/environmental workshop, staff/volunteer/student accommodation, etc. The building was in use until relatively recently which means it is not derelict but disused. Re-use of the building should include consideration of reinstating its garden/landscape setting (1853 OS), or at least its interpretation, comprising the outbuildings and formal forecourt, the formal garden and field to the rear. 3 Delivering economic gains from Kelton Mains 3.1 Construction jobs and value The floor area of the former house is approximately 200m2 over two floors. Applying a provisional refurbishment value of £400/m2 would mean a contract of £80,000. Add in utilities, fees and all other project development costs and fit-out would suggest a capital project budget of about £150,000. Add the outbuildings and grounds and the total cost could be in the region of £300,000. In terms of economic gain if done purely through conventional procurement channels, this contract could generate 1,200 construction man-days which is roughly equivalent to providing 4 full time jobs for one year. In addition, there are the supply chain benefits of jobs protected and procurement from within the local economy, as well as the equivalent of 0.75 FTE for one year of NTS staff time safeguarded on project management (project manager plus admin/support). 3.2 Learning opportunities during development This project is not just about capital investment. The development project’s contribution to the Partnership offers:     School education involvement in the site’s history and ideas for re-use (over two academic years) Apprenticeship(s) on the building (1) and landscape (1) contracts NTS and local students involved in the recording, options and feasibility study and business planning Opportunities for local volunteers and NTS interns in pre-contract preparation and post contract fit-out 3.3 Long-term gains The project also is a long-term investment in building more capacity in the area for learning, community engagement, tourism and employment. 3.4 Role of the Partnership in the project The Partnership’s role as a public body is to build capacity in the area related to the economy and security of the landscape. In this project where the lead is a capable and experienced organisation, the Partnership’s remit is the 42 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 relationship of the project to the landscape setting and local people, strengthening the sustainability of the area through its economy for which this is a pilot demonstration project, so the role must have clear terms of reference that ensure appropriate complementarity with NTS. The Partnership can help with school and college participation, community and volunteer engagement, marketing and procurement, as well as using it as a pilot to encourage others to follow. NTS’s contribution to the Partnership is allowing its project to be more participative than otherwise would have been the case, and working with the Partnership to encourage others to emulate it and thereby build critical mass of commitment to the area’s future. 4 Risk assessment Any initiative (or even failure to take the initiative) incurs risk, especially decisions whether to leave buildings ‘fallow’ or embark upon building projects dependent upon committing capital funds into facilities that then require ongoing revenue support and staffing. The risk on this project is a matrix of dependency – reliance on external factors such as co-operation of schools and colleges is a higher risk because of its unpredictability than for example the managed commitment between NTS and the Partnership. There is an initial risk that NTS may not support the property staff or see the value of participating in Partnership; the project business case must be compelling through both capital and revenue stages, for which the options/feasibility outcome is essential. Examples of the risks, how these might be measured and mitigated are as follows: Impact before action* Need Risks Mitigation Impact after action* Capital Project 4 The building is an unused asset and vulnerable that should be exploited Financial (cost greater than available funds), staff (project detracts from main operation), organisational (not a priority for NTS) Financial (full options/ feasibility & budget), staff (grant backfills/ covers new resources), organisational (limit impact on NTS) 1 Learning & engagement n/a (no access) Kelton Mains is a compact ‘pocket project’ covering many aspects of the curriculum Schools can’t afford site visits; teachers don’t buy into project; subjects too marginal for local colleges Build into project transport allowance; actively support schools and colleges to minimise burden 2 Future operation n/a (not part of current operation) Increase long-term capacity of Threave for NTS and Galloway Glens NTS cannot sustain staffing or interest from students, schools or volunteers Make the project lowdemand on resourcing and flexible over time to fit levels of interest 3 Partnership support n/a (no P’ship) The Partnership uses networks to promote / support this pilot and persuade others of the benefits of investment That the project fails as a pilot to stimulate investment Partnership provides additional resources and covers abnormal costs of engagement & pilot dissemination 1 * Risk scale: 1=low, 5=high Contingencies for the above projections are:  If the Partnership can help NTS define the project through the options/feasibility/business case stage, the project may have a better chance in the future even if the Partnership cannot help because the issues, uncertainties, risks and benefits have all been quantified. November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 43  If the Partnership cannot secure support from the desired number of local schools and colleges, or NTS the interest of students and interns, the capital project would still safeguard a listed building and its landscape setting and provide traditional skills training relevant to Galloway Glens. 5 Sensitivity analysis The main sensitivities to this project are:   44 NTS organisational support for committing to a project with financial and resourcing obligations that has uncertain benefits dependent upon external factors such as the Partnership performing successfully The project’s aims are learning-based, which relies on interest by third party schools, colleges and individual volunteers, interns and students. Participation can be encouraged but not guaranteed. Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 Business Case 3: Traditional Skills Team This is an outline Business Case for the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership. The Business Case has two purposes: firstly, to provide an example of how the objectives of the partnership can be achieved, and secondly, to demonstrate to supporters the benefits of making training a key part of economic planning. This Business Case is in response to the dearth of local experienced contractors capable of undertaking a high standard of workmanship in the care, maintenance and repair of historic buildings, structures and environmental features. Whereas Business Case 1 is aimed at a sector, SMEs, to benefit all in a target audience, and Business Case 2 was project-based, this is about building capacity (both quantity and quality) in the workforce in the Galloway Glens as an essential part of the Partnership’s ability is to deliver enhanced management of the historic landscape, built and natural. The Partnership cannot use public funds to invest in existing or creating a new private business, thereby giving it a commercial advantage, so the rationale of this business case is a methodology that can be applied to existing companies willing to upskill and/or those seeking to set up a new business, or possibly even a not-for-profit venture linked to a college or other organisation. The motive is to enhance the local economy to reduce the need to import specialist skills from further afield. The document is in two sections: Part A sets out baseline knowledge about the skills need gleaned from consultations; Part B comprises an outline profile of a model skills team that embodies the benefits of upskilling. Part A: The local traditional skills deficit and need There have been numerous national stock-takes of the country’s reliance on traditional skills that have been handed down (literally) for generations. That legacy is now universally at risk: fewer young people are attracted by physical work, being drawn – persuaded – to pursue academic careers. That has gradually eroded both the quantity and quality of the workforce in understanding as well as practising traditional construction using traditional materials and techniques. Specialising in such traditions is now a niche market, and surveys reveal it is most found in SMEs employing less than five people, usually led by an owner experienced probably in one trade since their apprenticeship, now aged over 55 with retirement on the horizon – but critically, having no succession plan for handing on the business. Result: sustained decline rather than a sustained economy. For Dumfries and Galloway, and even more so for Galloway Glens, that national picture is magnified so that some skills are not available at all and must be imported at a premium from further afield. The few skilled craftsmen that do exist in the area are overloaded and customers must patiently wait their turn for extended periods until even relatively modest jobs can be done, which risks owners opting for quicker but sometimes inappropriate solutions. Rural areas suffer because the population and therefore skills pool is dispersed and diluted, and any work has a higher overhead price to pay for transport than urban equivalents. Circumstances favour, and even demand, general practitioners, not specialists. Consultations reveal the casualties in Galloway Glens has been both traditional building and environmental/land management skills. As a result, many routine maintenance needs go unheeded until or unless they become critical. In addition, owners find it difficult to reconcile retrofitting measures to upgrade historic properties to improve energy performance in a way that is appropriate to how the traditional building functions, its historic status or the character of the property with minimum compromise. Solutions must counter damage done to historic buildings by neglect, ill-informed or inappropriate ‘repairs’, improving owners’ access to information on appropriate materials, techniques and products, and where to find expert advice. November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 45 This initiative is to encourage home-grown upskilling to fill those gaps. It engenders the ethos of sustainability through use and re-use (by recycling) of local materials employed in a way that minimises waste and energy used in transportation, and promotes understanding of the benefits of sustainability through capturing embodied energy in re-using buildings, structures, materials and components. This ethos requires a consensus of mind-set among property owners, professionals, contractors and suppliers within which this Business Case concentrates on the contractors whose job it is to realise the principles in repair and improvement projects. In this context their role is not just paid hands but as advocate, mentor, demonstrator and exemplar. Part B: Forward planning 1 Core competences in an historic landscape The skills required are not so specialised as to make them unviable – rather they are the specialist end of a mainstream spectrum: on buildings and structures that share a common dependency on masonry, slating, joinery, carpentry, blacksmithing and metalworking, leadwork and glazing (including a better understanding of the conditions and circumstances in which these should be used), and on the land, dykes, drystone walling, paving, hedge-laying and coppicing. The one skill synonymous with Galloway Glens which runs through all these themes and needs is woodworking, from harvesting and seasoning to carpentry, joinery and high-end decorative carving. These are core skills essential to a sustainable historic landscape and its population and economy. Investing in sufficient specialism to fill the gap in the market, but to have sufficient demand in that market, is essential. Demand is there, but the more owners realise/understand that modern techniques can damage their property, the more demand there will be for traditional work. Upskilling existing trades will not replace their mainstream application but open up additional new markets, making business more versatile as well as increasing the availability of services for those in need. It is worth noting that maintenance of traditional buildings and land skills is not dependant on changes in the economy, as maintenance is always required. An ability to develop skills in tandem for both buildings and landscape is an advantage to the tradesmen as well as the market. Retro-fitting energy improvements is a specialist field but one that should be more widely understood and encouraged. The Partnership can organise seminars and trade fairs for owners, contractors and managing agents that raise awareness of the availability of products and methods, and training can be provided to contractors to ensure selection and installation are to approved standards, like those endorsed by Historic Environment Scotland and membership groups such as the Listed Property Owners Club. 2 Traditional skills within the Galloway Glens Partnership Plan The proposed solution must have several facets to ensure a legacy because delivery is dependent upon persuasion of existing contractors to take on new skills, and new blood taking an entrepreneurial leap of faith. In addition, the market of owners of historic and traditional (characterful) property needs to have its appetite whetted to take on the new contractors, and training needs to be provided, ideally by means of developing portfolios and log books of accomplished work (the most practical and realistic method), but if possible, up to a level of formal accreditation such as SVQ (a niche aspiration for organisations with trainer/trainer capacity):  46 Promoting an holistic approach to sustainability through informed skills, from sourcing of materials in a way that minimises adverse environmental impact (including re-use/recycling) to advocating selective rather than wholesale replacement of components in need of repair, localising supply chains, succession planning in businesses and sharing best practice, including through the following: Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016        Providing structured training to contractors in the Galloway Glens area in relevant skills; Upskilling existing contractors; Encouraging new business start-ups or existing businesses to take on new appropriately skilled employees; Offer incentives through bursary traineeships and encourage take up of apprenticeships; Briefing consultants and agents of the need, availability and benefits of procuring traditional skills; Educating property owners in the wisdom and expediency of employing appropriately skilled contractors; Enlist the support of contractors and professionals to help promote the value of careers in traditional skills in schools and colleges. The project will deliver the following outcomes during implementation (investment, engagement opportunity) and yield long-term improvements for the area: Traditional skills team business need/market opportunity KPIs of the Landscape Partnership economic objectives Strengthen self-reliance in Galloway Glens through access to an appropriate construction and landscape skills base Quantitative: increase the number of trained contractors Qualitative: increased availability and choice of traditional skills Embed learning in the sector from school career choices to established businesses Quantitative: increase the number of courses and trainees Qualitative: traditional skills accepted as an aspirational career Raise awareness and commitment among property owners to traditional skills Quantitative: number of owners attending a briefing seminar; number of hits/downloads of leaflets/information on websites Qualitative: raise the standard of properties and landscape 3 Delivering economic gains from traditional skills 3.1 Contractors For existing contractors, the aim would be for the Partnership to hold events to identify those willing to consider additional training and/or taking on a training bursary. For those interested in starting their own business, the Partnership will provide business planning as well as training open to all interested, so that the gains do not give undue commercial advantage. Under both regimes, upskilling must have the clear objective of relevance to Galloway Glens and the lasting legacy of the Partnership. Networks, whether within partner organisations or the sector, have the potential to host trainees, CPD events or skills fairs attracting participants from across Scotland and England to learn of the opportunities in a landscape economy, and to promote good practice from elsewhere that could fit well within Galloway Glens. 3.2 Training The Partnership is the co-ordinator and promoter of a programme raising awareness, stimulating the response of participation, and the organiser of training. This will require bringing in individual skilled craftsmen who have also experience of training contractors. It should include working with local colleges to offer more levels of access to relevant skills from school leaver to career changers and upskilling of the existing workforce. Contractors who have higher level skills not only keep spend in the local economy but can corner the local market if those higher level skills cascade down into all work as a business advantage. But contractors also need to consider succession planning and therefore the cost (for it is a cost) of investment in the next generation. November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 47 3.3 Property owners Property owners probably have not had access to specialist advice on what traditional skills are needed and available locally, how to find and procure those skills, and how to be an effective client. At the general scale of work available in Galloway Glens, most property owners probably would not scrutinise contractors for qualifications so selection will be based on evidence of track record. Credibility would be helped if contractors have worked for ‘expert client’ organisations such as partners in the Partnership. Cumulatively, it is important to change perceptions that will lead to changed attitudes. That begins with property owners, who need to gain sufficient confidence to request the use of materials and techniques appropriate to their traditional building and not rely on trades without the necessary skills or knowledge telling them what they need. That benefit extends beyond the long-term investment value enhancement to the property to the economic benefit derived from the uplift in the condition and longevity of the traditional building stock. The persuasive argument goes further, offering incentives of a reduction in the expense of heating property, and well-being derived from homes that have a healthy internal environment – warm, dry and properly ventilated. 3.4 Role of the Partnership in the project The Partnership’s role as a public body is to build capacity in the area related to the economy and security of the landscape. In this initiative, the Partnership must be the independent lead to co-ordinate contractors, trainers, schools and colleges and property owners. It will have a time-limited influence so it must see its role as investing in networks and systems that can continue after the Partnership ceases. It also must be the advocate of the principles of sustainability that underpin all the actions of the programme, including its privileged overview of encouraging local supply chains which retain expenditure within the local economy. The Partnership’s ability to represent and nurture joined-up economic activity in those supply chains, in particular in connecting supply in the timber industry to wood-based construction, trades and biomass is a core attribute. Enlisting the support of the Partnership’s expert partners as lead mentors would provide a ready pool of case studies of best practice. 4 Risk assessment This is a particularly high risk initiative because so much depends on external factors and participation from representatives of each of the necessary sectors. The main risks lie with the primary target sector relationship between contractors, existing or new, and property owners. Encouraging changing practices, especially in rural areas, is a particular challenge requiring subsidy and intervention to reduce perceived risks to the market; adding into the mix a commitment to apprenticeships or even shorter-term subsidised bursary training will make this a hard sell, but worthwhile. The perception among property owners also could be entrenched, seeing traditional skills as being high cost with limited benefit in return on investment or immediately enhanced property values. Changing attitudes should not be underestimated, requiring a strong marketing campaign to back up seminars for property owners offering practical guidance and case studies. Examples of the risks, how these might be measured and mitigated are as follows (see over): Contingencies for the above projections are:   48 If partners in the Partnership can commit to undertaking projects through this initiative, they will gain but lead in persuading others and establish some essential market momentum. If the Partnership cannot secure support from local schools and colleges, it will still be possible to import training expertise working directly with property owners. Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 Impact before action* Need Risks Mitigation Impact after action* Contractors 5 Existing contractors need to upskill; new business start-ups in the spirit of a self-help local economy Contractors don’t see the benefits; business start-ups appear risky with limited scope Strong evidence-based campaign backed by contract opportunities and incentives to address ‘herd instinct’ 3 Teaching 5 Import trainers with specialist expertise; option to aim for CSCS card for public sector contracts Contractors put ‘toe in the water’ in training but not keep their options open and don’t go for accreditation Subsidised training programmes and bursaries for trainees, delivered locally to minimise down time 3 Property owners 4 Raise awareness of traditional skills and benefits Rural economy sees specialist skills as too costly Seminars on ‘stitch in time’ savings and added property values 2 Partnership support n/a (no P’ship) Initiate & co-ordinate programme Lack of experience and resources Buy in expertise and underpin with local colleges 3 * Risk scale: 1=low, 5=high 5 Sensitivity analysis The main sensitivities to this project are:   Contractors who instinctively avoid ‘interference’ or pressure to take on trainees when they can take a disproportionate time to deliver the same work. Property owners who have become accustomed to accepting available solutions within a tight budget. November 2016 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens 49 Appendix 4 References Architecture and Design Scotland www.ads.org.uk Castle Douglas Development Forum www.castledouglas.info Dumfries and Galloway Total Access Point www.dgtap.org.uk Federation of Master Builders www.fmb.org.uk Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere (2015) Climate Ready Biosphere Action plan Historic Scotland (2014) Summary: Scotland’s Historic Environment Audit Historic Scotland (2011) Traditional Building Skills: A Strategy for Sustaining and Developing Traditional Building Skills in Scotland Inverness College University of the Highlands and Islands on behalf of Skills Development Scotland (2016) Scottish Forest and Timber Technologies sector: Skills & training scoping study Executive Summary Lantra www.lantra.co.uk National Heritage Training Group (2007) Traditional Building Craft Skills: Addressing the Challenge, Meeting the Need National Heritage Training Group www.the-nhtg.org.uk RSFS Scottish Forestry (2013) Forestry Commission Scotland and youth unemployment skills training Scotland’s Rural College www.sruc.ac.uk Scottish Qualifications Authority www.sva.org.uk Scottish Traditional Buildings Forum www.stbf.org.uk South West Scotland Community Woodlands Trust http://www.swcwt.org/ The Crichton Institute for Dumfries and Galloway Council Stewartry Local Area Profile The Crichton Institute for Dumfries and Galloway Economic Development Service and Community Planning Executive Group (2014) Dumfries and Galloway Regional Economic Strategy 2014-220: Baseline Study and Regional Economic Profile The Holywood Trust www.holywood-trust.org.uk The Prince’s Trust www.princes-trust.org.uk The Scottish Government (2014) Our Place in Time: The Historic Environment Strategy for Scotland 50 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016 2 Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens Novermber 2016  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Heritage Skills in the Galloway Glens, Final Report Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_43 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Description An account of the resource Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Commissioned Report undertaken by North of England Civic Trust GGLP heritage https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/501/GGLP-NFM-Feasibillity-Study.pdf a40dedcdc38e3dfe21402af3d1338572 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Natural Flood Management Scoping Study Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Reports Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Gallow oway Glens Pa Partnership Natural Flood Managem ment Scoping Study 0 December 2016 06 Client Name: Na McNabb Laurie Site Address: Dumfries ies & Galloway Council Militia H House, English Street DG1 2HR Authors: Andrew Picken, Senior Envi nvironmental Consultant, Andy Precious,, S Senior Project Manager Euan Reilly, Design De Project Manager Kelly Wyness, Principal Env nvironmental Consultant Docume ent Reference:1138879 Document Reference:1138879 Document history Author Andrew Picken,, Kelly K Wyness 19 April 2017 Checked Andy Precious 20 April 2017 Approved Euan Reilly 26 June 2017 Client Details Contact McNabb Laurie Client Name McNabb Laurie Address Dumfries & Gallowa loway Council Militia House, Eng nglish Street DG1 2HR Issue Date Revision Details A 20 April 2017 DRAFT - First Submission B C 26 June 2017 28 July 2017 Second Issue Third Issue NATURAL POWER CONSULTANTS LIM IMITED, THE NATURAL POWER CONSULTANTS LIMITED ED, NATURAL POWER SARL, NATURAL POWER CONSULTANTS (IRE RELAND) LIMITED, NATURAL POWER LLC, NATURAL POW OWER S.A, NATURAL POWER SERVICES LIMITED AND NATURAL POW OWER OPERATIONS LIMITED (collectively referred to as “NATURAL “N POWER”) accept no responsibility or liability for any use which h is i made of this document other than by the Client for the pur purpose for which it was originally commissioned and prepared. The Client shall sh treat all information in the document as confidential. No representation re is made regarding the completeness, methodology or current nt sstatus of any material referred to in this document. All facts and a figures are correct at time of print. All rights reserved. VENTOS® is a registered trademark of NATURAL POWER. Melogale™,, WindCentre™, W ControlCentre™, ForeSite™, vuWind™, WindManager™ and nd OceanPod™ are trademarks of NATURAL POWER. Copyright © 2017 NATURAL POWER. Local Office: The Green House, Forrest Estate Dalry, Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS SCOTLAND, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1644 430 008 Registered Office: The Naturall Power P Consultants Limited The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry, Castle Douglas, Do Kirkcudbrightshire, DG7 3XS Reg No: SC177881 VAT No: GB 243 6926 48 Document Reference:1138879 Contents Galloway Glens Partnership 1. Background ....................................................................................... 1 1.1. The River Dee Catchment........................................................ 1 1.2. Scope of this study ................................................................... 1 1.2.1. Assessment of catchment characteristics .................. 1 1.2.2. Catchment restoration strategy .................................. 2 1.2.3. Landowner and Stakeholder Engagement ................. 2 1.3. Legislation and Policy .............................................................. 2 1.3.1. The Flood Risk Management Act (Scotland) Act 2009 ........................................................................... 2 1.3.2. Scottish Planning Policy ............................................. 2 1.3.3. Controlled Activity Regulations .................................. 3 1.4. Flood Frequency ...................................................................... 3 2. Natural Flood Management ............................................................... 4 2.1. Overview of Natural Flood Management.................................. 4 2.2. Aims of Natural Flood Management......................................... 4 2.3. Other Benefits of Natural Flood Management.......................... 4 2.4. Typical Natural Flood Management Measures ........................ 5 2.4.1. River Reach and Floodplain Storage ......................... 5 2.4.2. Runoff Reduction ....................................................... 6 2.4.3. Sediment Management .............................................. 6 3. Natural Flood Management Approach .............................................. 7 3.1. Overview of Approach .............................................................. 7 3.2. Adopted Approach ................................................................... 8 3.2.1. Identification of Opportunity Areas for Natural Flood Management .................................................... 9 3.2.2. Catchment Characterisation....................................... 9 3.2.3. NFM Long Listing ....................................................... 9 3.2.4. NFM Short Listing ...................................................... 9 3.2.5. Initial Option Appraisal ............................................... 9 4. Identification of Opportunity Areas .................................................. 11 4.1. SEPA NFM Maps ................................................................... 11 4.2. Galloway Glens Partnership NFM Areas ............................... 11 4.3. NFM Opportunity Areas ......................................................... 11 4.3.1. Identified Receptors ................................................. 12 4.3.2. Importance of Receptors .......................................... 12 5. Catchment Characterisation ............................................................ 13 5.1. Environmental Context ........................................................... 13 5.1.1. Catchment Situation ................................................. 13 5.1.2. Development ............................................................ 13 5.1.3. Precipitation ............................................................. 13 5.1.4. Soil Types ................................................................ 13 5.1.5. Land Cover............................................................... 14 5.1.6. Designated Sites ...................................................... 14 06 December 2016 Document Reference:1138879 5.1.7. Water Framework Status ......................................... 16 5.1.8. Fisheries................................................................... 20 5.2. Site Reconnaissance Surveys ............................................... 21 5.3. Hydrology and flood risk......................................................... 25 5.3.1. Hydrometric data ...................................................... 25 5.3.2. Hydrological assessment ......................................... 25 5.3.3. Flood mapping ......................................................... 25 5.3.4. Baseline Model Development .................................. 26 Galloway Glens Partnership 6. Long List of NFM Opportunities ...................................................... 30 6.1. Introduction ............................................................................ 30 6.2. Selection of Long List Options ............................................... 30 6.2.1. Carsphairn................................................................ 30 6.2.2. Dalry Floodplain ....................................................... 31 6.2.3. New Galloway .......................................................... 32 6.2.4. Clatteringshaws Loch ............................................... 32 6.2.5. Castle Douglas and Kirkcudbright ............................ 34 6.3. Hydrological Assessment of Long List ................................... 35 6.3.1. Long List NFM Measure Modelling .......................... 35 6.3.2. Long List NFM Measure Results .............................. 36 6.4. Sediment Management .......................................................... 37 7. Short Listing of NFM Opportunities ................................................. 38 7.1. Introduction ............................................................................ 38 7.2. Hydrological Impact................................................................ 38 7.2.1. Receptors ................................................................. 38 7.2.2. Magnitude of Impact................................................. 38 7.2.3. Significance of Impact .............................................. 38 7.3. Short List of NFM Measures .................................................. 39 7.4. Site Reconnaissance Surveys ............................................... 39 7.4.1. Summary of survey .................................................. 40 7.4.2. Carsphairn................................................................ 40 7.4.3. New Galloway .......................................................... 47 8. Initial Option Appraisal .................................................................... 48 8.1. Assessment Criteria ............................................................... 48 8.1.1. Impact Assessment Significance ............................. 48 8.1.2. Feasibility / Engineering ........................................... 49 8.1.3. Land Management ................................................... 51 8.1.4. Hydrological ............................................................. 51 8.1.5. Environmental .......................................................... 51 8.1.6. Social ....................................................................... 52 8.2. Appraisal of Options ............................................................... 53 8.2.1. Carsphairn Runoff Reduction ................................... 53 8.2.2. Carsphairn River Reach and Floodplain Storage..... 57 8.2.3. Clatteringshaws Runoff Reduction ........................... 61 8.2.4. New Galloway Runoff Reduction ............................. 63 8.3. Proposed NFM Options.......................................................... 65 06 December 2016 Document Reference:1138879 Galloway Glens Partnership 9. Landowner and Stakeholder Engagement ...................................... 68 10. Next Steps and Progression ........................................................... 69 Appendix A – Catchment Characterisation 71 Appendix B – Long List Figures 72 Appendix C – NFM Measures Assessment Forms 73 Appendix D – Short List NFM Measures for Initial Option Appraisal 76 Appendix E – Hydrological Model Figures, Results and Tables 77 Appendix F – Site Reconnaissance Surveys 90 06 December 2016 Document Reference:1138879 1. Background 1.1. The River Dee Catchment Ca The River Dee is located in Dumfrie ries and Galloway, south-west Scotland, and has a catchment c covering an area of approximately 900 km2 (Referr to Figure GB11820_M_001 in Appendix A). The he River Dee catchment is comprised of predominantly of impro proved grassland, arable and broadleaved woodland dw within the lower lying areas. In the uplands, land cover ranges es from extensive conifer woodland to acid and heather he grasslands, with the highest of elevated areas being of m montane habitat with isolated areas of bog. The river rises in the upper reaches es of the hills between Ayrshire and Galloway and follows fo a meandering valley form in a southerly direction passin sing the settlements of Carsphairn, New Galloway an and Castle Douglas prior to reaching Kirkcudbright. The riverr network is often called the Dee-Ken system in reference r to the significant contribution of the Ken tributary. T The entire catchment forms part of the Gallowayy Hydro Scheme which was constructed in the 1930’s. As a cons nsequence, the hydro-scheme has considerably chan anged the functionality of the catchments and creation of a numbe ber of man-made lochs. The catchment is heavily engineere ered and consists of six power stations, eight dams, s, and a network of tunnels, aqueducts and pipelines. The large ge storage capacity of the two main reservoirs, Loch h Do Doon and Clatteringshaws, allows water to be stored in times o of heavy rainfall and released later in a controlled fashion. fa It is acknowledged that without these water manageme ent features provided by the hydroelectric scheme e th the impact of flooding could be far greater. However, in extreme me circumstances, or when rain falls persistently ove ver a period of many weeks, floodwater can spill over dams orr th through floodgates and there is limited action thatt the t hydroelectricity scheme can take to control flows and manage age flooding. Within the Dee catchment there are re a number of settlements at risk of flooding from smaller sm tributaries of the Dee. The Dee catchment contains two Potentially Po Vulnerable Areas which were identified by SEPA during the National Flood Risk Assessment; PVA 14/11 /11 Castle Douglas which includes Gelston, Castle Douglas, Do Crossmichael and Parton, and PVA 14/22 Kirkcudbrigh ight which includes Tongland and Kirkcudbright. Other settlements within the catchm hment with a known risk of flooding but which are n not contained within a PVA include New Galloway, St John’s To Town of Dalry, and Carsphairn. Carsphairn has been en particularly affected, most recently from ‘Storm Frank’ in Dece cember 2015 which caused significant flooding impac pacting up to 30 properties in the village. 1.2. Scope of this stud udy The overall aim of this report is to u undertake a scoping study in the River Dee catchm hment to assess the potential for using natural flood management nt techniques to reduce flood risk to downstream rece eceptors and identify projects that could be undertaken through the th delivery stage of the Galloway Glens Scheme e. The project also aims to improve the status of the water bodie dies under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and where applicable, provide additional benefits to biodiversity, recreation rec and amenity. The project has been divided into various va tasks as detailed in the following sub-section ions. These initial stages are concerned with developing a detail tailed understanding of the geomorphic and hydrolo ological processes operating within the River Dee system, the arti rtificial impacts to physical processes and the natural ral flood regime. 1.2.1. Assessment of catc atchment characteristics A detailed assessment of the catc tchment characteristics using a catchment wide desk-based de GIS analysis of obtained datasets which are also supplemented su by catchment reconnaissance surveys ys. The assessment focuses on the hydrological and geomorpho hological conditions but also accounts for environm mental, social, infrastructure and land use issues. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 1 Document Reference:1138879 1.2.2. Catchment restorati ration strategy A detailed appraisal of the possibl ible restoration options based in the findings of th the above task that can be implemented to reduce flood risk and nd contribute to achieving the secondary aims and objectives. ob 1.2.3. Landowner and Sta takeholder Engagement Early dialogue with landowners and nd relevant stakeholders in the catchment restoratio ation strategy to ensure their feedback can be incorporated into th the strategy. Local knowledge, collective experience nce and overall support to the project will help to optimise the meas asures proposed. Overall the objectives of the study dy are as follows: • Compile existing spatial datasets ets to provide a catchment-scale dataset; • Analyse the nature and distributi ution of these spatial datasets; • Use hydrological modelling to id identify potential locations for NFM within the Riverr Dee De catchment and quantify the potential reduction in flooding ing severity from undertaking NFM measures at these se locations; • Provide a series of prioritised restoration re options across the River Dee that willll h help restore river bodies to good ecological status and also o deliver a quantifiable reduction in downstream flood od risk through NFM; 1.3. Legislation and Policy Po 1.3.1. The Flood Risk Man anagement Act (Scotland) Act 2009 In Scotland, the framework for delivering del a more sustainable approach to flood ris risk management has been implemented through the Flood Ris Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 (the Act) trans ansposed from the European Directive 2007/60/EC (the Flood Directive). Dir This Act provides a framework to manage ge flood risk in a sustainable and co-ordinated method to scaless o on a local and national basis. Following a perceptible increase in n we wet summers and wetter winters the duties of the Act Ac and the responsibilities of SEPA, Scottish Water and local auth uthorities to work together and integrate to manage flood fl risk where the benefits of intervention will have the greatest st benefit. Natural Flood Management (NFM)) is one element of a sustainable approach to flood m management and presents a set of measures which attempt to wo work with natural catchment processes to restore or improve i the capacity of the landscape to store water, attenuate te peak flows and direct flood waters to areas wher ere it will cause the minimal amount of damage. 1.3.2. Scottish Planning Policy P The aim of Scottish Planning Policy cy (SPP), first published in 2010, is to ensure that floo lood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning proce cess and is given the due consideration it requires res for it to be appropriately addressed. The guiding principles of SPP aim to promote: • A precautionary approach to floo flood risk from all sources, including coastal, watercou course (fluvial), surface water (pluvial), groundwater and anyy other o sources. Consideration of the predicted effect ects of climate change should also be taken into account; • Flood avoidance by safeguardin ing flood storage and conveying capacity, and situatin ating development away from functional floodplains and mediu ium to high risk areas; • Flood reduction by assessing flood flo risk and, where appropriate, undertake natural al a and structural management measures, including flood prote tection, restoring natural features and characteristics tics, enhancing flood storage capacity, avoiding the constructio ction of new culverts and opening existing culverts wh where possible; and • Avoid increased surface waterr fflooding through requirements for Sustainable Drainage Drain Systems (SuDS) and minimising the area of impermea eable surfaces. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 2 Document Reference:1138879 Within the SPP, a risk framework ap approach identifies flood risk at three main categories: es: 1. Little or no risk area – annua nual probability of flooding less than 0.1% (i.e. one ne in 1000 year flood). No constraints to development due e to t flood risk. 2. Low to medium risk area – annual an probability between 0.1% and 0.5% (i.e. betwe etween one in 1000 and 200 year floods). Usually suitable for most development. 3. Medium to high risk area – annual an probability greater than 0.5% (i.e. one in 200 00 year flood). Generally not suitable for essential civil infrast structure such as hospitals, fire stations, emergency cy depots etc. The policy for development on functional floodp odplain applies. Land raising may be acceptable. If built development is permitted, appropriate ap measures to manage the flood risk will be b required and the loss of flood storage capacity mitigated to p produce a neutral or better outcome. Residential, institutional, commercia cial and industrial development within built-up areass may be acceptable if flood prevention measure to the appropria riate standard already exist, are under construction no or are planned as part of a long-term development strategy. 1.3.3. Controlled Activityy Regulations R Under the Water Environment (Contr ntrolled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011, anyy activity a which may influence the water environment must be auth thorised, through obtaining an environmental licence. e. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) have juris risdiction for granting works that may affect the water ter environment, this includes the undertaking of engineering activi tivities in or near water bodies and discharges to water ter and groundwater. 1.4. Flood Frequency Within this study rainfall and flow are events are defined in terms of their recurrence in interval (return period) which is an estimate of the likelihood of an event to occur. The return period is not a measur sure of how often or regularly an event will occur but is a measur ure of the risk of that event happening in any given en year (Annual Exceedance Probability – AEP). For example th the 100-year flood can be expressed as the 1% AEP AE flood, which has a 1% chance of being exceeded in any year. yea Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 3 Document Reference:1138879 2. Natural Flood Man anagement SEPA have produced guidance in the th form of their “Natural Flood Management Handb dbook” that aims to provide a practical guide to the delivery of nat natural flood management to benefit flooding. The fol following sections outline the need, methods and outcomes thatt natural na flood management can offer. 2.1. Overview of Natur tural Flood Management With projected climate change expec pected to increase the frequency and severity of flood ods in the future there will be an increasing pressure on flood risk sk management to maintain current levels of flood protection pro as well as reducing future flood risk. Traditional approa roaches to flood management, such as direct defe efences in the form of hard engineered flood walls, are not cons nsidered sustainable. Therefore, a more holistic appro proach of managing land and water throughout the river catchmen ent is required. Natural flood management is based d on this catchment wide approach and is typically aim aimed at measures that work with natural features and processe ses to slow and reduce flood water runoff. In additi dition to benefits to flooding, natural flood management approach ches often contribute to improvements in biodiversity ity, water quality, and carbon storage. While it is recognised thatt n natural flood management is unlikely to provide a total to solution to flood risk on its own, it can be used alongside m more traditional approaches to help reduce the heigh ight of flood defences and/or extend their life. 2.2. Aims of Natural Fl Flood Management Land management activities, such as the following, have had a significant impact on the hydrological process: • Deforestation reduces the exten tent and intensity of precipitation that is intercepted d resulting r in higher levels of precipitation reaching the ground nd surface. • Intensive agriculture practices (h (heavy machinery, drainage, etc) have reduced the he ability of soils to hold and infiltrate water. • Similarly, commercial forestry operations op (drainage, up and down slope planting,, et etc) have reduced the ability of soils to hold and infiltrate water wate and increased runoff rates. • Changes to natural river channe nels have increased the risk of flooding. Straightenin ning river channels can result in increased volumes of flows ws which can exacerbate flooding downstream.. Similarly, the creation of embankments can prevent wate ter flooding into the natural floodplain, pushing this flo flow further downstream with increased flood risk in the downs wnstream reaches. • Overgrazing and livestock poac aching of river banks, exposed soils (i.e. through crop cro planting and ploughing) and poor river engineering prac ractices can result in excessive erosion and deposit sition of sediment which can reduce the flow conveyance cap apacity of rivers. The combined long-term effect of the th above activities has been to increase the volume me and rate of surface runoff and reduce the ability of rivers and th their floodplains to manage flood waters. Natural flood management measure ures aim to redress these impacts by storing more re water on the land and/or slowing the flow of water overland or instream. The desired effect of this on flooding iss to to: • Reduce the downstream flood pe peak thus reducing the scale and impact of the flood; d; and/or • Delay the arrival of the flood pea eak downstream, thus increasing the time available to prepare. 2.3. Other Benefits of Natural N Flood Management Like so many solutions that seek to utilise natural processes, it is considered when well we designed and delivered effectively, NFM measures can provi ovide additional benefits for both people and nature,, including: in Biodiversity – many NFM measu sures (e.g. wetland, re-introduction of meanders,, wo woodland creation) directly restore or strengthen an ecosystem m which in turn supports a wider range of habitats and nd species. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 4 Document Reference:1138879 Water quality and sediment manag nagement – restoration of the natural sediment proces cesses can result in improved water quality through reduced sedim iment loads. Channel morphology – natural floo lood management measures within the river channell o or on its banks can improve instream ecology. Climate change adaptation – man any NFM measures can deliver more resilient eco cosystems by increasing the capacity of the ecosystem to respond ond to disturbance and damage. Carbon storage – floodplains, pea eatlands and woodlands all store carbon, removing ing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Society and economy – environme mental improvements can result in improved quality ity of life. Measures in public spaces or that create public spaces ces can also support many recreational activities suc such as walking, orienteering and mountain biking while at the same sam time improving health and mental well-being.. These T benefits can increase the availability of jobs. Agricultural production – natural al flood management measures that improve soil st structure reduce the loss of valuable topsoil and can increase pro productivity. 2.4. Typical Natural Flo Flood Management Measures Within this study, NFM measures ha have generally been grouped within three typical NFM actions, namely: River Reach and Floodplain Stora orage – measures that seek to enhance the mainst stream and flood plain flood behaviour. Runoff Reduction – measures that tha aim to minimise the runoff from the upstream ccatchments and reduce the volume and rate of flow entering the he watercourses. Sediment Management – measure res that aim to increase the channel conveyance and nd/or reduce the problematic sediment loads that can reduce chan annel conveyance. The typical NFM measures are outlin tlined below. It should be noted that some NFM meas easures can be considered to sit within more than one of the NFM M actions noted above. 2.4.1. River Reach and Floodplain Flo Storage Floodplain and Riparian Woodla land This measure involves planting woodland wo either in the floodplain or along the rip riparian corridor. The main hydrological benefits for woodland cr creation are considered as: • Reduction in the volume of prec ecipitation that reaches the ground (interception) byy catching c precipitation in the leaf canopy. • Reduction in runoff by improving ing the infiltration rates of soils and soaking up waterr (e (evapotranspiration). • Riparian woodland can stabilise se river banks and help with sediment control. Instream Structures This measures involves the installat llation of porous dams within the river channel (typic pically using woody debris or boulders) that slow flow down. This is results in an increase in water levels during mediu dium to high flow events that increases the water storage within the th channel and on the floodplain. Washlands and Offline Storage e Ponds P This involves the creation of areass a adjacent to watercourses where flood water is direc rected to at times of high flow and temporarily stored until the floo flood peak has passed. This results in enhanced st storage (attenuation) with a resultant reduction in the peak flow. w. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 5 Document Reference:1138879 2.4.2. Runoff Reduction Land and Soil Management Prac actices These measures are land based tec echniques and soil practices that aim to reduce the am amount of surface runoff that reaches the river networks. Measure res can include: • Planting cover crops so the soil oil surface is not left bare and exposed (reduce sedim diment runoff and reduce rate of runoff), • Soil aeration and relieving comp mpaction (increases infiltration by improving the abilit ility of soil and subsurface to absorb water), • Machinery practices that minim imise compaction (prevent over compaction of soil oil to maintain its infiltration capacity), • Runoff control features such ass b buffer strips and hedges. Agricultural and Upland Drainag age Modifications These measures involve modifying ge existing drainage systems to benefit flooding by alter ltering the flow pathways over and through the soil, as well as the e hydrological h connectivity to the drainage network. Me Measures can include: • Upland drain blocking to encoura urage excess water to be redistributed back out onto o the t moorland surface. • Lowland drain modifications to sslow water and encourage settlement of sediment. • In-field underdrainage interventio ntions (breaking of field underdrains to create wetlands nds). 2.4.3. Sediment Managem ement Overland Sediment Traps This involves the creation of containm inment areas where sediment laden runoff is detained ed to allow sediment to settle out of the runoff. River Bank Restoration This involves the restoration or prote otection of river banks suffering from unnaturally high h levels l of erosion. There are many techniques ranging from the in installation of fencing to prevent livestock poaching g the th banks, allowing the river bank to re-vegetate and stabilise nat aturally to direct re-vegetation by planting. River Morphology and Floodplai lain Restoration This involves the restoration of the e cchannel morphology to increase the sinuosity of straightened str channels and/or directly reconnect the floodplain thro rough removal, breaching or lowering of embankment ents. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 6 Document Reference:1138879 3. Natural Flood Man anagement Approach 3.1. Overview of Appro proach The overall process in developing a NFM approach are described in the SEPA NFM M Handbook (see flow chart extract below) which has been used ed as the basis for this study. The steps within thatt which wh are addressed by this present study are highlighted. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 7 Document Reference:1138879 3.2. Adopted Approach ach The following flow chart illustrates th the approach adopted by Natural Power for this stud tudy. Further details on each of the steps are provided in the relev levant sections below. Identific ification of Opportunity Areas for NFM Catchment Characterisation Environmen ental Context GIS Base Information Hydrology and Flood Risk Baseline Hydrologic Model Catchment Surveys NFM Long Listing River Reach Flood od Storage Sediment management Runoff reduction Hydrological Modelling Each Option NFM Short Listing Initial Option Appraisal Environmental Benefits So Social Benefits Feasibility Land Management / L Ownership Option(s) Ranking Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 8 Document Reference:1138879 3.2.1. Identification of Opp pportunity Areas for Natural Flood Manage gement The Galloway Glens Partnership are investigating the potential implementation of NFM M measures within the River Dee catchment. Through their initia itial work with the community and local authority sev everal areas within the River Dee catchment have been identified ed as offering potential for implementing NFM measur ures. Natural Power have built on this init initial work by Galloway Glens Partnership to review w and a assess these areas for suitability of NFM measures. 3.2.2. Catchment Charact cterisation Using existing spatial data sets within with GIS and information from SEPA’s baseline studi udies an initial assessment of the study area characteristics has been be undertaken. This provided a solid baseline of inf information on the catchment and how it responds to flooding even ents that has informed the development of NFM optio tions. The catchment characterisation stag age included the following key assessments: • Environmental context (topograp raphy, precipitation, soil type, land cover and land use, se, WFD status); • Hydrology and flood risk (respon onse of the catchment to flood flows, analysis of me edian annual maximum flow and time to peak); • Catchment surveys (ground truth uth desktop data and inspection of NFM opportunity a areas) • Baseline hydrological model (cre creation of a catchment scale hydrological model). From the above assessments, catch tchment maps were produced that aided the identifica ication of NFM measures and opportunities to deliver additional be benefits. 3.2.3. NFM Long Listing Having developed a solid baseline ine of the catchment details, a long list of possibl ible NFM options has been identified. NFM measures have been en considered based around the following three actio tions: • River and Floodplain Restoration ion (enhancing the mainstream and flood plain flood d behaviour). b • Runoff Reduction (minimising ru runoff from the upstream catchments). • Sediment Management (seeking ing opportunities for increase conveyance). 3.2.4. NFM Short Listing Each of the long list options was a assessed in the catchment scale hydrological mode odel to simulate the potential effect on flood risk. This has enabled led quantification of the percentage change in flood flo flows a NFM measure would have compared to the baseline. Where long list NFM measures have ve a sufficient impact on flood risk, they have then be een progressed to the short list. 3.2.5. Initial Option Apprai raisal The initial option appraisal stage e iidentified and reviewed the short list option(s) to implement the prioritised measure(s) and their relative advant ntage(s) and disadvantage(s). The main objective of this stage is to provide sufficient information to enable agreem ement to be reached on the preferred option(s), in consultation on with the landowner/land manager and other sta stakeholders, and to outline additional assessments/surveys requ quired to progress the preferred option(s). The option appraisal stage has asse sessed the following criteria for the short listed option( on(s): • Feasibility / Engineering, • Land Management, • Hydrological, Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 9 Document Reference:1138879 • Environmental (flora and fauna, a, water, soil, etc), • Social. • Landscape Impact From this initial option appraisal the he short list option(s) have been ranked to provide a list of prioritised measures that Galloway Glens Partnership can an take forward for detailed consultation with landown wners. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 10 Document Reference:1138879 4. Identification of Op Opportunity Areas The River Dee was heavily engin gineered, including large reservoirs, to create the e Galloway Hydro Scheme. Although this may limit the opportu rtunity areas for NFM measures, there are a numbe ber of settlements at risk of flooding from smaller tributaries off the th River Dee. The River Dee catchment containss ttwo Potentially Vulnerable Areas (PVAs) which were identified by SEPA during the National Flood Risk Assessment ent. PVA 14/11 Castle Douglas, includes Gelston, Castle Cas Douglas, Crossmichael and Parton, and PVA 14/22 Kirkcudb dbright, includes Tongland and Kirkcudbright. Otherr ssettlements within the River Dee catchment with a known flood risk ri include New Galloway, St John’s Town of Dalry ry a and Carsphairn. 4.1. SEPA NFM Maps ps SEPA prepared natural flood manag agement maps as a requirement of Section 20 of the th Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. These mapss were we the result of work undertaken by SEPA to consider co whether techniques that work with natural features and an characteristics can contribute to managing floo flood risk. The natural flood management maps are a source off iinformation on areas where natural flood manageme ment would be most effective within Scotland. It should be noted th that they are strategic high level maps and should be used as guidance only. There are three maps of relevance ce to this study that consider the NFM actions (as as outlined in Section 3.2.3), namely: • Floodplain Storage, • Runoff Reduction, • Sediment Management. 4.2. Galloway Glens Partnership P NFM Areas Galloway Glens Partnership initiall wo work on the project with the local communities within thin the River Dee catchment and Dumfries & Galloway Council,, identified potential areas that may be suitable for fo locating NFM measures. These included the following areas: • The catchment to the west of Ne New Galloway on the Damcroft Burn, • The River Dee floodplain from S St John’s Town of Dalry through to New Galloway, • The catchment to the north an and north west of Carsphairn on the Water of Deugh, Deu Carsphairn Lane and Garryhorn Burn, • The catchment upstream of Clat Clatteringshaws Loch, • The catchments of the Black Wa ater of Dee, including Loch Grannoch. 4.3. NFM Opportunity ty Areas Natural Power undertook a review wo of the above areas to identify and verify the areas considered co most suitable for implementation of NFM measures. Figure F GB11820_M_011 in Appendix B outlines the e areas that have formed the focus of this study. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 11 Document Reference:1138879 4.3.1. Identified Receptors ors Within the opportunity areas, the follo ollowing key receptors were identified: • Carsphairn, • Dalry Floodplain, • New Galloway, • Clatteringshaws Loch, • Castle Douglas, • Kirkcudbright. 4.3.2. Importance of Rece ceptors The importance of these receptorss wa was assigned based on their historic flood risk, num umber of properties at risk of flooding and their regional significanc ance. Carsphairn in a regional context iss a very small settlement but has experienced signific ificant flooding and has been identified as being at risk to flooding ng in frequent events. Hence, it is considered of high h importance. im Dalry Floodplain and New Galloway way in a regional context are small settlements and d are understood to be at a lesser flood risk. Therefore, these ar are considered to be of medium importance. Clatteringshaws Loch is not a settle ttlement as such but has significant importance in ter terms of the Galloway Hydro Schemes and is therefore considere red to be of medium importance. Castle Douglas and Kirkcudbright, t, in i a regional context, are large settlements with a known history of flooding. They are identified within Potentiall V Vulnerable Areas (PVA’s) 14/11 and 14/22. Therefo efore, they are considered to be of very high importance. The table below summarises the imp mportance of the identified receptors. Table 4.1: Im Importance of Receptors Receptor Importance Carsphairn High Dalry Floodplain Medium New Galloway Medium Clatteringshaws Loch Lo Medium Castle Douglas Very High Kirkcudbright Very High Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 12 Document Reference:1138879 5. Catchment Chara racterisation The information presented in the following fol sections presents the results of the catchm ment characterisation, which included the completion of desktop p study s and high level site reconnaissance survey. 5.1. Environmental Co ontext 5.1.1. Catchment Situation tion The River Dee is a main river in sout outh-west Scotland, which rises in the hills around the he Rhinns of Kells to the west and Cairnsmore of Carsphairn to the north and generally flows from north to south and drains approximately 900 km2. At its most southern extentt the th River Dee joins the tidally influenced reach at Tongland Bridge, north of Kirkcudbright, Dumfries and Gallowa way. As shown in Figure GB11820_M_002 (Appendix dix A), the catchment rises to a maximum altitude of 814 m above ove ordnance datum (AOD) at the Corserine in the e west of the catchment with other highs of over 700 mAOD at Cairnsmore Ca of Carsphairn to the north. Figure GB11820_M_003 (Appendix ix A) provides an indication in the variation of ground nd surface slopes across the catchment that suggests a mean slope sl of 7.75 m/m across the entire catchment. This Th compares with the FEH Mean Drainage Path Slope (DPSBA AR) of 117.6 m/km which is more heavily influence ced by the slope of the main River Dee. 5.1.2. Development 5.1.3. Precipitation The FEH Standard Average Annua ual Rainfall (SAAR) for the catchment is 1709 mm. m. To put this into context, rainfall in Scotland varies from unde der 800 mm a year on mainland eastern Scotland in areas such as Fife to over 3000 mm on the mainland Western n Hi Highlands. 5.1.4. Soil Types The Soil Classification and Hydro rology of Soil Types (HOST) are shown in Figur gures GB11820_M_008 and GB11820_M_006 (Appendix A), res espectively. Within the River Dee catchment is can an be seen that the low-lying areas of the catchment are predom ominantly mineral soils with negligible to moderate te storage capacity that are underlain by rocks with no to negligi ligible storage capacity (HOST class 17, 19 & 24). The Th soils data also indicates that the upland areas of the catch tchment are dominated by peats, podzols and grou oundwater gleys with HOST classes of 15 and 29, respectively ely. The HOST classes indicate that the upland ar areas of the catchment are permanently wet, peaty topped upla pland soils and/or peat. The storage capacity of the underlying substrate also varies from relatively free draining to having no storage capacity. Figure GB11820_M_018 (Appendix dix A) also provides details on the SNH carbon so soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat mapping. Followin wing consultation, SNH have provided five classes of carbon and peatland soils, based on combining soil type and ha habitat cover. As presented in Figure GB11820_M_ M_018: • Class 0 makes up the majorityy of o the low lying areas of the catchment which corres esponds with the presence of mineral soils • Classes 1, 2, 3 & 4 make up the he open areas within the upland areas of the catchmen ent. – Classes 1 & 2 are considere ered a nationally important resource and described as a soils that are carbon-rich deep peat with vegetation th that is entirely or at least dominated by priority pea eatland habitats. Deep peat corresponds to peat soil mapping ma units characterised by the presence of surf urface peat layers containing more than 60% organic matt atter and at least 50 cm thick. – Classes 3 & 4 are the most st dominant and are described as soils where the veg egetation is not dominated or unlikely to be associated with priority peatland habitat. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 13 Document Reference:1138879 • Class 5 make up a significant coverage co of the upland areas. This is described ass soils s where peatland habitat is recorded but all soils are des escribed as carbon rich and deep peat. These soils oils are consistent with areas dominated by commercial forestr stry. 5.1.5. Land Cover The Land Capability Map 2000 data ata (LCM), as shown in Figure GB11820_M_004, has identified seventeen land cover types across the catchment. t. The predominance of improved grassland (4), arab rable and horticulture (3) and broadleaved woodland (1) within th the more low lying areas of the catchment concurs rs with the predominance of brown forest mineral soils. In the upland u areas, which are underlain by wet peat/pea eaty soils, the dominant land cover ranges from coniferous wood odland (2), acid grassland (8) and heather grassland nd (11). The areas with the highest elevation are identified as be being montane habitat and there are isolated areas of bog (12). Table 5.1 presents the area (km2) of the varying types of land cover within the catchmen ent. Table 5.1: Area of varying landco cover types LCM2007 code Area (km2) % of o Total Catchment Area Broadleaved Woodland 1 31.52 3.51 Coniferous Woodland 2 298.62 33.25 Arable and Horticulture 3 24.28 2.70 Improved Grassland 4 135.73 15.11 Rough Grassland 5 58.76 6.54 Acid Grassland 8 163.16 18.17 Fen, Marsh and Swamp 9 0.25 0.03 Heather 10 9.98 1.11 Heather Grassland 11 108.78 12.11 Bog 12 31.51 3.51 Montane Habitat 13 11.57 1.29 Inland Rock 14 0.98 0.11 Saltwater 15 0.021 0.002 Freshwater 16 19.7 2.19 Littoral Sediment 20 0.002 0.0002 Urban 22 0.91 0.10 Suburban 23 2.43 0.27 Classification Source: LCM2007 & Natural Power 5.1.6. Designated Sites The designated sites within the ccatchment are shown in Figures GB11820_M_00 05 and (Appendix A) are as summarised below bel in the following paragraphs. GB11820_M_017 Special Areas of Conservation The Merrick Kells Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is the only such designated ted to be located within the catchment. The qualifying featuress of o the SAC are: • Acid peat-stained lakes and pon onds; • Acidic scree; • Blanket bog; Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 14 Document Reference:1138879 • Clear-water lochs with aquatic vegetation ve and poor to moderate nutrient levels; • Depressions on peat substrates; es; • Dry heaths; • Montaine acid grasslands; • Otter; • Plants in crevices on acid rocks; s; and • Wet heathland with cross-leaved ed heath. Special Protection Area The Loch Ken and River Dee Mar arshes Special Protection Area (SPA) is located within wi the catchment and is designated as an international impor ortant roost for both Greenland white-fronted goose e and a Greylag goose. Sites of Special Scientific Interes rest There are fourteen Sites of Speciall S Scientific Interest (SSSI) within the River Dee catchm chment: 4. Airds of Kells Wood; 5. Cairnbaber; 6. Cairnsmore of Fleet; 7. Clatteringshaws Dam Quarry; 8. Cleugh; 9. Ellergower Moss; 10. Hannaston Wood; 11. Kenmure Holms; 12. Laughenghie and Airie Hills; 13. Merrick Kells; 14. River Dee (Parton to Crossmicha chael); 15. Threave and Carlingwalk Loch; 16. Water of Ken Woods; and 17. Woodhall Loch. Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Listed Buildings There are 194 designated culturall heritage h assets in the catchment. Their names can an be provided on request if required. Gardens and Designated Landsc scapes Threave Gardens is the only garde rden and designated landscape in the catchment. It is noted there are also a number of non- inventory gardens and an landscapes. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 15 Document Reference:1138879 5.1.7. Water Frameworkk Status S The existing and historic water qualit ality status of the River Dee catchment and its tributar taries is summarised in Table 5.2 and shown in Figure GB11820_ 0_M_009 (Appendix A). Within Table 5.2 is a timesca scale, under the objectives of the River Basin Management Plan, n, in which achieving a status of ‘good’ can be me et. The 2015 status of the waterbodies has been based on the e data provided on the Scotland’s Environment intera ractive web mapper. The pressures to achieve an overall rall good status are consistent the man-made influenc ences in the catchment. This includes hydromorphological modific ifications, acid rain, barriers to fish migration, abstract actions and diversion of water required for hydroelectricity genera ration, as well as the introduction of alien invasive ive species (North-American crayfish) Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 16 Document Reference:1138879 Table 5.2: SEPA RBMP Waterbody Classification Historic and Current Overall Classifications Predicted Future Overall Classifications ID Waterbody Name 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2021 2027 Long Term 10545 River Dee (Loch Ken Outlet to Tongland) Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate 10546 Black Water of Dee (Pullaugh Burn to Loch Ken) Bad Bad Moderate Moderate Poor Moderate Moderate Good 10547 Black Water of Dee (Loch Dee to Clatteringshaws Reser servoir) Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Moderate Good 10548 Dargall Lane Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Good 10549 Cooran Lane/March Burn Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Good Good 10550 Garrary Burn/Minnigall Lane Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Good Good 10551 Pullaugh Burn Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Good 10552 Cuttiemore Burn Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Good 10553 Airie Burn Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Good Good Good 10554 Crae Lane (d/s Woodhall Loch) Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 10555 Camelon Lane (u/s Woodhall Loch) Moderate Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 10556 Shirmers Burn Moderate Moderate Poor Poor Poor Good Good Good 10558 Water of Ken (d/s Kendoon) Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Good Good 10559 Water of Ken (u/s High Bridge of Ken) Moderate Moderate Moderate Poor Poor Poor Good Good 10560 Poliferie Burn Moderate Moderate Moderate Poor Poor Poor Good Good 10561 Stroanfreggan Burn Moderate Moderate Moderate Poor Poor Poor Good Good 10562 Water of Deugh (Carsphairn Lane to Water of Ken) Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Good Good 10563 Water of Deugh (u/s Carsphairn Lane) Bad Bad Poor Poor Poor Poor Good Good 10564 Pochriegavin Burn Moderate Moderate Poor Poor Poor Poor Good Good 10565 Bow Burn Bad Bad Moderate Poor Poor Poor Good Good 10566 Carsphairn Lane Moderate Moderate Moderate Poor Poor Poor Good Good 10567 Garryhorn Burn Moderate Moderate Moderate Poor Poor Poor Good Good 10568 Polmaddy Burn Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Good Good 10569 Polharrow Burn/Mid Burn/Hawse Burn Bad Bad Poor Poor Poor Poor Good Good 10570 Coom Burn / Garroch Burn Good Good Good Good Moderate Good Good Good 10571 Knocknairling Burn Good Good Good Good Moderate Good Good Good 10572 Garple Burn/Margree Burn Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate 10573 Black Water Moderate Moderate Moderate Poor Poor Poor Good Good Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 17 Document Reference:1138879 Historic and Current Overall Classifications Predicted Future Overall Classifications ID Waterbody Name 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2021 2027 Long Term 10574 Black Bridge Burn Moderate Moderate Moderate Good Good Good Good Good 10575 Gelston Burn/Carlingwark Lane Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Good Good 10576 Auchlane Burn Moderate Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 10722 Black Water of Dee (Clatteringshaws Reservoir to Pullau llaugh Burn) Bad Bad Bad Bad Poor Bad Moderate Good 10761 Water of Ken Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Moderate Moderate Source: SEPA and Scotland’s Environment Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 18 Document Reference:1138879 Figure GB11820_M_007 (Appendi dix A) also presents the morphological pressure ures for each of the WFD waterbodies, with a summary of thes ese presented in Table 5.3. Table 5.3: Morphological Pressur ures Fords Intakes and Outfalls Pipe Cable Crossings Hard bank reinforcement Green bank reinforcement Set back embankment Partial realignment River Dee (Loch Ken Outlet to Tongland) Boatslips 10545 Bridges Waterbody Name Impoundments ID Embankments (No reinforcement) Morphological Pressures 3 7 1 0 5 1 5 (3,214 m) 5 (493 ( m) 2 (50 m) 6 (982 m) 0 10546 Black Water of Dee (Pullaugh Burn to Loch Ken) 0 3 1 1 0 0 3 (286 m) 1 (69 ( m) 0 4 (676 m) 0 10547 Black Water of Dee (Loch Dee to Clatteringshaws Reservoir) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10548 Dargall Lane 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10549 Cooran Lane/March Burn 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10550 Garrary Burn/Minnigall Lane 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10551 Pullaugh Burn 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10552 Cuttiemore Burn 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10553 Airie Burn 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (665 m) 10554 Crae Lane (d/s Woodhall Loch) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10555 Camelon Lane (u/s Woodhall Loch) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 (3,690 m) 10556 Shirmers Burn 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10558 Water of Ken (d/s Kendoon) 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (205 m) 2 (861 m) 0 10559 Water of Ken (u/s High Bridge of Ken) 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10560 Poliferie Burn 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10561 Stroanfreggan Burn 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (604 m) 10562 Water of Deugh (Carsphairn Lane to Water of Ken) 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 (226 ( m) 1 (19 m) 2 (227 m) 0 10563 Water of Deugh (u/s Carsphairn Lane) 1 8 0 2 0 0 0 1 (87 ( m) 0 0 0 10564 Pochriegavin Burn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10565 Bow Burn 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10566 Carsphairn Lane 2 4 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 10567 Garryhorn Burn 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10568 Polmaddy Burn 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10569 Polharrow Burn/Mid Burn/Hawse Burn 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10570 Coom Burn / Garroch Burn 0 5 0 1 0 0 2 (852 0 1 (26 1 (739 1 (701 Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 19 Document Reference:1138879 Fords Intakes and Outfalls Pipe Cable Crossings Embankments (No reinforcement) 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 10572 Garple Burn/Margree Burn 1 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10573 Black Water 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 (40 ( m) 0 0 1 (258 m) 10574 Black Bridge Burn 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (689 m) 3 (5552 m) 10575 Gelston Burn/Carlingwark Lane 0 11 0 0 1 0 3 (915 m) 0 0 1 (122 m) 4 (5967 m) 10576 Auchlane Burn 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 (2814 m) 10722 Black Water of Dee (Clatteringshaws Reservoir to Pullaugh Burn) 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10761 Water of Ken 1 3 0 1 3 0 13 (7267 m) 0 6 (388 m) 8 (3421 m) 0 m) 5.1.8. Partial realignment Boatslips Knocknairling Burn Set back embankment Bridges 10571 Green bank reinforcement Waterbody Name Hard bank reinforcement ID Impoundments Morphological Pressures m) m) m) 0 0 1 (418 m) Fisheries The River Dee is native to a number er of species such as Atlantic Salmon, Brown Troutt a and Pike and is classified as Salmonid Water under the Freshwa water for Fish Directive (78/658/EEC). The Gallowa lloway Fisheries Trust (GFT) prepared a series of Fisheries Man anagement Plans (FMP) across all catchments within with Dumfries and Galloway aimed at providing plans for the man anagement of fish and fishing within each of the catc atchments between 2009 and 2013. The plans consider effective ve remediation and improvement measures which will wil bolster and/or sustain the native fish stocks as well as ensurin ring that associated habitats are conserved and enhan hanced. Within the Technical FMP for Kirkcudbrightshire Dee the th most significant factors which are restricting fi fish production and fishery performance in order of importance ea are as follows: • Barriers of fish movement; • Alien non-native species; • Reduced flow; • Acidification; • Exploitation; • Degraded instream habitat; • Reduced survival at sea; • Predation; • Degraded riparian habitat; • Pollution; and • Parasites and disease. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 20 Document Reference:1138879 Across the Kircudbrightshire Dee the there exists a number of artificial barriers which can act ac as barriers to movement. Engineering structures such as da dams, weirs and culverts may restrict the migration tion of fish species which is essential for particular species at spawning sp time. Natural waterfalls tend to be present nt in the headwaters of some tributaries but these can be outside e of o the areas which are used by migratory fish for spawning. spa 5.2. Site Reconnaissan sance Surveys During the completion of the catchm ment characterisation a site survey was undertaken n across a the catchment. This survey was used to provide an overv erview of the environmental setting of the catchment, verify the GIS datasets and inform the hydrological modelling. Photographs Ph 5.1 – 5.7 providing an overview of the key ke observations. Photograph 5.1: Ground conditions ns and varying landcover with the Carsphairn Lane ec catchment Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 21 Document Reference:1138879 Photograph 5.2: Flood barrier under der construction at Carsphairn Photograph 5.3: Example of forestry try drainage Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 22 Document Reference:1138879 Photograph 5.4: Clatteringshaws Reservoir Re Dam (note the varying land cover in the background ba of the picture) Photograph 5.5: Broad, flat floodpla plain at Carsphairn Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 23 Document Reference:1138879 Photograph 5.6: Hydromorphologica ical conditions of unnamed tributary of the Mill Burn rn (New Galloway) Photograph 5.7: Hydromorphologic ical conditions of upland watercourse (Pullhaugh Burn) Bu Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 24 Document Reference:1138879 5.3. Hydrology and flood floo risk 5.3.1. Hydrometric data According to the National River Flow low Archives there is one flow gauging station opera erated by SEPA on the River Dee at Glenlochar as shown in Table ble 5.4. Table 5.4: Summary of the flow g gauging stations within the catchment Gauge Record rd Length Catchment Area (km2) Me edian Annual Flood1 (m3/s) Dee at Glenlochar (80002) 1977 – present 810 276.21 Source: National River Flow Archives, www.nr .nrfa.ceh.ac.uk Notes: 1 – Median Annual Flood calculated by catchment descriptors methodology (Kjeldsen et al. 2008) The station at Glenlochar is a veloc locity-area monitoring location situated approximately ely 500 m downstream of the Glenlochar Barrage. This is the lowe lowest station on the heavily regulated river, dominat nated by hydroelectric works. The gauging section consists of a gr gravel bed which contains some large boulders. 5.3.2. Hydrological assess ssment The median annual maximum flow w (Qmed) was estimated for each of the key catchm hments within the River Dee using the revised Qmed by catchme ment descriptors method. The results are shown belo elow in Table 5.5 and Figure GB11820_M_019 (Appendix A). Table 5.5: Summary of findings s of o Qmed for key locations within the River Dee catc tchment Catchment Area (km2) Me Median Annual Flood (m3/s) Carsphairn 128.63 138.37 Water of Ken 88.23 85.15 Polharrow Burn 41.50 40.72 Loch Ken Inlet 472.27 271.52 Shirmers Burn 41.14 32.96 Clatteringshaws Loch Outlet 123.26 61.89 Black Water of Dee 229.23 107.93 Loch Ken Outlet 813.69 278.01 Carlingwark Lane Canal 25.90 11.69 River Dee at Tongland 899.66 293.51 5.3.3. Flood mapping The SEPA derived flood maps within hin the catchment have been reviewed as part of this is study. s SEPA’s Indicative Flood Map (http:// p://www.sepa.org.uk/environment/water/flooding/flood od-maps/) provides predictive guidance on the possible extent off functional f floodplains for catchments greater than 3 km2. Fluvial flooding (1 in 200 year flood extent) associated with wi the River Dee is identified on the SEPA Indicat ative Flood Map. Significant stretches of the River Dee have bee been identified as being at High to Low risk of floodin ding, with categories defined below. 1. Low risk – annual probability of flooding less than 0.1% (i.e. one in 1000 year flood od); 2. Medium risk – annual probabilit ility of flooding at 0.5% (i.e. one in 200 year flood); an and Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 25 Document Reference:1138879 3. High risk – annual probability of flooding of 10% (i.e. one in 10 year flood). The flood map shows that the are reas of greatest risk of fluvial flooding are located ed within the bounds of the floodplain. For example, broad floo loodplains, such as the one at Carsphairn show the e greatest g extent of flooding. Upland watercourses that are locate ated within incised valleys, show the smallest extent nt of o flooding as the flows will be constrained by the hydromorpholg olgcal conditions of the river. However, the flood map has primar arily been developed for strategic national overview w purposes in Scotland, and does not provide sufficient detaill to accurately estimate the flood risk associated wi with individual properties or specific point locations.Catchmentt Scale S Hydrological Model A numerical model of the Dee catch chment was created using the HEC-HMS software package pa to enable simulation of the potential effects of the vario rious NFM measures on flood flows. The model co covers the entire River Dee catchment from its headwaters of the Water of Deugh and Water of Ken in the north to tthe outlet of Tongland Loch just upstream of Kirkcudbright in the he south. The Hydrologic Modelling System ((HEC-HMS) software package has been developed ped by the US Army Corp of Engineers and is designed to simul ulate the complete hydrologic processes of dendriti ritic watershed systems. The software allows a GIS-based approa oach to model development and visualising outputs. 5.3.4. Baseline Model Dev evelopment Development of GIS Data for Hyd ydrological Model HEC-GeoHMS is a Geographical Information Inf System (GIS) extension that provides a set s of procedures, tools and utilities for the preparation of data for import into HEC-HMS and generation of data forr HMS HM output. HEC-GeoHMS uses ArcGIS and the Spatial Analyst extension to develop a hydrologic ic modelling inputs for, HECHMS. Analyzing digital terrain data ata, HEC-GeoHMS allowed drainage paths and watershed wa boundaries to be transformed into a hydrologic data a structure s that represents the drainage network. The he software also allowed the visualisation of spatial information, n, including watershed characteristics as well as per erforming spatial analysis to delineate sub-basins and streams. Physical Representation of the e Catchment C Using the GIS data a dendritic mode odel of the whole catchment was created. This was m made up of sub-catchments feeding into river reaches throughou hout the entire catchment to the outfall at Tongland d Reservoir just upstream of Kirkcudbright. Figure 5.8 below and d Figure GB11820_M_020 illustrate the overall model del extents. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 26 Document Reference:1138879 Figure 5.8: HEC-HMS Model Overview Sub-Catchments Each sub-catchment has been mod odelled based on physical data (e.g. area, drainage e llength, slope, etc) obtained using GIS analysis of topographic da data. The following methods were adopte pted for each sub-catchment in order to model the e h hydrological process which result in runoff, with the data inputss e either added to the model or ascertained from the G GIS data: • Canopy Method: This method is used to simulate the effects of plants and vegetatio ation on the sub-catchment. It enables evaporation of rainfal fall/water from the canopy, interception of rainfall fall due to the canopy and transpiration of water from the soil so by the plants and vegetation. Based on the LCM land cover ver classification initial parameters for each sub-ca catchment were selected to replicate the land cover. As note oted in Section 5.1.5, the predominant landcover within withi the River Dee catchment is coniferous woodland. • Surface Method: The surface me method is used to represent the ground surface of a sub-catchment s and enables features such as surface depres essions where rainfall can accumulate prior to runoff ff to t the river network. Initial parameters for surface method m for each sub-catchment were selected base ased on the terrain data and LCM land cover classification. • Loss Method: The Loss Method d is used to simulate infiltration into the soil structure. re. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 27 Document Reference:1138879 The Hydrology of Soil Typess (HOST) dataset defines 29 soil classes by the their hydrological properties, particularly their ability to transm smit water both vertically and horizontally. The HOST ST data enables an estimate of the standard percentage runo noff (SPR) to be made. Based on the HOST data for ea each sub-catchment, the corresponding SPR was es estimated and used to define the Loss Method parameters (i.e (i.e. initial loss rate and constant loss rate) in the mode del for each sub-catchment. • Transform Method: The transfor form method is used to simulate surface runoff for a catchment c and is based on the unit hydrograph approach. • Baseflow Method: This method d ssimulates the baseflow in each sub-catchment. The he initial baseflow parameters for the model were selected usin sing the results of the FEH analysis of the catchment. nt. River and Reservoir Network Each sub-catchment feeds into the e river network covering the entire catchment. The eM Muskingum Cunge method was used to route the flows along the river reaches. The length, slope and profile of indiv dividual river reaches were determined from the GIS data. d Rainfall Data The design precipitation events we were selected through utilisation of the Flood Esti stimation Handbook’s Depth Duration Frequency (DDF) 1999 mo odel with their outputs calculated using ReFH2 softwa ftware. The input parameters for the DDF model are the charact acteristics extracted from each of the identified area reas to provide point rainfall depths for each catchment. In order to determine the final desig sign rainfall depths, for each event duration, the poin int rainfall depth is multiplied by an areal reduction factor and a se seasonal correction factor. By default, the 75% Winte inter Rainfall Profile was used as a representative hyetograph forr th the catchment. The 1:2, 1:10, 1:50 and 1:200 rainfa nfall data for durations from 2 hours to 22 hours were e iincluded within the model. Calibration A high level calibration of the HEC--HMS model was undertaken using flow estimatess g generated by ReFH2 which utilises the FEH catchment descripto ptors. Using the design rainfall hyetograp raphs outlined above, the modelled flows are gene nerated using the revitalised rainfall-runoff model in ReFH2 under er a range of return periods for the various event dura uration scenarios. Based on the FEH methods flow w h hydrographs were generated for ‘calibration points’ ts’ which included significant catchments feeding into the River De Dee as well as distinct points along the River Dee. The following key model parameter ters were adjusted within the HEC-HMS model to o calibrate the model output hydrographs to the hydrographs gen enerated using FEH at these calibration points: Table 5.6: Key Model Calibration n Parameters Hydrological Met ethod Parameter Canopy Initial Storage Surface Initial Storage Loss Initial Constant Transform Time of Concentration Storage Coefficient Routing Galloway Glens Partnership Manning’s n 06 December 2016 28 Document Reference:1138879 Given the size of the model and the he number of sub-catchments within it, the initial calib alibration focused on a single sub-catchment in the headwater of the Dee catchment. The above parameters were ea adjusted until a satisfactory comparison to the FEH hydrograph h was wa achieved. The parameters adjustments made de to the above single sub-catchment were then app pplied to all sub-catchments within the model. Where required red, further refinements were made to the param ameters for sub-catchments contributing to a calibration point.. On O average the further refinements to the paramete eters were found to be within 11% of the single sub-catchment adj adjustments. Calibration Results Hydrographs illustrating the compari arison between the HEC-HMS model output hydrogra raph and the FEH generated hydrographs for the following key loc locations are shown in Appendix E: • Carsphairn, • Water of Ken, • Polharrow Burn catchment, • Intake to Loch Ken, • Shirmers Burn catchment to Loc och Ken, • Downstream of Clatteringshaws ws Loch, • Black Water of Dee at inlet to Loch Lo Ken, • Downstream of outlet of Loch Ken, Ke • Carlingwark Lane Canal at Castl stle Douglas, • Upstream of Kirkcudbright at Ton ongland (downstream model boundary). It is noted that the purpose of this is study (and the hydrological model) is to assesss the t potential application of various NFM measures at various lo locations in the catchment. Therefore, the absolute volume vo of the output flows is not as significant as the relative effe ffects with and without NFM measures. For that reas ason, the calibration was not pursued extensively so as to exact actly replicate the FEH generated hydrographs. Howe owever, it is considered the results of the calibration provide a reasonable re level of confidence that the model is repre presentative of the River Dee catchment and allow for a robust ass ssessment of the implementation of NFM measures. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 29 Document Reference:1138879 6. Long List of NFM M Opportunities 6.1. Introduction The identification of potential NFM measures m within the catchment was undertaken follo ollowing the completion of the catchment characterisation. This q qualitative assessment was undertaken using best est judgement to identify the potential options that could be consid sidered for NFM upstream of the identified receptors rs ((as detailed in Section 4). Long listing has focussed on down wnstream receptors and NFM priority areas. The following fo sections detail the approach adopted. 6.2. Selection of Long g List Options To consider the potential NFM me measures, the results of the catchment characteris erisation were considered in conjunction with the SEPA naturall flo flood management maps. The results of the long listing of NFM measures for the priority receptors are p presented in the following paragraphs. The location of the long ng listing catchments is provided in Figure GB11820_ _M_011 (Appendix B). Due to hydrological linkages, there e is the potential that NFM measures being considere red for a priority receptor are relevant to another receptor located d downstream. Where this has been considered, this his is stated within the results of the long listing assessment for ind individual priority receptors. 6.2.1. Carsphairn Carsphairn is situated within the cat atchment of the Water of Deugh with the catchment nt characterisation identifying the following: • Predominant land cover consists sts of coniferous woodland and acid grassland. • The soils are defined as being permanently pe wet that overly relatively free draining pe permeable rock; • There are a number of the morph rphological pressures on the rivers; • All upstream watercourses are classed c as having a Poor overall status under the req requirements of the WFD; • The SEPA identification of NFM M potential has considered the following measures suitable: su – High to medium potential for runoff reduction for all catchments; – High to medium potential for floodplain storage in only the Carsphairn Lane catc atchment (40); and – The opportunities for sedime ment management are dependent upon the morpholo ological conditions of the river stretches. As a result of the above, the NFM options op presented in Table 6.1 were considered as part pa of the long listing for the catchments upstream of Carsphairn. rn. Table 6.1: Carsphairn Priorioty Receptor R - Long Listing NFM Options Upstream Contributing Catchments NFM Action (with Main Measure Type) Catchment ID Catchment Name River Reach and Flood Storage 38 Water of Deugh Instream Structures (large woody debris) Riparian Woodlands Upland Drainage Modifications River Bank Restoration 39 Bow Burn Instream Structures (large woody debris) Riparian Woodlands Upland Drainage River Bank Restoration Galloway Glens Partnership Runoff Reduction Sediment Management 06 December 2016 30 Document Reference:1138879 Upstream Contributing Catchments NFM Action (with Main Measure Type) Modifications 40 41 42 6.2.2. Carsphairn Lane Instream Structures (large woody debris) Floodplain Woodland Riparian Woodland Land and Soil Management Practices ces Overland Sediment Traps Water of Deugh (Benloch Burn) Riparian Woodland Instream Structures (large woody debris) Riparian Woodland Agricultural and upland and drainage modifications ns Land and Soil Management Practices ces Overland Sediment Traps River Bank Restoration Garryhorn Burn Washlands and offline storage ponds Floodplain Woodland Instream Structures (large woody debris) Agricultural and upland and drainage modifications ns Land and Soil Management Practices ces Overland Sediment Traps River Bank Restoration Dalry Floodplain The Dalry floodplain is part of the Wa Water of Ken with the catchment characterisation iden entifying the following: • The predominant land cover is improved im grassland; • The Water of Ken is at high riskk of fluvial flooding with the extent of linked to the exte xtent of the floodplain; • The soils are defined as Brown wn E Earths and Mineral Alluvial Soils that are relatively ly free f draining over rock with moderate to large storage capac acity; • The floodplain has been modified fied with the presence of bank reinforcement as wellll as a crossing structures; • Due to existing as well as future re catchment pressures, the classification of the water terbodies ranges from Bad to Moderate; • The SEPA identification of NFM potential has considered the following measure res suitable within the Dalry Flood plain catchment (52): – Medium potential for runoff ff reduction; r – High to medium potential for floodplain storage; and – The opportunities for sedime ment management are dependent upon the morpholo ological conditions of the river stretches. As a result of the above, the NFM options op presented in Table 6.2 were considered as part pa of the long listing for the Dalry Floodplain catchment. The co consideration for NFM at Dalry floodplain also takes kes into account the potential measures associated with Carsphair airn. Table 6.2: Dalry Floodplain Priori ority Receptor – Long Listing NFM Options Upstream Contributing Catchments NFM Action (with Main Measure Type) Catchment ID Catchment Name River Reach and Flood Storage 52 Water of Ken Washland and offline storage ponds Floodplain Woodland Galloway Glens Partnership Runoff Reduction Sediment Management - - 06 December 2016 31 Document Reference:1138879 6.2.3. New Galloway New Galloway is located within the he catchment of the Mill Burn and the catchment cha haracterisation has identified the following: • The predominant land cover is improved im grassland; • The Mill Burn has not been map apped as being at risk of fluvial flooding with pockets ets of areas subject to pluvial flooding identified; • The soils are defined as Brown own Earths that are relatively free draining over rock ro with moderate storage capacity; • No morphological pressures hav ave been noted within the catchment of the Mill Burn;; rn;; • The Mill Burn has not been class ssified under the requirements of the WFD; • The SEPA identification of NFM M potential has considered the following measuress ssuitable within the Mill Burn (31): – Medium potential for runoff ff reduction; r – No potential for floodplain sto storage; and – The opportunities for sedime ment management are dependent upon the morpholo ological conditions of the river stretches. As a result of the above, the NFM options op presented in Table 6.3 were considered as part pa of the long listing for the New Galloway catchment. The co consideration for NFM at New Galloway also takes es into account the potential measures associated with catchmen ents for the Carsphairn and the Dalry Floodplain. Table 6.3: New Galloway Priority ity Receptor – Long Listing NFM Options Upstream Contributing Catchments NFM Action (with Main Measure Type) Catchment ID River Reach and Flood Storage 31 Catchment Name Mill Burn 6.2.4. Riparian Woodland Runoff Reduction Riparian Woodland Land and Soil Management Practices ces Upland Drainage Modifications Sediment Management Overland Sediment Traps River Bank Restoration Clatteringshaws Loc Loch Clatteringshaws Loch is an anthropo pogenic feature, created as part of the Galloway Hyd Hydro Electric Scheme that is located within the catchment of th the Black Water of Dee. The catchment characte cterisation has identified the following: • The predominant land cover is commercial c forestry, with open areas of acid grasslan land and bog; • The loch and upstream watercou courses have been identified as being at High risk of fluvial flooding. The extent of fluvial flooding is typical of an upland environment as it is restricted to the chan annels with minimal mapped breaches; • The soils underlying the catchme ment are predominantly defined as being permanentl ntly wet peaty podzols, peaty rankers, peaty gleys with some e areas a of basin peat; • Morphological pressures consist ist of the impoundment at Clatteringshaws Loch as we well as a number of bridges; • Due to the existing modified con onditions of the catchment all watercourses upstream am of the loch have a current WFD classification of Poor; Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 32 Document Reference:1138879 • The SEPA identification of NFM potential has identified the following measures res to be suitable within the catchments associated with Clatteringshaws Clat Reservoir: – High to medium potential for runoff reduction in all catchments; – High potential for floodplai lain storage within catchments Reservoir) and 44 (the River er Dee (with Loch Dee)); and – The opportunities for sedime ment management are dependent upon the morpholo ological conditions of the river stretches. 8 (unnamed tribu ibutaries of Clatteringshaws As a result of the above, the NFM options op presented in Table 6.4 were considered as part pa of the long listing for the catchments associated with Clatterin ringshaws Loch. Table 6.4: Clatteringshaws Loch h Priority Receptor – Long Listing NFM Options Upstream Contributing Catchments NFM Action (with Main Measure Type) Catchment ID Catchment Name River Reach and Flood Storage 29 Unnamed tributaries of Clatteringshaws Reservoir Instream structures (large woody debris) Land and Soil Management Practices ces Upland Drainage Modifications River Bank Restoration River Dee Instream structures (large woody debris) Land and Soil Management Practices ces Upland Drainage Modifications River Bank Restoration 33 River Dee Instream structures (large woody debris) Land and Soil Management Practices ces Upland Drainage Modifications River Bank Restoration 34 Craigencallie Lane Instream structures (large woody debris) Land and Soil Management Practices ces Upland Drainage Modifications River Bank Restoration 43 Curnelloch Burn Instream structures (large woody debris) Land and Soil Management Practices ces Upland Drainage Modifications River Bank Restoration 44 River Dee (with Loch Dee) Instream structures (large woody debris) Land and Soil Management Practices ces Upland Drainage Modifications River Bank Restoration Garrary Burn Instream structures (large woody debris) Land and Soil Management Practices ces Upland Drainage Modifications River Bank Restoration 32 49 Galloway Glens Partnership Runoff Reduction Sediment Management 06 December 2016 33 Document Reference:1138879 6.2.5. Castle Douglas and nd Kirkcudbright Castle Douglas and Kirkcudbrightt ar are located further down the River Dee catchmentt and a therefore subject to the cumulative flows of the upstream ca catchments. The consideration of NFM for reducing g flood f risk at Castle Douglas and Kircudbright has considered the catchments located with the study priority areass (catchments 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 47 and 48 as shown wn in i Figure GB11820_M_011; Appendix B) as well as those considered for Carsphairn, Dalry Floodplain, New wG Galloway and Clatteringshaws Loch. The catchment characterisation has as identified the following: • The predominant land cover is coniferous woodland in the upland areas with th the lower lying areas of the catchment mixed between grass ssland and arable and horticulture; • The soils vary considerably depe pending upon the topographic setting within the catch tchment. The low lying areas of the catchment are predomin inantly mineral soils with the upland areas dominat nated by peats, podzols and gleys; • Morphological pressures within in the catchments consist of crossing structures as well as realignments and embankments; • The current overall WFD classific ifications of the watercourses range from Good to Poo oor; • The SEPA identification of NFM potential has identified the following measures res to be suitable within the catchments associated with Castle Cas Douglas and Kirkcudbright: – High and/or medium potentia ntial for runoff reduction in all catchments; – High potential for floodplain in storage within catchments 6 (River Dee), 35 (Airie ie Burn), 36 (Pullhaugh Burn) and 46 (Crae Lane); and – The opportunities for sedime ment management are dependent upon the morpholo ological conditions of the river stretches. As a result of the above, the NFM options op presented in Table 6.5 were considered as part pa of the long listing for the catchments associated with Castle e Douglas Do and Kirkcudbright. Table 6.5: Castle Douglas and Kirkcudbright Ki Priority Receptor – Long Listing NFM M Options O Upstream Contributing Catchments NFM Action (with Main Measure Type) Catchment ID Catchment Name River Reach and Flood Storage 6 River Dee Washlands and offline storage ponds Instream Structures (large woody debris) Upland Drainage Modifications River Bank Restoration River Morphology and floodplain restoration 30 Slogarie Burn Instream structures (large woody debris) Upland Drainage Modifications River Bank Restoration 35 Airie Burn Instream structures (large woody debris) Riparian Woodland Upland Drainage Modifications Land and Soil Management Practices ces River Bank Restoration Overland sediment traps 36 Pullhaugh Burn Instream structures (large woody debris) Upland Drainage Modifications River Bank Restoration 37 Stroan Burn Instream structures (large woody debris) Upland Drainage Modifications River Bank Restoration Galloway Glens Partnership Runoff Reduction Sediment Management 06 December 2016 34 Document Reference:1138879 Upstream Contributing Catchments NFM Action (with Main Measure Type) 45 Glengainoch Burn Instream structures (large woody debris) Upland Drainage Modifications River Bank Restoration 46 Crae Lane Instream structures (large woody debris) Upland Drainage Modifications River Bank Restoration 47 Kenick Burn Instream structures (large woody debris) Upland Drainage Modifications River Bank Restoration 48 Laurieston Burn Instream structures (large woody debris) Riparian Woodland Land and Soil Management Practices ces Overland sediment traps 6.3. Hydrological Asse sessment of Long List 6.3.1. Long List NFM Mea easure Modelling As noted in Sections 2.4 and 6.2, the long list options were categorised under the three e NFM actions, namely: 1. River Reach and Floodplain Stor torage, 2. Runoff Reduction, 3. Sediment Management. Within each of these three main NFM actions, the specific NFM measures were identifie ified as part of the long listing for each catchment. Table 6.6 below ow summarises the NFM actions and corresponding g NF NFM measures identified as part of the long listing. Table 6.6: Long List NFM Actions ns and Measures NFM Actions NFM Measures River Reach and Floodplain Storag age Instream Structures Floodplain Woodland Riparian Woodland Washlands and Offline Storage Ponds Runoff Reduction Land and Soil Management Practices RiparianWoodlands Upland Drainage Modifications Agricultural and upland drainage modifica fications Sediment Management Overland Sediment Traps River Bank Restoration River Morphology and floodplain restorat ration For each of the three NFM action ions (i.e. River Reach and Floodplain Storage, Runoff Ru Reduction, Sediment Management) the identified NFM me measures for each receptor were included within the e relevant sub-catchments of the model to replicate the inclusion no of the NFM measures. A total of 16 different physical hydro rological models were created to represent the variou rious NFM measures relevant to the receptors. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 35 Document Reference:1138879 Table E.1 in Appendix E details the various models along with the relevant NFM mea easures and the catchments they were applied to based on the long lo listing. The model(s) were then run to simu ulate the effect of the NFM measures on each recep ceptor. Rainfall events for the 1:2 to 1:200 intensities, and with dur urations from 2hr to 22 hour were simulated for each h model m run. 6.3.2. Long List NFM Mea easure Results The table below is an extract from Table T E.2 in Appendix E and indicates the percentag tage reduction in flows for the respective NFM action at the spec ecific receptor. Appendix E, Table E2 provides full ull details of the percentage reduction in flow at all receptors for the respective NFM actions. Table 6.7: Long List Model Resul ults Receptor NFM M Action % Redu duction in Flow for Return rn Period 1 in 2 1 in 10 1 in 50 1 in 200 River ver Reach and Floodplain Storage 10.3 7.8 6.2 5.2 Runo noff Reduction 23.4 16.9 13.0 10.6 Sedi diment Management 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.3 Dalry Floodplain River ver Reach and Floodplain Storage 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 New Galloway River ver Reach and Floodplain Storage 2.0 1.3 0.0 0.7 Runo noff Reduction 7.8 6.6 4.6 4.1 Sedi diment Management 2.0 1.3 0.9 0.7 River ver Reach and Floodplain Storage 3.3 1.1 1.4 2.4 Runo noff Reduction 16.7 9.8 7.5 7.1 Sedi diment Management 2.5 0.5 0.8 1.3 River ver Reach and Floodplain Storage 1.0 1.2 0.6 1.2 Runo noff Reduction 1.2 1.4 0.7 1.2 Sedi diment Management 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.4 River ver Reach and Floodplain Storage 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.1 Runo noff Reduction 0.9 1.0 0.7 1.1 Sedi diment Management 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.4 Carsphairn Clatteringshaws Loch Castle Douglas Kirkcudbright The results generally indicate thatt runoff ru reduction measures have the greatest influen ence in reducing peak flows. This is as expected as runoff reducti ction measures generally reduce the volume of water ter reaching the watercourses so have a greater influence on redu ducing flows. River reach and floodplain storage me easures act to reduce flows once the flows have already accumu mulated within the watercourses and therefore, have ve less influence on reducing overall flows. Similarly sediment man anagement measures are generally more focused at discrete problem locations within a watercourse and will have a lesser influence on overall catchment flows. However, for Castle Douglas and Kirkcudbright, Kir sediment management measures have ve a slightly greater influence on peak flows compared to runofff reduction re measures. This is considered due to the e distance from the receptor the NFM measures are proposed and an the resultant impact this has on the timing off p peak flows from the various catchments. The NFM measures that can be ap applied close to a receptor result in the largest influe fluence in flows. This can be seen from the larger percentage re reductions at Carsphairn and Clatteringshaws where wher the NFM measures are Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 36 Document Reference:1138879 proposed in the catchments immedi ediately upstream of these receptors. The further aw away from the NFM measure the receptor is the less influence the NFM measures have on the flow as additional inflo nflows from other catchments dilute the effects. The NFM measures also have a greater gre influence on the smaller, more frequent flood od events. During the larger, less frequent events, the volume of rainfall and hence flow starts to overwhelm the e NFM NF measures resulting in smaller percentage reductions in flow. low. For Carsphairn, it can be seen that at the proposed NFM measures have some benefit on o flows, particularly for the runoff reduction measures, and pa particularly at the low return period events. It is con considered that the potential reductions in flows from the impleme mentation of NFM measures at Carsphairn would redu duce the flood risk. For Dalry Floodplain, the proposed sed NFM measures have very little influence on tthe peak flows. The NFM measures are proposed on an activ tive floodplain and therefore, the benefits of enhanci ncing the storage capacity of this floodplain through the implemen entation of NFM measures is only marginal. For New Galloway the analysis indic dicates that the proposed runoff reduction measuress could c reduce peak flows by between 4.1% and 7.8% which is co considered would be a meaningful reduction in flood ood risk. The runoff reduction and sediment management measure ures have less influence. This is considered primarily ily due to it being effectively a single watercourse and catchmentt and a so measures that operate once the runoff is wit within the watercourse will be less influential. For Clatteringshaws Loch, the runoff off reduction measures are considered to have a signi gnificant effect on flows which would provide a meaningful reductio tion in flood risk. The river reach and floodplain storag rage measures have a lesser impact (especially when compared d to Carsphairn). This difference is considered due e to the smaller number and length of watercourses contributing g tto the Clatteringshaws catchment compared to Cars rsphairn. For Castle Douglas and Kirkcudbrig right, the effects of NFM measures are marginal. This his is due to the large size of the catchment(s) contributing to thes ese receptors compared to the small size of NFM mea easures. 6.4. Sediment Manage gement The modelling approach to simula ulate sediment management has been to vary the he roughness values of the watercourses. This is considered appropriate ap for the scale of the model and the resu sults indicate some marginal changes in peak flows in line with th what would be expected. It should also be noted ed that most NFM measures within the context of runoff reduc uction and river reach and floodplain storage, wi will also provide sediment management benefits. For example ple riparian woodland has the potential to stabilise lise river banks and prevent excessive erosion. The results of the sediment manage gement modelling indicate that this NFM action offers ers the least potential for flow reduction. Sediment removal is an n activity a that requires a licence from SEPA that is not no always guaranteed to be authorised. SEPA have advised that previouss studies have shown that sediment removal is no not always effective as the material removed is often re-depos osited in the next flood event. Furthermore studies ies have shown dredging for example does not greatly improve th the capacity of rivers during flood events. A previous study by Kaya Consulting ting Ltd (Carsphairn Flood Study) considered sedimen ent management as part of a detailed hydraulic model of Carspha phairn. The general conclusion of that study was tha that sediment removal could provide a small degree of flood leve evel reduction (circa 100mm) at the 1:200 year flow. w. The study recognised that sediment deposition would likely con ontinue necessitating the need for regular sedimentt re removal. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 37 Document Reference:1138879 7. Short Listing of NF NFM Opportunities 7.1. Introduction The overarching aims of the studyy are a to identify potential measures that will reduce th the flood risk to receptors in the River Dee catchment. A detailed review of the hydrologica ical results of the long list was undertaken and the he NFM measures that were deemed to potentially provide a tang ngible flood risk benefit were taken forward to the sho hort list. The following sections detail the app pproach adopted. 7.2. Hydrological Impa pact For each of the Long List options, s, the hydrological impact of the NFM measures was wa assessed based on the model results. 7.2.1. Receptors Section 4.3 detailed the key recepto ptors and the importance of these receptors. The tabl able below is a copy of Table 4.1 and summarises the receptors an and their importance. Table 7.1: 7.2.2. Im Importance of Receptors Receptor Importance Carsphairn High Dalry Floodplain Medium New Galloway Medium Clatteringshaws Loch Lo Medium Castle Douglas Very High Kirkcudbright Very High Magnitude of Impac act It is recognised that NFM measures es provide the greatest influence on flood risk for the e lower return period events. This was supported by the hydrolog logic modelling which focused on the 1:2, 1:10, 1:50 50 and 1:200 events with the results showing that NFM measures es had greater influence for the lower return period events ev (i.e. higher reductions in flow for the 1:2 event compared to the 1:200 event). To allow for this in the assessment nt of the NFM measure over the range of return per eriods modelled, a weighted average of the percentage change e in flow was calculated. This weighted average too took account of the benefit in reducing the flood risk at lower mo more frequent events (i.e. a higher priority was give iven to the higher frequency events compared to the less frequen ent events). To maintain the sensitivity of the range ran of magnitude of impact designations, the perce rcentage change in flow was scaled over the percentage flow w re reductions achieved in the project. For example, if the maximum percentage change in flow for any NFM measur ure assessed in the project was 20% this would attra tract the largest magnitude of impact, rather than assuming only a 100% reduction in flow should be assigned the larg rgest magnitude of impact. 7.2.3. Significance of Impa pact The significance of the impact was wa based on SEPA’s Supporting Guidance (W WAT-SG-67) Assessing the Significance of Impacts – Social, Economic E and Environmental matrix as discussed d in i Section 8.1 Assessment Criteria. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 38 Document Reference:1138879 7.3. Short List of NFM M Measures The assessment forms in Appendix dix C detail the hydrological benefit assessment un undertaken. The table below summarises the results and identifies fies the NFM measures taken forward to the short list. st. Table 7.2: Summary of Long List ist Assessment for Short List Tangible Hyd ydrological Benefit. Measure Take aken Forward to Short List Receptor NFM Act ction Carsphairn River Re Reach and Floodplain Storage Yes Runofff Re Reduction Yes Sedimen ent Management No Dalry Floodplain River Reach Re and Floodplain Storage No New Galloway River Reach Re and Floodplain Storage No Runofff Re Reduction Yes Sedimen ent Management No River Reach Re and Floodplain Storage No Runofff Re Reduction Yes Sedimen ent Management No River Reach Re and Floodplain Storage No Runofff Reduction Re No Sedimen ent Management No River Reach Re and Floodplain Storage No Runofff Reduction Re No Sedimen ent Management No Clatteringshaws Loch Castle Douglas Kirkcudbright The following table details the fourr NFM NF actions forming the short list and Figure GB11 B11820_M_012 (Appendix C) illustrates the catchments these mea easures would apply to. Table 7.3: Short List of NFM Actio ctions Receptor NFM Action Carsphairn River Reach and Floodplain Storage Runoff Reduction New Galloway Runoff Reduction Clatteringshaws Loch Runoff Reduction 7.4. Site Reconnaissan sance Surveys Following the completion of the short sh listing exercise, further surveys were under ertaken to ground truth the proposed options. The following pro rovides a summary of a number of the observationss made m during the completion of the surveys. It is acknowledged ed that the short listed options will be subject to fu further investigations to fully determine the suitability and extentt o of proposed NFM options. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 39 Document Reference:1138879 7.4.1. Summary of survey ey A reconnaissance level survey wass ccompleted for specific reaches and areas shortlisted ted to be considered for NFM to allow the environmental conte text of the catchment to be confirmed. The survey s identified important geomorphological features and fluvia vial processes that have helped guide the NFM short rt listing proposals. The survey covered key sections within wit the catchments upstream of Carsphairn and Ne New Galloway. As a result of the potential extent of instream stru structures and upland drainage modifications it was not practical to survey all identified areas in entirety. Howe wever, the survey did ensure that representative e watercourses and ground conditions was surveyed. Further details de on the surveys undertaken are presented in the th following paragraphs. A photographic log of the survey res esults are provided in Appendix F. 7.4.2. Carsphairn The areas considered for NFM have ve been divided into five distinct survey areas based d on o the catchments provided in Figure GB11820_M_013. A detail tailed photographic log of the survey results is also provided pro in Appendix F. Area 1 Area 1 covers exclusively the Garryh rryhorn Burn catchment (42), and includes proposals ls for runoff reduction as well as river reach and floodplain stora orage. From the observations made during the sit site reconnaissance the key catchment characteristics are highlig lighted below: • Upland catchment comprising open op heathland and grassland; • Evidence of historic mine workin king; • Larger channels incised into glac lacial deposits, unless in steeper ground where incise ised into bedrock; • Smaller channels often incised d into peat with a few not being visible at all. Thes ese ephemeral channels are likely to move locations quicklyy m making in-channel modification potentially problemat atic; • Main channel of Garryhorn Burn rn varies in width, with varying bank width and materia erial; • Apart from the higher ground ex extensive areas have been artificially drained with vertical v ditches dug into the peat. Examples of the key catchments cha haracteristics are presented in Photographs 7.1 – 7.4 .4. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 40 Document Reference:1138879 Source: Natural Power Photograph 7.1: Garryhorn Burn de devoid of riparian woodland and wide flood plain Photograph 7.2: Minor tributa utary within catchment of Garryhorn Burn (suitable for or instream debris) devoid of riparian Photograph 7.3: Garryhorn Burn de woodland with extensive areas of open op ground. Photograph 7.4: Bed materia rial of Garryhorn Burn Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 41 Document Reference:1138879 Area 2 Area 2 covers the lower reaches of the Carsphairn Lane catchment (40) which has identified ide runoff reduction and river reach and floodplain storage m measures. From the observations made during the e site s reconnaissance the key catchment characteristics are highlig lighted below: • Channel slope very low ~2-5 deg egrees; • Channel is sinuous and meande dering; • Bedload is silt and sand with som ome gravels, with lower reaches predominantly pebbl bbles of various sizes; • Very few boulders protruding water wa surface; • Banks are vegetated and occasi sionally tree lined. Combination of soil and peat; • Nearby slopes often artificially drained dr by vertical drainage channels. Channels are re incised into the peat; and • Extensively flat and terraced with a lot of water saturated ground. Examples of the key catchments cha haracteristics are presented in Photographs 7.5 – 7.6 .6. Source: Natural Power Photograph 7.5: Broad floodplain at Carsphairn with evidence of stock control measures es Galloway Glens Partnership en floodplain with extensive Photograph 7.6: Broad open areas of open ground 06 December 2016 42 Document Reference:1138879 Area 3 Area 3 covers the lower reaches of tthe Water of Deugh, with contribution from the Ben enloch Burn and Polsue Burn (catchment 41) and includes proposa osals for runoff reduction as well as river reach and flo floodplain storage. From the observations made during the site re reconnaissance the key catchment characteristics are highlighted below: • Main channel has a slope of 5 degrees de with a high to moderate flow speed; • Channel is braided with sequenc nces of gravels, cobbles and boulders; • Channel has a very high sedime iment yield with gravel banks and bars and is incised ed only on river bend outside banks; • Channel is 7m wide with braided ed area being 25m in diameter; • Banks are grass, soil and grave vel however significant erosion and bank collapse is happening in some places; and • Catchment hill slopes are steep eper closer to the river (where note terraced) but pre predominantly gently sloping. Visible vertical drainage ditchess which are likely to be artificial. Examples of the key catchments cha haracteristics are presented in Photographs 7.7 – 7.1 10. Source: Natural Power Photograph 7.7: Water of Deugh downstream do of the A713 Photograph 7.8: Wide channe nnel of the Water of Deugh, with limited vegetation (evide idence bank erosion) Photograph 7.9: Tributary of the Benloch Be Burn with potential for placement for instream am structures as well as riparian woodland Photograph 7.10: Benloch Burn Bu with potential for riparian woodland Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 43 Document Reference:1138879 Area 4 Area 4 encompasses the upper hea eadwaters of Carpshairn Lane, including Lamford Burn Bu and Meadowhead Burn, which has identified runoff reductio tion and river reach and floodplain storage measure res. From the observations made during the site reconnaissance ce the key catchment characteristics are highlighted db below: • Narrow upland channels with a slope s of 5-10 degrees which is incised into the peat eat and tussocks. Flow speed is moderate; • Channels range from ~0.1-0.5m m wide and of similar depth with plunge pools and sm small falls; • Channel morphology of the lower lowe Lamford Burn is gorge like and is deeply inc incised into bedrock / glacial sediments to ~10m, with grasss g growing most of the way down to the channel; • Channel has falls and plunge po pools and becomes more sinuous further downstream am; and • Evidence of artificial drainage ditches dit across the hill sides feeding into the channel.. Examples of the key catchments cha haracteristics are presented in Photographs 7.11 – 7.12. 7. Source: Natural Power Photograph 7.11:Incised channel of the Lower Lamford Burn (potential for placeme ment of instream structures and riparian woodland) Galloway Glens Partnership Photograph 7.12: Headwaters of the Lamford Burn 06 December 2016 44 Document Reference:1138879 Area 5 Area 5 encompasses the Water of De Deugh, upstream of its confluence with the Polsue ue Burn (catchments 38 and 39). There are significant areas of commercial forestry at various stages of developm pment. The consideration of upland drainage modifications have ve focussed on areas where there is known felling taking tak place as well as areas where there is the potential for fellin lling should consents be granted for proposed renewa ewable energy projects (e.g. Windy Standard III Wind Farm). Due to the upland nature of the catcchment, there has been significant consideration for the placement of instream structures. Due to the extent of the ea area, surveys focussed on a limited selection of loca ocations The key observations from the site reconnaissance re are: • Extensive areas have been felled fe with the potential for drainage channels to t accommodate drainage modifications. However, it is als lso noted that there is likely to be forestry debris exist isting within these channels; • Channels are often small, with plunge p pools and falls; • Channel bedload is mainly fine e sediments s and is discoloured by the peat; and • Debris often located within the channels ch that have the potential to reduce the flow w ra rate. Examples of the key catchments cha haracteristics are presented in Photographs 7.13 – 7.15. 7. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 45 Document Reference:1138879 Source: Natural Power Photograph 7.13: Examples of recen ent clearfell Photograph 7.14:Example of clearfell Photograph 7.15: Hydromorphologic gical conditions of Goat Burn (suitable for instream ms structures and riparian woodland) Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 46 Document Reference:1138879 7.4.3. New Galloway The potential for NFM within the ca catchment of Mill Burn (catchment 31) has focussed ed on the potential for runoff reduction. The key observations from rom the site reconnaissance confirm the following: • The channel varies in width, with the headwaters ~0.2 m with the main channel off the th Mill Burn being >1 m; • No evidence of bank erosions encountered en and bed materials consists of pebbles and a boulders; • Catchment is predominantly use sed for livestock grazing and consists of grassland; • Channel is generally incised with banks being heavily vegetated, evidence of sparse rse tree growth. Examples of the key catchments cha haracteristics are presented in Photographs 7.16 – 7.18. 7. Source: Natural Power Photograph 7.16: Catchment land d use u (with field boundary, potential for hedgerow planting) pl Galloway Glens Partnership Photograph 7.17: Hydromorp rphological conditions of the Mill Burn 06 December 2016 47 Document Reference:1138879 8. Initial Option Appr praisal The four NFM actions identified in n the th short list (summarised in the table below) were re taken forward to the Initial Option Appraisal stage. Table 8.1: Short List of NFM Actio ctions Receptor NFM Action Carsphairn River Reach and Floodplain Storage Runoff Reduction New Galloway Runoff Reduction Clatteringshaws Loch Runoff Reduction The assessment forms in Appendix ix C, detail the option appraisal undertaken and the e following f sections detail the methodology adopted in the apprais aisal of each NFM action. Figure GB11820_M_013 3 (Appendix ( D) illustrates the catchments and the NFM measures es considered. The initial option appraisal considere ered the following criteria: • Feasibility / Engineering, • Land Management, • Hydrological, • Environmental, • Social. 8.1. Assessment Criter iteria An options appraisal was undertake aken to determine which natural flood management nt measures would be most effective in each catchment. This his appraisal followed the principles of SEPA’s Natural Na Flood Management Handbook. The handbook notes that th Natural Flood Management rarely delivers ben enefits to flooding alone and considers that the wider benefits tha hat NFM measures provide should be included in the he assessment. This is also a key consideration in Scottish Gover ernment guidance which refers to this service when en making land management decisions. 8.1.1. Impact Assessment ent Significance The project team adopted SEPA’s ’s Supporting Guidance (WAT-SG-67) Assessing the Significance of Impacts – Social, Economic and Environmenta ntal to determine the significance of the impacts. The he following matrix was used alongside the professional judgemen ent based on the projects teams experience of workin king on similar environmental and renewable energy projects and nd knowledge of the local area to determine the pote otential impacts and whether they were positive of negative. The significance of an impact is dete etermined by combining the importance of the recepto ptor and the magnitude of the impact. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 48 Document Reference:1138879 Source: SEPA Figure 8.1: Guide to assessing sig significance The following sections define how ow the importance of the receptor and the magn gnitude of the impact were determined for this appraisal. Forr some s of the criteria adopted in the appraisal (e.g.. ffeasibility/engineering, land management and social), it was not appropriate to apply the above matrix and the following fol sections outline the qualitative assessment undertaken for fo these criteria. 8.1.2. Feasibility / Enginee eering The feasibility and engineering asses sessment considered factors such as: • Feasibility issues – landowner wner acceptance and sources of funding are consider ered the two biggest factors affecting the feasibility of the pr proposed NFM options. At this stage in the project ct these factors are not fully known and will need to be consi nsidered as the project progresses and more definitiv itive option(s) are identified in consultation with landowners. • Future Adaptation – this consid siders the potential impact or restriction the impleme mentation of a NFM measure may have on future flood mitiga tigation works. The assessment was qualitative and d considered the nature and location of the proposed NFM op option and how that may impact on any future flood m mitigation works. • NFM Measure Benefit Realisa isation – this considered the likely timescale for the he particular NFM measures, once installed, to actually start rt p providing the flood mitigation benefit. For example, le, the installation of a woody debris dam would provide its inte ntended flood mitigation benefit almost instantly where ereas planting trees may take several years before the treess become b mature enough to begin reducing flood flows. flo The assessment was based on a qualitative approach. ch. • Timescales of Works – this considered con how long it would take to install the NFM M option(s) o being considered. The assessment is qualitative based on no external restrictions such as reach ching landowner agreement, funding, etc. It should be noted d that t timescales are important considerations in the e landowner discussions and the projects objectives / funding. g. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 49 Document Reference:1138879 • Estimated Costs to Deliver - cost estimates are based on project team experie rience and a review of case studies delivering similar measu sures, applying these to the number and extent of measures proposed in the whole catchment. Detailed proje roject specific costings can only be calculated in the ed detailed design phase once projects are identified at specific cific locations and the site specific engineering, envir vironmental and hydrological requirements are fully defined. The table below outlines details ils the estimated costs for delivery of the NFM measure ures considered. Table 8.2: Estimated Costs for NF NFM Measures NFM Measures Estimated Cost Range Notes Hedgerow Planting (lowland)/ Low w Density Native Planting (upland) £5 / m ndscape, species and Depending on land spacings (inc plant nt protection) Floodplain / Riparian Woodland Planting £3k to £5k / Ha Site specific and depends de on the species to be planted. Stock Proof Fencing £4 / metre Fencing costs typic pically reduce the longer the fencing requiremen ents and also depend on the type of fencing ng required. Deer fencing willl be typically around £8/m Settlement Ponds £1k / pond Site specific and depends de on size, terrain and flow controls. Instream Structures (woody debris) is) £100 to £1k / dam Site specific and depends de on ground conditions, enginee eering needed felling requirements and d size s of watercourse. Typically installed d at a spacing of circa 200m. Upland Drainage Modifications £30 / Ha Site specific and will wi need suitable ditches to be identified and a suitable drainage regime designed. Compensation for loss of graz razing, disruption or loss of control during constr struction, etc has not been considered. It is likely these cos osts would be dependent on the outcome landowner er negotiations. On marginal land this may not be an issue or will be low cost but for larger areas compensation nm may be needed. For each of the proposed NFM M options the costs were built up based on the abo bove cost estimates and the number/area/extent of NFM me easures proposed to determine the total estimated d cost of the proposed NFM option. From the total cost estim imate for a NFM option, the appraisal considered the e tthresholds shown in Table 8.3 below. All costs ex exclude consultancy fees and landowner negotiation. on. Table 8.3: • Pr Project Costs Ranking Estimated Cost st Cost Rank 0 to £150k Low £151k to £550k Medium >£550k High Maintenance Costs - this con onsidered the long term maintenance and manage gement costs that would be required to retain the effectiven eness of the NFM measure. As the involvement of landowners or contractors could require long term agreeme ments or financial mechanisms, at this stage, only a qualitative q assessment has Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 50 Document Reference:1138879 been undertaken to estimate the th likely long term maintenance and management nt costs associated with the NFM options. • Health & Safety – this considere ered the health and safety issues likely to be encounte ntered for the installation and maintenance of the proposed op options. The assessment is based on a qualitative app approach. 8.1.3. Land Management nt The option appraisal considered the potential loss of income or loss of control of land nd management. Due to the complexities of landowner discussio sions these were not quantified. At this stage, land nd management issues have been based on land take and the practicalities pra of installing and managing the proposed dm measures. As outlined in Section 9 below, lan andowners have been introduced to the project but no n agreements are in place and detailed negotiation has not yet et begun. 8.1.4. Hydrological The hydrological benefit was underta ertaken as part of the short listing based on the metho thodology detailed in Section 7.2. Importance of Receptors The methodology in Section 7.2 detailed de the importance of the identified receptors as a summarised in the table below. Table 8.4: Im Importance of Receptors Receptor Importance Carsphairn High Dalry Floodplain Medium New Galloway Medium Clatteringshaws Loch Lo Medium Castle Douglas Very High Kirkcudbright Very High Magnitude of Impact As detailed in Section 7.2, the magn agnitude of the impact was based on the percentage ge change in flow due to the implementation of the relevant NFM M measure in the catchment(s). 8.1.5. Environmental NFM measures can have a positiv ive impact on environmental receptors, including g biodiversity, water quality; reduced soil erosion as well as enco couraging carbon sequestration. NFM can restore ecosystems ec to help support a wider range of habitats and specie cies. The improvements to water quality will impro prove instream habitats and potentially increase connectivity allowi llowing greater movement of flora and fauna. In general, NFM measures should d improve ecosystems by increasing their capacityy to respond to the effects of climate change without detriment to their functionality. These wider benefits are an important imp consideration in the appraisal because they make a p positive environmental impact which extends bey eyond just focusing on the management of flood risk. The assessment used the informatio ation collated as part of the baseline studies to consi nsider potential effects of the measures on: Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 51 Document Reference:1138879 • Flora & Fauna – in the absence ce of detailed site surveys, the assessment utilisess published and/or publically available datasets to determine e the sensitivity of the habitats and how NFM could ld iimpact upon the movement and/or extent of flora and fauna;; • Soil – the assessment considers ers the classification and/or status of soils, including peat, pe to determine how NFM could improve stability and/or carbon ca sequestration. Utilisation of land use maps,, ssoil classification maps and carbon soil classifications have eb been used to determine the sensitivity of the soils underlying un the catchments; • Water – through the utilisation n of the SEPA RBMP and morphological pressures es database the assessment considers how NFM can impact ct upon the current WFD status of waterbodies; • Use of Natural Resources – the assessment considers if the intended NFM meas asures would rely on natural resources or more engineered materials. m Importance of Receptor The importance of the receptor wass determined with respect to whether the areas wass d designated, the level of that designation and whether it would be b directly or indirectly affected by the proposed d m measures. The importance considered: • • • Flora and Fauna: – Designated sites, including gS Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection n Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest; – The presence of invasive species; sp – Records of species via revie view of the National Biodiversity network; – The likely presence of salmo mon and sea trout within watercourses; Soils:: – Consideration of existing lan land use; – Soils classification – presenc nce and extent of peat and/or peaty soils; – Carbon soils classification – presence and extent of priority peatland habitats (classes (cl 1 and 2) Water: – Consideration of the current nt and future RBMP status of waterbodies; and – Consideration of the current nt and potential future natural and anthropogenic pres ressures on waterbodies. Professional judgement was then n used to establish the potential influences of N NFM on the environmental receptors. This has included positiv itive and negative impacts, as for example the installa llation of in-stream structures has the potential to inhibit movemen ent of fauna. Magnitude of Impact The assessment of the effects of the proposed measures on the aims of the designatio tion and the wider effects the measures could have on social and d economic interests determined the magnitude. For or instance, the magnitude of impact was determined through asse ssessment of the potential cumulative effect of the me measures on the areas Water Framework Directive status. 8.1.6. Social The measures can have a positive e impact on quality of life through improvements in bio diversity, landscape or recreation. They can help to enhanc nce the rural environment and potentially support recr ecreational activities or create educational tools as part of a commu munity led approach to implementing the project. The assessment was qualitative bas ased on our understanding of the local area to determ rmine potential effects of the measures on: • Landscape, • Cultural Heritage, Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 52 Document Reference:1138879 • Social Aspects. 8.2. Appraisal of Optio tions The above assessment methods we were applied to each of the short list options as outline lined in the following sections. The individual assessments included ed in Appendix C provide details of the assessment. t. 8.2.1. Carsphairn Runoff ff Reduction R This option includes: • Land and soil management pracctices (catchments 40, 41 & 41) – e.g. Low density native n planting buffers. • Riparian woodland (catchments ts 38, 39, 40, 41 & 42). • Upland drainage modifications (c (catchments 38, 39, 40, 41 & 42) – e.g. drain blockin king. Feasibility / Engineering The proposed options would be pri primarily located in the upper reaches of the catchm hment and as such it is not anticipated there would be any issu sues with the implementation of future flood mitigati ation works. Any future flood mitigation works would likely be fo focused on the immediate environs to the village ge of Carsphairn, aimed at protecting individual properties and db businesses. While some runoff reduction measu sures such as upland drain blocking would have an n iimmediate benefit, many of the measures would take a longerr timescale for the benefit to be realised. Planting of o low density native buffer areas could take several years to rea reach maturity and the benefits for runoff reduction to be realised. It is anticipated that the runoff reduc duction measures could be implemented within a reas easonable short timeframe of around 12 to 18 months dependin ing on seasonal circumstances. Planting low dens ensity native planting buffers should be implemented to suit their eir optimum planting time. These factors may extend nd the overall timescales for implementation towards 18 months. s. As detailed in Section 7.4.2, the Ca Carsphairn measures were divided into five distinctt areas. ar The anticipated costs to install the proposed measures for fo each area and in summary are presented in the he tables below. Please note that for Riparian Woodland SEPA NFM NF guidance is for a 30 m buffer however for prac actical implementation at this stage of the costings we have assu sumed a 15 m buffer to account for forestry grants, s, topography and landowner discussions. Table 8.5: Carsphairn runoff redu duction area 1 NFM Measures Dimen ensions Estimated Cost Total Cost 4km £5 / m £20,000.00 Stockproof Fencing 8 km m (based on fencing either er side of buffers, exclud ludes Riparian fencin cing) £4 / m stock fencing £32,000.00 Riparian woodland (based sed on 15 m buffer either er side of waterc ercourse) – 22 Ha £4,000 / Ha £88,000.00 Upland modifications 352 Ha H £30 / Ha £10,560.00 Low density Planting Buffers Native drainage Sub Total Galloway Glens Partnership £150,560.00 06 December 2016 53 Document Reference:1138879 Table 8.6: Carsphairn Runoff Red eduction Area 2 NFM Measures Dimen ensions Estimated Cost Total Cost Low density Native Planting Buffers 2.5km m £5 / m £12,500.00. Stockproof Fencing 5 km £4 / m stock fencing £20,000.00 Sub Total Table 8.7: £32,500.00 Carsphairn Runoff Red eduction Area 3 NFM Measures Dimen ensions Estimated Cost Total Cost Riparian woodland (based sed on 15 m buffer either er side of waterc ercourse) – 11 Ha £4000 / ha £44,000.00 Low density Native Planting Buffers 4km £5 / m £20,000.00 Stockproof Fencing 8km £4 / m stock fencing £32,000.00 466 Ha £30 / Ha £13,980.00 Upland drainage modifications Sub Total Table 8.8: £109,980.00 Carsphairn Runoff Red eduction Area 4 NFM Measures Dimen ensions Estimated Cost Total Cost Upland drainage modifications 230 Ha £30 / Ha £6,900.00 Riparian woodland (based sed on 15 m buffer either er side of waterc ercourse) – 16 Ha £4000 / Ha £64,000.00 Sub Total Table 8.9: £70,900.00 Carsphairn Runoff Red eduction Area 5 NFM Measures Dimen ensions Estimated Cost Total Cost Riparian woodland (based sed on 15 m buffer either er side of waterc ercourse) – 23 Ha £4000 / ha £92,000.00 Upland drainage modifications 1528 Ha £30 / Ha £45,840.00 Sub Total Galloway Glens Partnership £137,840.00 06 December 2016 54 Document Reference:1138879 Table 8.10: Carsphairn Runoff Red eduction Sumamry Estimated Cost Area Estimated Cost 1 £150,560 2 £32,500 3 £109,980 4 £70,900 5 £137,840 Option Total £501,780.00 Overall the estimated cost £501,780 80.00 which, in accordance with considered to be Medium. Table 8.3,, the project cost rank is is Once implemented it is considered d maintenance costs would be low. Generally, the e measures m should be left to grow and mature on their own with h llittle or no maintenance required. Upland drain bloc ocking would require ongoing monitoring and checks on their effec ectiveness. The main health and safety risks whi which will need to be managed are considered to inclu clude: • Remote working in an upland environment. en • Drain blocking will require workin king within watercourses and potentially very soft grou round. Land Management More detailed negotiations need to be undertaken with all landowners to fully unders rstand the potential financial impact and loss of control. Hydrological The results and benefit outcome off the th hydrological assessment are summarised in Tab able 8.11 below. Table 8.11: Carsphairn Runoff Red eduction Hydrological Results Description Compliance nce Point % Reduction in Flow for Return Period 1 in 2 1 in 10 1 in 50 1 in 200 Benefit Outcome Carsphairn: Runoff Reduction Carsphairn 23.4 16.9 13.0 1 10.6 Very High Dalry Floodp odplain 6.0 4.8 4.3 3 3.6 Low New Gallowa oway 5.7 4.4 3.9 3 3.3 Low Clatteringsh shaws Loch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 N/A Castle Doug uglas 2.9 2.2 1.8 1 1.7 Low Kirkcudbrigh ight 2.6 2.2 1.9 1 1.7 Low Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 55 Document Reference:1138879 Environmental Runoff reduction measures can prov rovide a number of environmental benefits, however er it is acknowledged that the realisation of these benefits can b be spatially and temporally dependent upon the scale s of implementation of specific measures. NFM are unlike likely to change the WFD status of the overall catch tchment due to existing and potential future catchment pressures res. The consideration of upland drainag age modifications and subsequent rewetting of habita itat can, in time, help improve the quality and diversity habitat. Up Upland drain blocking of previously forested areas and an areas with land drainage could also support Peatland Action1, where the sequestration of carbon via rewetting g of o damaged peatlands is a key deliverable. Runoff reduction via riparian wood odland and low density native planting buffers could cou also provide additional environmental benefit by improving g tthe diversity of habitat within the catchment. Thes hese measures also have the potential to reduce erosion through root r systems providing increased stability to soils and an bank stabilisation. Landscape was classed as Medium m due to the presence of the Regional Scenic Area, a, tthe effects of the measures are localised therefore benefits in terms ter of landscape character are very low. As an upland environment, low dens ensity native planting buffers are considered to be a more m appropriate measure. Low density native planting buffers have wide ranging benefits to wildlife, providing food ood and shelter and providing networks or corridors for the movem ements of animals and insects. They also help the wider wi environment by adding character to the landscape, providin ding a strong sense of place though their continuity ity and signs of the changing seasons. Similarly riparian plantin ting using native species will benefit biodiversity a and add to the landscape character. These measures implemented at a local scale are unlikely to cause significant impac act on the overall landscape character of the catchment however er, it is noted that localised effects may be higher than tha the regional perspective that has been assessed in this repor ort*. None of the measures will directlyy impact im any designated cultural heritage interests (ref (re section 5.1.6). Any noninventory interests would be assesse ssed in the detailed design and the NFM measures mi microsited to avoid significant impacts. A summary of the benefits on enviro ironmental receptors is presented in Table 8.12. Table 8.12: Summary of environmen ental benefits (Carsphairn runoff reduction) Environmental Receptor Importance of Impacted Receptor Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome Flora and Fauna High Medium High Soil Medium Medium Moderate Water High Medium High Use of natural resources High Medium High Landscape Medium Low Small Very low* Cultural heritage N/A N/A N/A 1 SNH Peatland Action - http://www.sn snh.gov.uk/climate-change/taking-action/carbon-manage gement/peatlandaction/information-for-applicants/ Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 56 Document Reference:1138879 Social As shown above, the implementation tion of these measures will ultimately help to reduce e flood f risk to the Carsphairn Community which is considered to be a significant benefit. Improvements in biodiv diversity will create a better connection to the environment and d improve im landscape character, giving a greater sense se of place. It may also be possible to incorporat rate recreational activities into the measures or assist ist learning and development for schools and other interested gr groups keen to understand the measures, their be benefits, and their long term evolution. In the longer term they may benefi efit tourism, attracting people interested in the meas asures, the outcomes of the project and the potential wildlife watc watching opportunities they generate. Overall it is considered there would ld b be a social benefit associated with the implementatio ation of the NFM measures. 8.2.2. Carsphairn River Re Reach and Floodplain Storage This option includes: • Instream structures (catchments ts 438, 39, 40, 41 & 42) – e.g. woody and porous dam ams. • Floodplain woodland (40, 41 & 4 42) • Riparian woodland (catchments ts 38, 39, 40, 41 & 42). • Washlands and offline storage p ponds (catchment 42). Feasibility / Engineering The proposed options would be pri primarily located in the upper reaches of the catchm hment and as such it is not anticipated there would be any issu sues with the implementation of future flood mitigati ation works. Any future flood mitigation works would likely be focused fo on the immediate environs to the village ge of Carsphairn, aimed at protecting individual properties and db businesses. While some river reach measuress such as instream structures would have an imme mediate benefit, many of the measures would take a longer times escale for the benefit to be realised. Planting woodlan land will take several years to reach a mature enough state to influ fluence the water cycle and provide the NFM benefits. its. It is anticipated that the runoff reduc duction measures could be implemented within a reas easonable short timeframe of around 6 to 12 months depending on seasonal circumstances. As detailed in Section 7.4.2, the Ca Carsphairn measures were divided into five distinctt areas. ar The anticipated costs to install the proposed measures for or each area and in summary are presented in the tab tables below. Table 8.13: Carsphairn River Reac ach and Floodplain Storage Area 1 NFM Measures Dimen ensions Estimated Cost Total Cost Riparian woodland (based sed on 15 m buffer either er side of waterc ercourse) – 21.3 ha £4,000 / ha £85,200 Instream structures 10,500 00 m £200 / structure £10,500 3 area eas (10m3 each) £1,000 / pond £3,000 Washland and storage ponds offline Sub Total Galloway Glens Partnership £170,700 06 December 2016 57 Document Reference:1138879 Table 8.14: Carsphairn River Reac ach and Floodplain Storage Area 2 NFM Measures Dimen ensions Estimated Cost Total Cost Floodplain woodland 433.3 .3 ha £4,000 / ha £173,200 Instream structures 8600m 0m £200 / structure £8,600 Sub Total Table 8.15: £181,800 Carsphairn River Reac ach and Floodplain Storage Area 3 NFM Measures Dimen ensions Estimated Cost Total Cost Riparian woodland (based sed on 15 m buffer either er side of waterc ercourse) – 11 ha £4,000 / ha £44,000 Instream structures 8,800m 0m £200 / structure £8,800 Sub Total Table 8.16: £52,800 Carsphairn River Reac ach and Floodplain Storage Area 4 NFM Measures Dimen ensions Estimated Cost Total Cost Instream structures 18,000 00m £200 / structure £18,000 Riparian woodland (based sed on 15 m buffer either er side of waterc ercourse) – 15.6 ha £4,000 / ha £62,400 Sub Total Table 8.17: £80,400 Carsphairn River Reac ach and Floodplain Storage Area 5 NFM Measures Dimen ensions Estimated Cost Total Cost Instream structures 107,00 ,000m £200 / structure £107,000 Riparian woodland (based sed on 15 m buffer either er side of waterc ercourse) – 22.8 ha £4,000 / ha £91,200 Sub Total Galloway Glens Partnership £198,200 06 December 2016 58 Document Reference:1138879 Table 8.18: Carsphairn River Reac ach and Floodplain Storage Estimated Cost Summar ary Area Estimated Cost 1 £170,700 2 £181,800 3 £52,800 4 £80,400 5 £198,200 Option Tota otal £683,900 Overall the estimated cost is £683,90 ,900 which, in accordance with considered to be High. Table 8.3 3,the project cost rank is Once implemented it is considered d maintenance costs would be low. Generally, the e measures m should be left to grow and mature on their own with little or no maintenance required. Instream structu ctures would require ongoing monitoring and checks on their effec ectiveness. The main health and safety risks whi which will need to be managed are considered to inclu clude: • Remote working in an upland environment. en • Instream structures will require ire working within watercourses and potentially in a areas of steep and uneven terrain. • The creation of washlands and d storage ponds will likely require some significantt e excavation works with large plant and machinery. Land Management More detailed negotiations need to be undertaken with all landowners to fully unders rstand the potential financial impact and loss of control.. Hydrological The results and benefit outcome off the th hydrological assessment are summarised in Tab able 8.19 below. Table 8.19: Carsphairn River Reac ach and Floodplain Storage Hydrological Results Description Compliance nce Point % Reduction in Flow for Return Period 1 in 2 1 in 10 1 in 50 1 in 200 Benefit Outcome Carsphairn: River Reach and Floodplain Storage Carsphairn 10.3 7.8 6.2 5 5.2 High Dalry Floodp odplain 3.8 3.1 2.7 2 2.6 Very Low New Gallowa oway 3.4 2.9 2.4 2 2.3 Very Low Clatteringsh shaws Loch 0 0 0 0 N/A Castle Doug uglas 2.0 1.6 1.1 1 1.2 Negligible Kirkcudbrigh ight 1.7 1.5 1.1 1 1.2 Negligible Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 59 Document Reference:1138879 Environmental River reach and floodplain storage ge measures can provide a number of environmen ental benefits. However it is acknowledged that the realisation of o these benefits can be spatially and temporally de dependent upon the scale of implementation of specific measures res It is acknowledged that instream structures st could have the potential to negatively im impact upon the passage of fauna along stretches of watercou ourses. However, limiting the implementation off th these measures to upland watercourses and tailoring the des esign to ensure flows in normal conditions are maintained m will reduce any perceived negative impact. Floodplain and/or riparian woodland and and washland and/or offline storage ponds prov rovide benefits by improving habitat diversity. The attenuation of runoff offered by the proposed measures could a also reduce soil erosion and allow settlement of silt within the upp pper reaches of watercourses. NFM are unlikely to change the WFD FD status of the overall catchment due to existing and nd potential future catchment pressures. It is also acknowledg dged that the measures will not require alteration on of existing structures so hydropower operations are unlikely ly tto be affected. Landscape was classed as Medium m due to the presence of the Regional Scenic Area, a, tthe effects of the measures are localised therefore benefits in n terms t of landscape character are very low. This sshould not detract from the potential benefits to the local landsc scape. Riparian planting using native species and d storage s ponds could add to the character of the local area*. None of the measures will directlyy impact im any designated cultural heritage interests (re (ref section 5.1.6). Any noninventory interests would be assesse ssed in the detailed design and the NFM measures mi microsited to avoid significant impacts. A summary of the benefit on environ onmental receptors is presented in Table 8.20. Table 8.20: Summary of Environmen ental Benefits (Carsphairn River Reach and Floodpla plain Storage) Environmental Receptor Importance of Impacted Receptor Flora and Fauna Soil Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome High Medium High Medium Medium Moderate Water High Small Very low Use of natural resources High Medium High Landscape Medium Low Small Very low* Cultural heritage N/A N/A N/A Social As shown above, the implementation tion of these measures will ultimately help to reduce e flood f risk to the Carsphairn Community which is considered to be a significant benefit. Improvements in biodiv diversity will create a better connection to the environment and d improve im landscape character, giving a greater sense se of place. It may also be possible to incorporat rate recreational activities into the measures or assist ist learning and development for schools and other interested gr groups keen to understand the measures, their be benefits, and their long term evolution. In the longer term they may benefi efit tourism, attracting people interested in the meas asures, the outcomes of the project and the potential wildlife watc watching or fisheries opportunities they generate. Overall it is considered there would ld b be a social benefit associated with the implementatio ation of the NFM measures. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 60 Document Reference:1138879 8.2.3. Clatteringshaws Ru Runoff Reduction This option includes: • Land and soil management prac ractices (catchments 29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 & 49) – e.g. e. alteration to commercial forestry drainage practices to co comply with current guidance (i.e. Forests and Wate ater – UK Forestry Standard Guidelines). • Upland drainage modificationss (catchments (c 29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 & 49) – e.g drain in blocking in areas provided in the National Forest Invento ntory identified as “Felled”, “Open”, “Unplantable le or bare” and “Unplanted Streamsides”.. The land around Clatteringshaws is owned by the Forestry Commission. They publis blish a range of UK Forestry Standard Guidelines that outline the he approach of UK Governments to sustainable fores est management and provide a basis for regulation and monito itoring. These guidelines include Forests and Wa Water which recognises the importance of water quality and th the protection from flooding, soil erosion and aqua uatic species as well as the Practice Guide2 for deciding future m management options for afforested deep peatland.. Natural Na Flood Management plays an important part in achieving g these standards which have to be adhered to by all forestry operators. Through the management of the e commercial c forestry around Clatteringshaws, the e Forestry Commission will implement the requirements of their eir Forests and Water guidelines. Typically commercia al forest areas planted prior to the publication of the Forestss and a Water guidelines would not incorporate the e measures detailed in the guidelines. However, when mature e forest fo areas are felled and re-planted they will adher ere to the Forests and Water guidelines and incorporate measure ures to reduce flood risk and reinstate the hydrolog logical cycle back to a more natural state in accordance with the e principles of natural flood management. In areas of open ground or where th there are opportunities to restore previously afforeste sted areas it is recommended that consideration of upland drainag nage modifications take into account the requiremen ents of Peatland Action1 and Forestry Commission guidance on deciding d the future management options for afforeste sted deep peatland2. As such, over time, the NFM measur sures proposed within the Clatteringshaws catchment nt will be implemented by the Forestry Commission as they fell th the older blocks and re-plant incorporating their Fore orests and Water guidelines, assess the requirements through the management requirements of previouilsy afforeste sted areas in deep peat2 and 1 consider the opportunities available le through t Peatland Action .. The NFM measures proposed with within this report for Clatteringshaws take account nt of the long term Forestry Commission strategy that will implem lement some of the NFM measures considered. Howe However, it has been assumed that the costs of this would be borne ne by the Forestry Commission. Therefore, the costs ts presented p relate only to the NFM measures considered for the no non-forested areas of the Caltteringshaws catchment ent. Feasibility / Engineering Land Management The land is general commercial plan lantation forestry and therefore, any NFM measuress would need to be carefully integrated into the forest plan in cons onsultation with the Forestry Commission. Hydrological The results and benefit outcome off the th hydrological assessment are summarised in Tab able 8.21 below. 2 Forestry Commission Scotland (2015 15), Deciding future management options for afforested d deep peatland. Forestry Commission Scotland Practice Guide Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 61 Document Reference:1138879 Table 8.21: Clatteringshaws Runo noff Reduction Hydrological Results Description Clatteringshaws Loch Runoff Reduction Compliance nce Point 1 in 50 1 in 200 Benefit Outcome % Reduction in Flow for Return Period 1 in 2 1 in 10 Carsphairn 0 0 0 0 N/A Dalry Floodp odplain 0 0 0 0 N/A New Gallowa oway 0 0 0 0 N/A Clatteringsh shaws Loch 16.7 9.8 7.5 7 7.1 High Castle Doug uglas 2.8 1.9 1.1 1 1.1 Low Kirkcudbrigh ight 2.6 1.8 1.2 1 1.1 Low Environmental Measures have focussed on improv ovements to land and soil management practices as dictated by the Forest and Water Guidelines and deciding fut future management options for afforested deep peatland pe as well as upland drainage practices. Should the Forestry F Commission consider the proposals a n number of benefits include improvement to surrounding habitats ats and existing designated sites. The consideration of upland drainag age modifications and subsequent rewetting of habita itat can, in time, help improve the quality and diversity habitat. Upland Up drain blocking of land within the catchment of Clatteringshaws reservoir, including open and previously fores rested areas could also support Peatland Action1, where wh the sequestration of carbon via rewetting of damaged pea peatlands is a key deliverable. The NFM measures are unlikely to improve the WFD status of the catchment due ue to the existing catchment pressures. However, any furtherr fforestry operations will be undertaken cognisant nt of industry good practice, including but not limited to the For orests and Water Guidelines3. Works compliantt wi with this guidance will limit drainage and help slow the flow off runoff ru from forested areas, thus providing benefits by reducing soil erosion. A summary of the benefits on enviro ironmental receptors is presented in Table 8.22. Table 8.22: Summary of Environmen ental Benefits (Carsphairn River Reach and Floodpla plain Storage) Environmental Receptor Importance of Impacted Receptor Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome Flora and Fauna High Medium High Soil High Medium High Water High Small Medium Use of natural resources High Medium High Landscape Medium Low Small Very low Cultural heritage N/A N/A N/A Social As shown above, the implementatio tion of these measures will ultimately help to reduce uce flood risk to downstream settlements which is considered to b be a benefit. 3 Forestry Commission (2011), Forests sts and Water. UK Forestry Standard Guidelines. Forestr stry Commission, Edinburgh. I –iv + 1-80 pp Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 62 Document Reference:1138879 There is potential to enhance comm munity engagement and improve recreation and tou ourism if NFM measures can be incorporated into the Forestry Commissions Co tourism strategy. This could include no notice boards or walks which details the measures and how theyy ccontribute to flood alleviation. It is understood that there exists the public perception that Scottish Power (as operators ope of the hydropower schemes) and the Forestry Commiss ission (through their extensive forest operations) may ay be exacerbating flood risk to downstream communities. The e implementation of the NFM measures, particular larly if the communities are engaged with Scottish Power and the th Forestry Commission in this, has the potential to e enhance the understanding of the roles these parties play in mitig itigating and managing flood waters. Overall it is considered there would be a social benefit associated with the implementatio ation of the NFM measures. 8.2.4. New Galloway Runo unoff Reduction This option includes: • Land and soil management pra practices (catchment 31) – e.g. hedgerows (due to presence of defined field boundaries). • Riparian woodland (catchmentt 31). 3 Feasibility / Engineering The proposed options would be pri primarily located in the upper reaches of the catchm hment and as such it is not anticipated there would be any issu sues with the implementation of future flood mitigati ation works. Any future flood mitigation works would likely be focused foc on the immediate environs to the village o of New Galloway, aimed at protecting individual properties and d businesses. The provision of flood attenuation area reas upstream of settlements are frequently considered when ass ssessing flood mitigation. However, it is considered da any future flood attenuation area located in the upstream catchm hment of New Galloway would not be impacted by the he proposed measures. The planting of hedges and riparia rian woodland could take several years to reach maturity ma and the benefits for runoff reduction to be realised. It is anticipated that the runoff reduc duction measures could be implemented within a reas easonable short timeframe of around 12 to 18 months depending g on o seasonal circumstances. The planting of hedge e rows r and riparian woodland should be implemented to suit their eir optimum planting time. These factors may extend nd the overall timescales for implementation towards 18 months. s. The anticipated costs to install the he proposed measures are presented in the table below. b Please note that for Riparian Woodland SEPA NFM guid uidance is for a 30 m buffer however for practical impl plementation at this stage of the costings we have assumed a 15 5 m buffer to account for topography and landowner er d discussions. Table 8.23: New Galloway Runoff ff Reduction Cost Estimate NFM Measures Dimens ensions Estimated Cost Total Cost Hedgerow Planting 9 km (b (based on mapped field bo boundaries all being suitable ble and landowner agreem ements) £5 / m £45,000 Stock Proof Fencing 18 km m – Based on each side being be fenced £4 / m stock fencing £72,000 Riparian woodland (based ed on 15 m buffer eitherr side s of watercourse) = 6.9 ha h £4,000 / ha £27,600 Option Total Galloway Glens Partnership £144,600 06 December 2016 63 Document Reference:1138879 Overall the estimated cost is £144,60 ,600 which, in accordance with considered to be Low. Table 8.3 3, the project cost rank is Once implemented it is considered d maintenance costs would be low. Generally, the e measures m should be left to grow and mature on their own with little or no maintenance required. Hedgerows m may need regular trimming depending on their location but it iss a anticipated that once planted they could generally be left to grow unattended. The main health and safety risks whi which will need to be managed are considered to inclu clude: • Some remote working in an upla pland environment. • Working adjacent to watercourse rses which have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain and unstable ground. Land Management Landowner engagement will be requ quired to determine the feasibility of this project. Hydrological The results and benefit outcome off the th hydrological assessment are summarised in Tab able 8.24 below. Table 8.24: New Galloway Runoff ff R Reduction Hydrological Results Description New Galloway Runoff Reduction Compliance nce Point % Reduction in Flow for Return Period 1 in 2 1 in 10 1 in 50 1 in 200 Benefit Outcome Carsphairn 0 0 0 0 N/A Dalry Floodp odplain 0 0 0 0 N/A New Gallowa oway 7.8 6.6 4.6 4 4.1 Low Clatteringsh shaws Loch 0 0 0 0 N/A Castle Doug uglas 0.1 0.1 0 0 Negligible Kirkcudbrigh ight 0.1 0.1 0 0 Negligible Environmental Runoff reduction measures can prov rovide a number of environmental benefits, however er it is acknowledged that the realisation of these benefits can b be spatially and temporally dependent upon the scale s of implementation of specific measures. The consideration of NFM woodland nd planting as well as hedgerows has the potentiall to provide a positive impact via a reduction in the erosion of soils ils from watercourse banks as well as through overlan land sheet flow. The NFM measures are unlikely to change the WFD status of the overall catchmen ents due to the existing and potential future catchment pressu sures as well as the spatial extent of measure res considered. However, implementation of NFM has the pote otential to provide improvements to tributary catchme ents at a local scale. There are no proposals to reduce existing g sstructures on watercourses or alter existing hydropo power operations. Landscape was classed as Medium m due to the presence of the Regional Scenic Area, a, tthe effects of the measures are localised therefore benefits in terms of landscape character are very low. It is considered hedgerow and riparian planting could benefit the landscape lan character in the local area therefore localis alised effects could be higher than the regional perspective assess ssed in this report*. None of the measures will directlyy impact im any designated cultural heritage interests (re (ref section 5.1.6). Any noninventory interests would be assesse ssed in the detailed design and the NFM measures mi microsited to avoid significant impacts. A summary of the benefits on enviro ironmental receptors is presented in Table 8.25. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 64 Document Reference:1138879 Table 8.25: Summary of Environmen ental Benefits (Carsphairn River Reach and Floodpla plain Storage) Environmental Receptor Importance of Impacted Receptor Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome Flora and Fauna High Small Medium Soil Low Small Very Low Water High Small Moderate Use of natural resources High Medium High Landscape Medium Low Small Very low* Cultural heritage N/A N/A N/A Social Whilst the scale of these measuress are a limited in terms of flood reduction, their impleme mentation will benefit through improvements in biodiversity thatt will create a better connection to the environmen ent and improve landscape character, giving a greater sense of place. p It may also be possible to incorporat rate recreational activities into the measures or assist ist learning and development for schools and other interested gr groups keen to understand the measures, their be benefits, and their long term evolution. Overall it is considered there would ld b be a social benefit associated with the implementatio ation of the NFM measures. 8.3. Proposed NFM Options Op The Assessment Forms in Appendi dix C, enabled a detailed comparison of the NFM m measures to be undertaken and a ranking of potential NFM mea easures to be determined. A summary of the assess ssment and resulting ranking of potential NFM options is included ed in Table 8.26 below. Figures GB11820_M_013 through th to GB11820_M_016 (Appendix D) illustrate the potential al location l of the NFM measures within each catchmen ent. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 65 Document Reference:1138879 Table 8.26: Proposed NFM Options and Ranking NFM Action Carsphairn Runoff Reduction Carsphairn River Reach & Floodplain Storage Clatteringsh aws Runoff Reduction Future Adaptation Timescale Realisation Works D Delivery Maintenance Hydrological Benefit Environme mental Benefit No foreseeable issues with future flood mitigation proposals 2 years plus 12 to 18 months M Medium Low Carsphairn Very High Flora & Fauna High Dalry Floodplain Low Soil Moderate New Galloway Low Water High Clatteringshaws Loch N/A High Castle Douglas Low Use of Natural Resources es Kirkcudbright Low Landscape pe Very Low Carsphairn High Flora & Fauna High Dalry Floodplain Very Low Soil Moderate New Galloway No foreseeable issues with future flood mitigation proposals No foreseeable issues with future flood mitigation proposals Galloway Glens Partnership 12 to 18 months 2 years plus C Cost 6 to 12 months 2 years plus H High L Low Low Low Very Low Water Very Low Clatteringshaws Loch N/A High Castle Douglas Negligible Use of Natural Resources es Kirkcudbright Negligible Landscape pe Very Low Carsphairn N/A Flora & Fauna High Dalry Floodplain N/A Soil High New Galloway N/A Water Medium Clatteringshaws Loch High High Castle Douglas Low Use of Natural Resources es Kirkcudbright Low Landscape pe Very Low Social Benefit Rank 1) Reduced flood risk. 2) Enhanced community engagement. 3) Increased biodiversity. 1 1) Reduced flood risk. 2) Enhanced community engagement. 3) Increased biodiversity. 2 1) Reduced flood risk. 2) Enhanced community engagement. 3) Increased biodiversity. 4) Improved relations between local community 3 06 December 2016 66 Document Reference:1138879 NFM Action New Galloway Runoff Reduction Future Adaptation Timescale Realisation Works D Delivery Maintenance Hydrological Benefit Environme mental Benefit No foreseeable issues with future flood mitigation proposals 2 years plus 12 to 18 months L Low Low Carsphairn N/A Flora & Fauna Medium Dalry Floodplain N/A Soil Very Low New Galloway Low Water Moderate Clatteringshaws Loch N/A High Castle Douglas Negligible Use of Natural Resources es Kirkcudbright Negligible Landscape pe Very Low Galloway Glens Partnership C Cost Social Benefit and Forestry Commission. 1) Reduced flood risk. 2) Enhanced community engagement. 3) Increased biodiversity. Rank 4 06 December 2016 67 Document Reference:1138879 9. Landowner and S Stakeholder Engagement The proposed NFM measures wer were presented at a series of meetings with key sstakeholders. This was an opportunity to open dialogue on the e assessment a approach and the measures proposed d in order to gather feedback that could be used to optimise the strategy s and finalise the options shortlist. The meet eetings arranged are detailed below. SEPA & DGC Flood Team– Natura ral Power, together with the Galloway Glens project ct team, attended a meeting with SEPA and Dumfries and Gallowa loway Council Flood Department on the 28th March 2017 20 at Castle Douglas Town Hall. The project team outlined th the methodology and modelling undertaken to arriv rrive at an initial short list of options for the Dee Catchment. Th There was broad acceptance of the approach and th that subject to reviewing the more detailed assessment reportss fo for Carsphairn the project should progress towards ds engaging landowners and the community in the project. Landowners - A meeting was held ld with landowners on the 13th March 2017 at Carsph sphairn Town Hall. This was attended by Andy Precious and McNa cNabb Laurie. The approach to the project was out utlined with a list of potential natural flood management optionss presented for consideration. This included image ges of each of the potential options used on similar schemes as a visual aid. It was made clear that all the optionss were in the feasibility stage and that Galloway Glens is not a statutory consultee with no powers to enforce e the measures. There was discussion on the wider landuse with within the study area and how this may affect flooding ing in the area. No objections were raised specifically to this study dy and its aims. Subsequent to this meeting landown owners were contacted via email to agree accesss to undertake site surveys. Where contact could not be made visual vis surveys were undertaken from the road side. Carpshairn Community Councils ls - A similar presentation was delivered to the Cars rsphairn Community Council on the 27th March 2017 as part of their th monthly community meetings. The presentation ion was slightly condensed in order to meet the 15 minutes allocate ated on the agenda but there was sufficient time to an answer questions and gather feedback on the project. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 68 Document Reference:1138879 10. Next Steps and Pr Progression Natural Power have undertaken an n assessment of NFM opportunities on the River De Dee catchment and identified and reviewed a short list of NFM mea easures that would provide hydrological, environmen ental and social benefits. An initial Option Appraisal has bee en undertaken to assess the merits of the short list lis options and determine a prioritised list of NFM measures. The he prioritised list of options is summarised in the table ble below. Table 10.1: Identified NFM Priority ity Options Option Priority Rank nking Carsphairn Runoff off Reduction 1 Carsphairn Riverr Re Reach and Floodplain Storage 2 Clatteringshaws Runoff Ru Reduction 3 New Galloway Runoff Run Reduction 4 ld b be to build on the initial option appraisal to complete ete a full Option Appraisal. The next stage of the project would Option Appraisal The Option Appraisal should identify tify and review the various identified options in orderr to t implement the prioritised measures and their relative advanta tages and disadvantages. The main objective is to provide pr sufficient information to reach agreement on a preferred d option o or options (in consultation with the landown wner/land manager and other stakeholders) and to outline addition onal assessments/surveys required to progress the pr preferred options This stage should be undertaken in consultation with the landowners and would requir uire land registry searches to accurately map landowner boundari aries prior to more detailed engagement on the mea easures being proposed and their micro siting. Other relevant stakeholders sta will also need to be consulted to reach ch agreement on a preferred option(s) and to outline additional as assessments/surveys required to progress the preferr erred option. The hydrological benefits presented ed in this report are based on the full implementation ion of the identified measures in the catchments. As the detail off the t option(s) is further refined in consultation with h tthe landowners there is the potential that the extent of the option tion(s) reduces from that presented in this study. The herefore, further modelling of the preferred option(s) should be e u undertaken to verify its hydrological benefits as the t details of the option(s) become more defined. The hydrolo logical benefits gained from the implementation off NFM NF measures depend on several factors including the nature eo of the individual catchment, the location and extent nt of the NFM measure within the individual catchments, the catchm chments influence in the overall hydrological processs and a the influence of varying the timing of catchment peak flows ws on the overall hydrological process. However, ass a crude approximation for informing landowner discussions on the option(s) it could be assumed that a percentag age reduction in the option(s) implemented area would have a similar percentage reduction in the flow reduc uction (e.g. if 100% option implementation is predicted to provid vide a 14% reduction in flow, then 50% option implem mentation could be assumed to provide a 7% reduction in flow). The option appraisal stage should review re the prioritised options and if appropriate cons nsider partial implementation of some options or elements from ea each of the identified options. The final outputs of an options appra praisal should build on this present study and include: e: • Options Appraisal report detailin iling each option considered and associated costs and nd benefits; • specification for the preferred option(s); op and • estimated costs. The Options Appraisal should iden entify project risks and develop corresponding riskk mitigation strategies to be adopted. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 69 Document Reference:1138879 Funding and sources of funding wil will be a key constraint to any option and should be considered as part of the Option Appraisal stage. Once a preferred option is agreed up upon, it can be taken forward to outline design and implementation. im Outline Design Once a preferred option has been sselected, outline designs should be developed that at can be discussed between all the relevant parties, prior to comm mmitting to detailed design. The outline design should uld include technical drawings showing the scope and extent of th the works, materials to be used, and reinstatement nt procedures. It should also include non-technical drawings, ske sketches or visualisations to indicate clearly whatt the t site will look like once measures are in place in order faci acilitate discussions. The outline design should be gradually gr amended until the landowner/ land manager, funder and an the regulatory/ planning authorities agree the desi esign. Detailed Design Detailed design should contain all the information required to obtain the necessa sary consents and to guide construction of works on the ground nd. It should be informed by a number of surveys and a assessments which will typically include: • flood risk assessment informed db by appropriate modelling; • hydromorphological assessment nt (e.g. to inform analysis of river dynamics in a river er channel prior to, and after, restoration). All assessments should be informed ed by the necessary surveys. Information should also als be gathered on potential ecological interests which could be impacted by the proposed measures or whose e presence p could impact the timing of groundworks. The final outputs of the detailed desi esign process should include: • engineering drawings; • non-technical drawings, sketche hes or visualisations; • details of all the surveys and ass ssessments undertaken; • information on approach to mode odelling and modelling outputs; • details of all consents; • construction method statements; ts; and • recommendations for maintenan ance and management. Implementation The implementation stage should co consider: • Timing of Works (to minimise the environmental impacts of the works, preferencess for f growing seasons, etc). • Staff resources (consideration of how to install the works using contractors, land managers, ma etc). • Legal considerations (contractua tual arrangement, landowner agreements, etc). Long Term Management and Moni onitoring The long-term management and ma aintenance of the site will need to be agreed with th the landowner/land manager on whose land the NFM measure re has been implemented. The nature of the mana nagement agreement will be dependent on the financial mechanis nisms being used to deliver the measure. Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 70 Document Reference:1138879 Appendix A – Catc atchment Characterisation Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management Title: River Dee Catchment Area 600000 Water of Deugh @ conf with Carsphairn Lane Key Water of Deugh @ Carsphairn River Dee Catchment Outline 590000 Secondary Catchment Outlines Water of Ken @ New Galloway 580000 River Dee @ Clatteringshaws Loch DRAFT A1 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. 570000 River Dee @ Mossdale Scale @ A3: 1:225,000 Coordinate System: British National Grid Licence. 560000 0 2.5 Date: 11-01-17 5 10 km Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_001 Drawing by: Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Checked by: AP Layout: N/A 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management Title: 600000 River Dee Catchment Area Elevation (m) Key Catchment Outline Elevation (m) <= 50 590000 >50 - 100 >100 - 150 >150 - 200 >200 - 275 >275 - 325 580000 >325 - 400 >400 - 500 >500 - 600 >600 DRAFT A1 570000 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. Scale @ A3: 1:225,000 560000 Coordinate System: British National Grid Licence. 0 2.5 Date: 06-12-16 5 10 km Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_002 Drawing by: 550000 Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Checked by: AP Layout: N/A 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management Title: 600000 River Dee Catchment Area Slope (Degrees) Key Catchment Outline Slope (Degrees) 0-3 590000 >3 - 6 >6 - 10 >10 - 15 580000 >15 DRAFT A1 570000 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. Scale @ A3: 1:225,000 560000 Coordinate System: British National Grid Licence. 0 2.5 Date: 06-12-16 5 10 km Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_003 Drawing by: 550000 Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Checked by: AP Layout: N/A 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management Title: 600000 River Dee Catchment Area LCM2007 Classification Key Catchment Outline LCM2007 Classification 1, Broadleaved Woodland 590000 2, Coniferous Woodland 3, Arable and Horticulture 4, Improved Grassland 5, Rough Grassland 8, Acid Grassland 10, Heather 11, Heather grassland 12, Bog 580000 13, Montane Habitat 14, Inland Rock 15, Saltwater 16, Freshwater 20, Littoral Sediment 22, Urban 23, Suburban DRAFT A1 570000 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. Scale @ A3: 1:225,000 560000 Coordinate System: British National Grid Licence. 0 2.5 Date: 06-12-16 5 10 km Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_004 Drawing by: 550000 Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Checked by: AP Layout: N/A 610000 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management Title: 600000 Environmental Designations Key Catchment Outline Special Protected Area Special Area of Conservation 590000 Site of Special Scientific Interest Cleugh SSSI Merrick Kells SAC & SSSI 580000 Hannaston Wood Water of Ken Woods SSSI Ellergower Moss SSSI Kenmure Holms SSSI DRAFT A1 Loch Ken and River Dee Marshes SPA Clatteringshaws Dam Quarry Cairnbaber SSSI Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. 570000 Airds of Kells Wood SSSI Loch Ken and River Dee Marshes SPA River Dee (Parton to Crossmichael) SSSI Cairnsmore of Fleet SSSI Woodhall Loch SSSI Scale @ A3: 1:225,000 Laughenghie and Airie Hills SSSI Threave and Carlingwark Loch SSSI Coordinate System: British National Grid © Crown Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence 0100031673. 560000 0 2.5 5 10 km Loch Ken and River Dee Marshes SPA Date: 11-01-17 Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_005 Drawing by: Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Checked by: AP Layout: N/A 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management Title: Predominant HOST Classification Key 600000 Catchment Outline Predominant HOST Classification HOST Class 5 Free draining permeable soils in unconsolidated sands or gravels with relatively high permeability and high storage capacity. HOST Class 7 Free draining permeable soils in unconsolidated sands or gravels with groundwater at less than 2m from the surface. HOST Class 12 Undrained lowland peaty soils waterlogged by groundwater. 590000 HOST Class 14 Soils seasonally waterlogged by perched water tables caused by impermeable subsoil or substrate layers. HOST Class 15 Permanently wet, peaty topped upland soils over relatively free draining permeable rocks. HOST Class 17 Relatively free draining soils with a large storage capacity over hard impermeable rocks with no storage capacity. HOST Class 19 Relatively free draining soils with a moderate storage capacity over hard impermeable rocks with no storage capacity. 580000 HOST Class 22 Relatively free draining soils with low storage capacity over hard impermeable rocks with no storage capacity. HOST Class 24 Slowly permeable, seasonally waterlogged soils over slowly permeable substrates with negligible storage capacity. HOST Class 27 Permanently wet, peaty topped upland soils over hard impermeable rocks with no storage capacity. HOST Class 29 Permanently wet upland blanket peat. 570000 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. Scale @ A3: 1:225,000 Coordinate System: British National Grid © Crown Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence 0100031673. 560000 0 2.5 Date: 05-01-17 5 10 km Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_006 Drawing by: DRAFT A1 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com Checked by: AP Layout: N/A 610000 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management Title: 600000 SEPA Morphological Pressures Key Catchment Outline Impoundments Bridges Boatslips 590000 Fords Intakes and Outfalls Pipe Cable Crossings Embankments (No Reinforcement) Hard Bank Reinforcement 580000 Partial Realignment Set Back Embankment Green Bank Reinforcement DRAFT A1 570000 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. Scale @ A3: 1:225,000 Coordinate System: British National Grid © Crown Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence 0100031673. 560000 0 2.5 Date: 21-12-16 5 10 km Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_007 Drawing by: Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Checked by: AP Layout: N/A 610000 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management Title: 600000 Soil Classification Key Catchment Outline Soil Classifications Alluvial soils Brown earths 590000 Ground-water gleys Peats Podzols Rankers 580000 Surface-water gleys DRAFT A1 570000 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. Scale @ A3: 1:225,000 Coordinate System: British National Grid © Crown Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence 0100031673. 560000 0 2.5 Date: 21-12-16 5 10 km Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_008 Drawing by: Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Checked by: AP Layout: N/A 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management 10564 Title: WFD RBMP Classification 600000 10563 10565 Key 10560 Catchment Outline 10559 RBMP 2015 River Classifcation 10566 Good status/potential 10567 10561 10562 Moderate status/potential 590000 Poor status/potential 10568 10558 Bad status/potential 10573 RBMP 2015 Waterbody Classification Good status/potential 10569 Moderate status/potential 580000 10549 Poor status/potential 10570 10572 10550 10761 10547 10548 10571 10556 DRAFT A1 10722 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. 570000 10551 10552 10546 10554 10553 Scale @ A3: 1:220,000 10555 Coordinate System: British National Grid © Crown Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence 0100031673. 560000 10574 0 10545 2.5 Date: 20-04-17 10575 10576 5 10 km Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_009 Drawing by: Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Checked by: AP Layout: N/A 240000 260000 280000 300000 Project: Galloway Glens, Dumfries & Galloway Title: Cultural Heritage and Landscape Designations Key 600000 Galloway Glens Catchment Scheduled Ancient Monument (1) Historic Gardens & Designed Landscapes (1) Ö × Listed building (1) 580000 DRAFT QA Source data reproduced with permission from: (1) SNH Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. Scale @ A3: 1:250,000 560000 Coordinate System: British National Grid Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2017. 0 2.5 Date: 19-04-17 5 10 km Prepared by: IW Ref: UKC11820_M_017_A3 Drawing by: Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com 240000 260000 280000 300000 ¯ Checked by: AP 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management Title: 600000 SNH Carbon Soils Classification Key Catchment Outline Carbon and Peatland 2016 Classification Class 1 Class 2 590000 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Mineral soil 580000 Non soil DRAFT A1 570000 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. Scale @ A3: 1:220,000 Coordinate System: British National Grid © Crown Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence 0100031673. 560000 0 2.5 Date: 20-04-17 5 10 km Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_018 Drawing by: Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Checked by: AP Layout: N/A 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management Title: 600000 QMED by Catchment Descriptors (cumecs) Key Catchment Outline HEC-HMS Model Junction Outlet at Tongland 2613 590000 Polharrow Burn J2768 - 40.72 Carlingwark Lane Canal J2539 - 11.69 2574 Shirmers Burn J2754 - 32.96 Carpshairn Lane J2613 - 138.37 Water of Ken J2574 - 85.15 2768 Loch Ken Inlet J3095 - 271.52 Clatteringshaws Loch Outlet J2742 61.89 580000 Black Water of Dee J2571 - 107.93 Loch Ken Outlet J2637 - 278.01 River Dee at Tongland (Oulet) - 293.51 3095 2742 DRAFT A1 2754 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. 570000 2571 Scale @ A3: 1:220,000 Coordinate System: British National Grid 2539 2637 © Crown Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence 0100031673. 560000 0 2.5 Date: 20-04-17 5 10 km Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_019 Drawing by: Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Checked by: AP Layout: N/A Document Reference:1138879 Appendix B – Lon ong List Figures Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 300000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management 600000 38 Title: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management Long Listing Catchments 39 Key 40 River Dee Catchment Outline 41 Primary Receptors Carsphairn NFM Long Listing Catchments 590000 42 Study Priority Areas SEPA Potential Vulnerable Areas 32 43 Dalry Floodplain 580000 49 52 33 44 New Galloway 29 Clatteringshaw Loch 31 34 DRAFT A1 570000 6 36 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. 45 14/11 37 35 30 47 46 48 Castle Douglas Scale @ A3: 1:230,000 560000 Coordinate System: British National Grid © Crown Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence 0100031673. 0 2.5 Date: 13-01-17 5 10 km Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_011 Drawing by: Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com 550000 Kirkcudbright 14/22 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 300000 Checked by: AP Layout: N/A Document Reference:1138879 Appendix C – NFM FM Measures Assessment Form rms Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 Document Reference:1138879 Long List Measures Not ot Taken T Forward Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 Option: New Galloway – Sediment Management Overview Sediment Management NFM Measures in Catchments at New Galloway (31) Feasibility Issues Future adaptation NFM measure benefit realisation Timescales of Works Estimated Cost to Deliver Maintenance costs Health & Safety Measures considered include: River bank restoration; Catchment 31. Overland sediment traps; Catchment 31. Landowner acceptance Funding Could potentially affect future flood prevention measures. 2 yrs+ 6 – 12 months High – potential excavation works requiring contractors with plant / machinery working in remote locations with difficult access and terrain. Likely require working within watercourses with associated H&S and environmental controls to manage construction works. Low NFM measures will require remote working in upland environment and within watercourses. Works have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain (i.e. upland streams with steep banks). Land Owner Involved: Name: Address: Details of contact: Benefit Assessment Hydrological Benefit Compliance % Reduction in Flows for Point Return Period 1:2 1:10 1:50 1:200 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain New Galloway Clatteringshaws 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 Importance of Impacted Receptor N/A N/A Medium N/A Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome N/A N/A Small N/A N/A N/A Low N/A Notes / Assumptions Percentage reduction in flow considered insufficient to implement NFM measures and therefore options have not been considered further. Loch Castle Douglas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kirkcubright 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Environmental Benefit Environmental Description and Quantification Receptor Very High Very High Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Importance Magnitude of of Impact Impacted Receptor Benefit Outcome Social Benefit Option Summary Measures considered include: River bank restoration; Catchment 31. Overland sediment traps; Catchment 31. Progress Option to Short List No Notes / Assumptions Option: Clatteringshaws Loch – River Reach & Floodplain Storage Overview River Reach and Floodplain Storage NFM Measures in Catchments at Clatteringshaws (29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 and 49) Feasibility Issues Future adaptation NFM measure benefit realisation Timescales of Works Estimated Cost to Deliver Maintenance costs Health & Safety Measures considered include: Instream Structures; Catchments 29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 & 49 Landowner acceptance Funding No foreseeable issues with future flood mitigation proposals Following installation 6 months Medium/High – works requiring contractors with plant / machinery working in remote locations with difficult access and terrain and working within watercourses. Medium NFM measures will require remote working in upland environment and within watercourses. Works have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain (i.e. adjacent to upland streams with steep banks). Land Owner Involved: Name: Address: Details of contact: Benefit Assessment Hydrological Benefit Compliance % Reduction in Flows for Point Return Period 1:2 1:10 1:50 1:200 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Importance of Impacted Receptor N/A N/A N/A Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes / Assumptions Percentage reduction in flow considered insufficient to implement NFM measures and therefore options have not Clatteringshaws 3.3 1.1 1.4 2.4 Loch Castle Douglas 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.4 Kirkcubright 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 Environmental Benefit Environmental Description and Quantification Receptor Medium Very Small Very Low Very High Very High Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Importance Magnitude of of Impact Impacted Receptor Benefit Outcome Flora and Fauna Soil Water Use of natural resources Landscape Cultural heritage Social Benefits Option Summary Measures considered include: Instream Structures on Catchments 29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 & 49. Progress Option to Short List No been considered further. Notes / Assumptions Option: Clatteringshaws Loch – Sediment Management Overview Sediment Management NFM Measures in Catchments at Clatteringshaws (29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 & 49) Feasibility Issues Future adaptation NFM measure benefit realisation Timescales of Works Estimated Cost to Deliver Maintenance costs Health & Safety Measures considered include: River bank restoration; Catchments 29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 & 49. Landowner acceptance Funding Could potentially affect future flood prevention measures. 2 yrs+ 6 – 12 months High – potential excavation works requiring contractors with plant / machinery working in remote locations with difficult access and terrain. Likely require working within watercourses with associated H&S and environmental controls to manage construction works. Low NFM measures will require remote working in upland environment and within watercourses. Works have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain (i.e. upland streams with steep banks). Land Owner Involved: Name: Address: Details of contact: Benefit Assessment Hydrological Benefit Compliance % Reduction in Flows for Point Return Period 1:2 1:10 1:50 1:200 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain New Galloway Clatteringshaws 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Importance of Impacted Receptor N/A N/A N/A Medium Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome N/A N/A N/A Negligible N/A N/A N/A Negligible Notes / Assumptions Percentage reduction in flow considered insufficient to implement NFM measures and therefore options have not been considered further. Loch Castle Douglas 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 Kirkcubright 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 Environmental Benefit Environmental Description and Quantification Receptor Very High Very High Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Importance Magnitude of of Impact Impacted Receptor Benefit Outcome Social Benefit Option Summary Measures considered include: River bank restoration; Catchments 29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 & 49. Progress Option to Short List No Notes / Assumptions Option: Castle Douglas – River Reach & Floodplain Storage Overview River Reach and Floodplain Storage NFM Measures in Catchments at Castle Douglas (6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 47, 48) Feasibility Issues Future adaptation NFM measure benefit realisation Timescales of Works Estimated Cost to Deliver Maintenance costs Health & Safety Measures considered include: Instream Structures; Catchments 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 47 & 48 Riparian Woodland; Catchments 35 & 48 Washlands & Offline Storage Ponds; Catchment 6 Landowner acceptance Funding No foreseeable issues with future flood mitigation proposals 12 – 18 months 6 – 12 months Medium/High – potential excavation works requiring contractors with plant / machinery working in remote locations with difficult access and terrain. Low NFM measures will require remote working in upland environment and within watercourses. Works have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain (i.e. adjacent to upland streams with steep banks). Land Owner Involved: Name: Address: Details of contact: Benefit Assessment Hydrological Benefit Compliance % Reduction in Flows for Point Return Period 1:2 1:10 1:50 1:200 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Importance of Impacted Receptor N/A N/A Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes / Assumptions Percentage reduction in flow considered insufficient to New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clatteringshaws 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Loch Castle Douglas 1.0 1.2 0.6 1.2 Kirkcubright 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.1 Environmental Benefit Environmental Description and Quantification Receptor N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Very High Very High Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Importance Magnitude of of Impact Impacted Receptor Benefit Outcome Flora and Fauna Soil Water Use of natural resources Landscape Cultural heritage Social Benefits Option Summary Measures considered include: Instream Structures; Catchments 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 47 & 48. Riparian Woodland; Catchments 35 & 48. Washlands & Offline Storage Ponds; Catchment 6. Progress Option to Short List No implement NFM measures and therefore options have not been considered further. Notes / Assumptions Option: Castle Douglas Runoff Reduction Overview Runoff Reduction NFM Measures in Catchments at Castle Douglas (6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 47, 48) Feasibility Issues Future adaptation NFM measure benefit realisation Timescales of Works Estimated Cost to Deliver Maintenance costs Health & Safety Measures considered include: Upland drainage modifications; Catchments 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46 and 47 Land and soil management practices; Catchments 35 and 48 Landowner acceptance Funding No foreseeable issues with future flood mitigation proposals 2 yrs+ 12 – 18 months High – potential excavation works requiring contractors with plant / machinery working in remote locations with difficult access and terrain. Low NFM measures will require remote working in upland environment and adjacent to watercourses. Works have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain (i.e. adjacent to upland streams with steep banks). Land Owner Involved: Name: Address: Details of contact: Benefit Assessment Hydrological Benefit Compliance % Reduction in Flows for Point Return Period 1:2 1:10 1:50 1:200 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Importance of Impacted Receptor N/A N/A N/A Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes / Assumptions Percentage reduction in flow considered insufficient to implement NFM measures and therefore options have not Clatteringshaws 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Loch Castle Douglas 1.2 1.4 0.7 1.2 Kirkcubright 0.9 1.0 0.7 1.1 Environmental Benefit Environmental Description and Quantification Receptor N/A N/A N/A Very High Very High Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Importance Magnitude of of Impact Impacted Receptor Benefit Outcome Flora and Fauna Soil Water Use of natural resources Landscape Cultural heritage Social Benefits Option Summary Measures considered include: Upland drainage modifications; Catchments 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46 and 47 Land and soil management practices; Catchments 35 and 48 Progress Option to Short List No been considered further. Notes / Assumptions Option: Castle Douglas – Sediment Management Overview Sediment Management NFM Measures in Catchments at Castle Douglas (6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 47, 48) Feasibility Issues Future adaptation NFM measure benefit realisation Timescales of Works Estimated Cost to Deliver Maintenance costs Health & Safety Measures considered include: River bank restoration; Catchments 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, & 47. River morphology and floodplain restoration; Catchment 6. Overland sediment traps; Catchments 35 & 48. Landowner acceptance Funding Could potentially affect future flood prevention measures. 2 yrs+ 6 – 12 months High – potential excavation works requiring contractors with plant / machinery working in remote locations with difficult access and terrain. Likely require working within watercourses with associated H&S and environmental controls to manage construction works. Low NFM measures will require remote working in upland environment and within watercourses. Works have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain (i.e. upland streams with steep banks). Land Owner Involved: Name: Address: Details of contact: Benefit Assessment Hydrological Benefit Compliance % Reduction in Flows for Point Return Period 1:2 1:10 1:50 1:200 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Importance of Impacted Receptor N/A N/A Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes / Assumptions Percentage reduction in flow considered insufficient to New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clatteringshaws 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Loch Castle Douglas 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.4 Kirkcubright 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.4 Environmental Benefit Environmental Description and Quantification Receptor N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Very High Very High Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Importance Magnitude of of Impact Impacted Receptor Benefit Outcome Social Benefit Option Summary Measures considered include: River bank restoration; Catchments 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, & 47. River morphology and floodplain restoration; Catchment 6. Overland sediment traps; Catchments 35 & 48. Progress Option to Short List No implement NFM measures and therefore options have not been considered further. Notes / Assumptions Option: Kirkcudbright – River Reach & Floodplain Storage Overview River Reach and Floodplain Storage NFM Measures in Catchments at Kirkcudbright (6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 47, 48) Feasibility Issues Future adaptation NFM measure benefit realisation Timescales of Works Estimated Cost to Deliver Maintenance costs Health & Safety Measures considered include: Instream Structures; Catchments 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 47 & 48 Riparian Woodland; Catchments 35 & 48 Washlands & Offline Storage Ponds; Catchment 6 Landowner acceptance Funding No foreseeable issues with future flood mitigation proposals 12 – 18 months 6 – 12 months Medium/High – potential excavation works requiring contractors with plant / machinery working in remote locations with difficult access and terrain. Low NFM measures will require remote working in upland environment and within watercourses. Works have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain (i.e. adjacent to upland streams with steep banks). Land Owner Involved: Name: Address: Details of contact: Benefit Assessment Hydrological Benefit Compliance % Reduction in Flows for Point Return Period 1:2 1:10 1:50 1:200 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Importance of Impacted Receptor N/A N/A Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes / Assumptions Percentage reduction in flow considered insufficient to New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clatteringshaws 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Loch Castle Douglas 1.0 1.2 0.6 1.2 Kirkcubright 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.1 Environmental Benefit Environmental Description and Quantification Receptor N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Very High Very High Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Importance Magnitude of of Impact Impacted Receptor Benefit Outcome Flora and Fauna Soil Water Use of natural resources Landscape Cultural heritage Social Benefits Option Summary Measures considered include: Instream Structures; Catchments 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 47 & 48. Riparian Woodland; Catchments 35 & 48. Washlands & Offline Storage Ponds; Catchment 6. Progress Option to Short List No implement NFM measures and therefore options have not been considered further. Notes / Assumptions Option: Kirkcudbright – Runoff Reduction Overview Runoff Reduction NFM Measures in Catchments at Kirkcudbright (6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 47, 48) Feasibility Issues Future adaptation NFM measure benefit realisation Timescales of Works Estimated Cost to Deliver Maintenance costs Health & Safety Measures considered include: Upland drainage modifications; Catchments 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46 and 47 Land and soil management practices; Catchments 35 and 48 Landowner acceptance Funding No foreseeable issues with future flood mitigation proposals 2 yrs+ 12 – 18 months High – potential excavation works requiring contractors with plant / machinery working in remote locations with difficult access and terrain. Low NFM measures will require remote working in upland environment and adjacent to watercourses. Works have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain (i.e. adjacent to upland streams with steep banks). Land Owner Involved: Name: Address: Details of contact: Benefit Assessment Hydrological Benefit Compliance % Reduction in Flows for Point Return Period 1:2 1:10 1:50 1:200 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Importance of Impacted Receptor N/A N/A N/A Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes / Assumptions Percentage reduction in flow considered insufficient to implement NFM measures and therefore options have not Clatteringshaws 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Loch Castle Douglas 1.2 1.4 0.7 1.2 Kirkcubright 0.9 1.0 0.7 1.1 Environmental Benefit Environmental Description and Quantification Receptor N/A N/A N/A Very High Very High Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Importance Magnitude of of Impact Impacted Receptor Benefit Outcome Flora and Fauna Soil Water Use of natural resources Landscape Cultural heritage Social Benefits Option Summary Measures considered include: Upland drainage modifications; Catchments 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46 and 47 Land and soil management practices; Catchments 35 and 48 Progress Option to Short List No been considered further. Notes / Assumptions Option: Kirkcudbright – Sediment Management Overview Sediment Management NFM Measures in Catchments at Castle Douglas (6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 47, 48) Feasibility Issues Future adaptation NFM measure benefit realisation Timescales of Works Estimated Cost to Deliver Maintenance costs Health & Safety Measures considered include: River bank restoration; Catchments 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, & 47. River morphology and floodplain restoration; Catchment 6. Overland sediment traps; Catchments 35 & 48. Landowner acceptance Funding Could potentially affect future flood prevention measures. 2 yrs+ 6 – 12 months High – potential excavation works requiring contractors with plant / machinery working in remote locations with difficult access and terrain. Likely require working within watercourses with associated H&S and environmental controls to manage construction works. Low NFM measures will require remote working in upland environment and within watercourses. Works have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain (i.e. upland streams with steep banks). Land Owner Involved: Name: Address: Details of contact: Benefit Assessment Hydrological Benefit Compliance % Reduction in Flows for Point Return Period 1:2 1:10 1:50 1:200 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Importance of Impacted Receptor N/A N/A Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes / Assumptions Percentage reduction in flow considered insufficient to New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clatteringshaws 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Loch Castle Douglas 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.4 Kirkcubright 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.4 Environmental Benefit Environmental Description and Quantification Receptor N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Very High Very High Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Importance Magnitude of of Impact Impacted Receptor Benefit Outcome Social Benefit Option Summary Measures considered include: River bank restoration; Catchments 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, & 47. River morphology and floodplain restoration; Catchment 6. Overland sediment traps; Catchments 35 & 48. Progress Option to Short List No implement NFM measures and therefore options have not been considered further. Notes / Assumptions Option: Carsphairn – Sediment Management Overview Sediment Management NFM Measures in Catchments upstream of Carsphairn (38, 39, 40, 41 & 42) Feasibility Issues Future adaptation NFM measure benefit realisation Timescales of Works Estimated Cost to Deliver Maintenance costs Health & Safety Measures considered include: River bank restoration; Catchments 38, 39, 41 and 42. Overland sediment traps; Catchments 40, 41 and 42. Landowner acceptance Funding Could potentially affect future flood prevention measures. 2 yrs+ 6 – 12 months High – potential excavation works requiring contractors with plant / machinery working in remote locations with difficult access and terrain. Likely require working within watercourses with associated H&S and environmental controls to manage construction works. Low NFM measures will require remote working in upland environment and within watercourses. Works have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain (i.e. upland streams with steep banks). Land Owner Involved: Name: Address: Details of contact: Benefit Assessment Hydrological Benefit Compliance % Reduction in Flows for Point Return Period 1:2 1:10 1:50 1:200 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain New Galloway Clatteringshaws 1.5 0.8 0.8 0.0 1.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.7 0.6 0.0 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.0 Importance of Impacted Receptor High Medium Medium N/A Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome Negligible Negligible Negligible N/A Negligible Negligible Negligible N/A Notes / Assumptions Percentage reduction in flow considered insufficient to implement NFM measures and therefore options have not been considered further. Loch Castle Douglas 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.4 Kirkcubright 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.3 Environmental Benefit Environmental Description and Quantification Receptor Very High Very High Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Importance Magnitude of of Impact Impacted Receptor Benefit Outcome Social Benefit Option Summary Measures considered include: River bank restoration; Catchments 38, 39, 41 and 42. Overland sediment traps; Catchments 40, 41 and 42. Progress Option to Short List No Notes / Assumptions Option: Dalry Floodplain – River Reach & Floodplain Storage Overview River Reach and Floodplain Storage NFM Measures in Catchments at Dalry Floodplain (52) Feasibility Issues Future adaptation NFM measure benefit realisation Timescales of Works Estimated Cost to Deliver Maintenance costs Health & Safety Measures considered include: Washlands & Offline Storage Ponds; Catchment 52 Floodplain woodland; Catchment 52 Landowner acceptance Funding No foreseeable issues with future flood mitigation proposals 2 yrs+ 6 – 12 months Medium –plant / machinery working in relatively remote locations with potentially relatively difficult access and terrain. Low NFM measures will require remote working in upland environment and adjacent to watercourses. Works have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain (i.e. adjacent to upland streams with steep banks). Land Owner Involved: Name: Address: Details of contact: Benefit Assessment Hydrological Benefit Compliance % Reduction in Flows for Point Return Period 1:2 1:10 1:50 1:200 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain New Galloway Clatteringshaws Loch 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 Importance of Impacted Receptor N/A Medium Medium N/A Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome N/A Negligible Negligible N/A N/A Negligible Negligible N/A Notes / Assumptions Percentage reduction in flow considered insufficient to implement NFM measures and therefore options have not been considered further. Castle Douglas 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 Kirkcubright 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 Environmental Benefit Environmental Description and Quantification Receptor Very High Very High Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Importance Magnitude of of Impact Impacted Receptor Benefit Outcome Flora and Fauna Soil Water Use of natural resources Landscape Cultural heritage Social Benefits Option Summary Measures considered include: Washlands & Offline Storage Ponds; Catchment 52 Floodplain woodland; Catchment 52 Progress Option to Short List No Notes / Assumptions Option: New Galloway – River Reach & Floodplain Storage Overview River Reach and Floodplain Storage NFM Measures in Catchments at New Galloway (31) Feasibility Issues Future adaptation NFM measure benefit realisation Timescales of Works Estimated Cost to Deliver Maintenance costs Health & Safety Measures considered include: Riparian Woodland; Catchment 31 Landowner acceptance Funding No foreseeable issues with future flood mitigation proposals 2 yrs+ 6 – 12 months Medium – works requiring contractors with plant / machinery working in remote locations with difficult access and terrain adjacent to watercourses. Low NFM measures will require remote working in upland environment adjacent to watercourses. Works have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain (i.e. adjacent to upland streams with steep banks). Land Owner Involved: Name: Address: Details of contact: Benefit Assessment Hydrological Benefit Compliance % Reduction in Flows for Point Return Period 1:2 1:10 1:50 1:200 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain New Galloway Clatteringshaws 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 Importance of Impacted Receptor N/A N/A Medium N/A Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome N/A N/A Negligible N/A N/A N/A Negligible N/A Notes / Assumptions Percentage reduction in flow considered insufficient to implement NFM measures and therefore options have not been considered further. Loch Castle Douglas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kirkcubright 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Environmental Benefit Environmental Description and Quantification Receptor Very High Very High Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Importance Magnitude of of Impact Impacted Receptor Benefit Outcome Flora and Fauna Soil Water Use of natural resources Landscape Cultural heritage Social Benefits Option Summary Measures considered include: Riparian Woodland; Catchment 31 Progress Option to Short List No Notes / Assumptions Document Reference:1138879 Long List Measures Take ken Forward Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 Option: Carsphairn – Runoff Reduction Overview Runoff Reduction NFM Measures in Catchments upstream of Carsphairn (38, 39, 40, 41 & 42) Feasibility Issues Future adaptation NFM measure benefit realisation Timescales of Works Estimated Cost to Deliver Maintenance costs Health & Safety Measures considered include: Land and Soil Management Practices; Catchments 40, 41 & 42 Riparian Woodland; Catchments 38, 39, 40, 41 & 42 Upland Drainage Modifications; Catchments 38, 39, 40, 41 & 42 Landowner acceptance Funding No foreseeable issues with future flood mitigation proposals 2 yrs+ 12 – 18 months Medium – potential excavation works requiring contractors with plant / machinery working in remote locations with difficult access and terrain. Low NFM measures will require remote working in upland environment and adjacent to watercourses. Works have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain (i.e. adjacent to upland streams with steep banks). Land Owner Involved: Name: Address: Details of contact: Benefit Assessment Hydrological Benefit Compliance % Reduction in Flows for Point Return Period 1:2 1:10 1:50 1:200 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain 23.4 6.0 16.9 4.8 13.0 4.3 10.6 3.6 Importance of Impacted Receptor High Medium Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome Very Large Small Very High Low Notes / Assumptions New Galloway 5.7 4.4 3.9 3.3 Clatteringshaws 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Loch Castle Douglas 2.9 2.2 1.8 1.7 Kirkcudbright 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.7 Environmental Benefit Environmental Description and Quantification Receptor Flora and Fauna Flows into the River Dee which is a Category 3 salmon conservation river. Soil Improving soil quality Water Medium N/A Small N/A Low N/A Very High Very High Very Small Very Small Low Low Importance Magnitude of of Impact Impacted Receptor High Medium Benefit Outcome Notes / Assumptions High Medium Moderate NFM measures have the potential to provide a positive benefit due to habitat improvement. Improvements are unlikely to have no effect on salmon because no river / ground water works are required. NFM measures have the potential to improve the quality of the soil via the improved retention of water via upland drainage modifications. Majority of the catchment is classed as 5. Small areas of the catchment are classed as a nationally important soil resource (classes 1 & 2) with the lower reaches classed as being soils that are associated with not being a priority peatland habitat but are associated with wet and acidic conditions (3). Pressures result in poor WFD High status of the Carsphairn Lane, Water of Deugh, Bow Burn and Garryhorn Burn catchments. It is currently assumed that this status applies to the associated Medium The consideration of woodland planting as well as hedgerows has the potential to provide a positive impact via a reduction in the erosion of soils from watercourse banks as well as through overland sheet flow Medium High The NFM measures are unlikely to change the WFD status of the overall catchments due to the existing and potential future catchment pressures as well as the spatial extent of measures considered. However, implementation of NFM has the potential to tributary catchments Use of natural resources Landscape Cultural heritage NFM measures would utilise High natural processes and materials. Dominated by upland and Medium forestry landscape character types No direct impacts N/A provide improvements to tributary catchments at a local scale. Medium High Low Small Very low N/A N/A There are no proposals to reduce existing structures on watercourses or alter existing hydropower operations. Enhancing existing flood plain capacity. Utilising natural resources. Small scale change using native plants. Unlikely to alter landscape character All measures will avoid direct impact on cultural heritage designations Social Benefits Benefits through reduced flood risk. Potential to enhance community engagement and interaction through implementation of a pilot project. Increased biodiversity and potential enhanced access to new amenity areas. Option Summary Measures considered include: Land and Soil Management Practices; Catchments 38 & 39, Riparian Woodland; Catchments 38, 39, 40, & 41. Woodland should include deciduous trees as far as possible. Upland Drainage Modifications; Catchments 38 & 39, Agricultural and Upland Drainage Modifications; Catchments 41 & 42. Progress Option to Short List Yes Option: Carsphairn – River Reach & Floodplain Storage Overview River Reach and Floodplain Storage NFM Measures in Catchments upstream of Carsphairn (38, 39, 40, 41 & 42) Feasibility Issues Future adaptation NFM measure benefit realisation Timescales of Works Estimated Cost to Deliver Maintenance costs Health & Safety Measures considered include: Instream Structures; Catchments 38, 39, 40, 41 & 42 Floodplain Woodland; Catchments 40, 41 & 42 Riparian Woodland; Catchment 38, 39, 40, 41 & 42 Washlands & Offline Storage Ponds; Catchment 42 Landowner acceptance Funding No foreseeable issues with future flood mitigation proposals 12 – 18 months 6 – 12 months High – potential excavation works requiring contractors with plant / machinery working in remote locations with difficult access and terrain. Low NFM measures will require remote working in upland environment and within watercourses. Works have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain (i.e. adjacent to upland streams with steep banks). Land Owner Involved: Name: Address: Details of contact: Benefit Assessment Hydrological Benefit Compliance % Reduction in Flows for Point Return Period 1:2 1:10 1:50 1:200 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain 10.3 3.8 7.8 3.1 6.2 2.7 5.2 2.6 Importance of Impacted Receptor High Medium Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome Medium Very Small High Very Low Notes / Assumptions New Galloway 3.4 2.9 2.4 2.3 Clatteringshaws 0 0 0 0 Loch Castle Douglas 2.0 1.6 1.1 1.2 Kirkcudbright 1.7 1.5 1.1 1.2 Environmental Benefit Environmental Description and Quantification Receptor Flora and Fauna Improving habitat biodiversity. Flows into the River Dee which is a Category 3 salmon conservation river. Medium N/A Very Small N/A Very Low N/A Very High Very High Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Importance Magnitude of of Impact Impacted Receptor High Medium Benefit Outcome Notes / Assumptions High Instream structures has the potential to be negative when considered on the whole but with mitigation, limiting measures to instream structures in the upland headwater only will ensure passage of fish leading to no negative impact. Floodplain and/or riparian woodland have the potential to provide a positive impact via the creation of potential habitat Soil Improving soil quality Majority of the catchment is classed as 5. Small areas of the catchment are classed as a nationally important soil resource (classes 1 & 2) with the lower reaches classed as being soils that are associated with not being a priority peatland Medium Medium Moderate Washland and/or offline storage ponds have the potential to create additional habitat. NFM measures have the potential to improve the quality of the soil via the improved retention of water via upland drainage modifications. The consideration of woodland planting as well as washland and offline storage ponds has the potential to provide a positive impact via a reduction in the erosion of soils from watercourse banks as well as through overland sheet flow Water Use of natural resources Landscape Cultural heritage habitat but are associated with wet and acidic conditions (3). Pressures result in poor WFD status of the Carsphairn Lane, Water of Deugh, Bow Burn and Garryhorn Burn catchments. It is currently assumed that this status applies to the associated tributary catchments High NFM measures would utilise High natural processes and materials. Dominated by upland and Medium forestry landscape character types No direct impacts N/A Small Very low Medium High Low Small Very low N/A N/A The NFM measures are unlikely to change the WFD status of the overall catchments due to the existing and potential future catchment pressures as well as the spatial extent of measures considered. However, implementation of NFM has the potential to provide improvements to tributary catchments at a local scale. There are no proposals to reduce existing structures on watercourses or alter existing hydropower operations. Enhancing existing flood plain capacity. Utilising natural resources. Small scale change using native plants. Unlikely to alter landscape character. All measures will avoid direct impact on cultural heritage designations. Social Benefits Benefits through reduced flood risk. Potential to enhance community engagement and interaction through implementation of a pilot project. Increased biodiversity and potential enhanced access to new amenity areas. Option Summary Measures considered include: Instream Structures on Catchments 38, 39, 40, 41 & 42. Instream structures should be limited to the upland headwaters to avoid issues with migratory fish. Floodplain Woodland; Catchments 40 & 42. Woodland should include deciduous trees as far as possible. Riparian Woodland; Catchment 41. Woodland should include deciduous trees as far as possible. Washlands & Offline Storage Ponds; Catchment 42. Progress Option to Short List Yes Option: Clatteringshaws Loch – Runoff Reduction Overview Runoff Reduction NFM Measures in Catchments at Clatteringshaws Loch (29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 ,49) Feasibility Issues Future adaptation NFM measure benefit realisation Timescales of Works Estimated Cost to Deliver Maintenance costs Health & Safety Land Owner Involved: Name: Address: Details of contact: Measures considered include: Land and Soil Management Practices; Catchments 29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 & 49. Upland Drainage Modifications; Catchments 29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 & 49. Landowner acceptance Funding No foreseeable issues with future flood mitigation proposals 2+ yrs (depends on forestry cycle) 2+ yrs (depends on forestry cycle) Low – assuming Forestry Commission implement Low NFM measures will require remote working in upland environment and adjacent to watercourses. Works have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain (i.e. adjacent to upland streams with steep banks). All surrounding land is Forestry Commission owned. All forestry operation and future planting will be to current best practice guidance. Design plans will be agreed with all statutory consultees. Benefit Assessment Hydrological Benefit Compliance % Reduction in Flows for Point Return Period 1:2 1:10 1:50 1:200 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Importance of Impacted Receptor N/A N/A N/A Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes / Assumptions Clatteringshaws 16.7 9.8 7.5 7.1 Loch Castle Douglas 2.8 1.9 1.1 1.1 Kirkcubright 2.6 1.8 1.2 1.1 Environmental Benefit Environmental Description and Quantification Receptor Flora and Fauna Soil Water 3 x SSSI’s,1 x SAC’s - Blanket bog. Remainder predominantly plantation forestry Improving soil quality Majority of the catchment is classed as 5. Small areas of the catchment are classed as a nationally important soil resource (classes 1 & 2). Significant areas of the catchment also classed as 3 or 4 which represents soils that are unlikely to be priority peatland habitat but are associated with wet and acidic conditions. Pressures result in poor WFD status of the Black Water of Dee and Garrary Burn catchments. Clatteringshaws Loch classed as having moderate status. It is currently assumed that this status applies to the associated Medium Very Large High Very High Very High Very Small Very Small Low Low Importance Magnitude of of Impact Impacted Receptor High Medium Benefit Outcome Notes / Assumptions High Based on improving existing SSSI’s and wider improvement to forestry High High NFM measures have the potential to improve the quality of the soil via the improved retention of water via upland drainage modifications. Medium Upland drainage modifications have the potential to support the outcomes of Peatland Action by improving carbon sequestration within drained peatlands and peaty soils. High Small Medium The NFM measures are unlikely to change the WFD status of the overall catchments due to the existing and potential future catchment pressures as well as the spatial extent of measures considered. However, implementation of NFM has the potential to provide improvements to tributary catchments at a local tributary catchments scale. There are no proposals to reduce existing structures on watercourses or alter existing hydropower operations. Use of natural resources Landscape Cultural heritage NFM measures would utilise High natural processes and materials. Dominated by upland and Medium forestry landscape character types N/A N/A Medium High Low Small Very low N/A Enhancing existing flood plan capacity. Utilising natural resources. Small scale change using native plants. Unlikely to alter landscape character All measures will avoid direct impact on cultural heritage designations Social Benefits Benefits through reduced flood risk. Potential to enhance community engagement and interaction through implementation of a pilot project. Increased biodiversity and potential enhanced access to new amenity areas. Improved communication and understanding between local residents and Forestry Commission operations and management. Option Summary Measures considered include: Land and Soil Management Practices; Catchments 29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 & 49. Upland Drainage Modifications; Catchments 29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 & 49. Progress Option to Short List Yes Option: New Galloway – Runoff Reduction Overview Runoff Reduction NFM Measures in Catchments at New Galloway (31)) Feasibility Issues Future adaptation NFM measure benefit realisation Timescales of Works Estimated Cost to Deliver Maintenance costs Health & Safety Measures considered include: Land and Soil Management Practices; Catchment 31 Riparian Woodland; Catchments 31 Landowner acceptance Funding No foreseeable issues with future flood mitigation proposals 2 yrs+ 12 – 18 months Low – potential excavation works requiring contractors with plant / machinery working in remote locations with difficult access and terrain. Low NFM measures will require remote working in upland environment and adjacent to watercourses. Works have the potential to be located in areas of steep terrain (i.e. adjacent to upland streams with steep banks). Land Owner Involved: Name: Address: Details of contact: Benefit Assessment Hydrological Benefit Compliance % Reduction in Flows for Point Return Period 1:2 1:10 1:50 1:200 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain New Galloway Clatteringshaws Loch 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 Importance of Impacted Receptor N/A N/A Medium N/A Magnitude of Impact Benefit Outcome N/A N/A Small N/A N/A N/A Low N/A Notes / Assumptions Castle Douglas 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Kirkcubright 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Environmental Benefit Environmental Description and Quantification Receptor Flora and Fauna Soil Water One SSSI (Kenmure Holms) immediately downstream. SPA on catchment boundary. No carbon or peatland classifications. SNH Carbon Soils and Priority Peatland Habitats classes the ctahcment Bad WFD status of Water of Ken catchment due to existing pressures. Moderate WFD status of the Knocknairling Burn. catcgment Very High Very High Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Importance Magnitude of of Impact Impacted Receptor High Small Benefit Outcome Low Small Very Low High Small Moderate Notes / Assumptions Medium The consideration of NFM woodland planting as well as hedgerows has the potential to provide a positive impact via a reduction in the erosion of soils from watercourse banks as well as through overland sheet flow Assumed similar Moderate status associated with the Knocknairling Burn can also apply to Mill Burn due to small size of catchment The NFM measures are unlikely to change the WFD status of the overall catchments due to the existing and potential future catchment pressures as well as the spatial extent of measures considered. However, implementation of NFM has the potential to provide improvements to tributary catchments at a local scale. Use of natural resources Landscape Upland rough grazing land High Medium High Medium Low Small Very low There are no proposals to reduce existing structures on watercourses or alter existing hydropower operations. Enhancing existing flood plan capacity. Utilising natural resources. Small scale change using native plants. Unlikely to alter Cultural heritage character No direct impacts N/A N/A N/A landscape character All measures will avoid direct impact on cultural heritage designations Social Benefits Benefits through reduced flood risk. Potential to enhance community engagement and interaction through implementation of a pilot project. Increased biodiversity and potential enhanced access to new amenity areas. Option Summary Measures considered include: Land and Soil Management Practices; Catchment 31 Riparian Woodland; Catchments 31 . Woodland should include deciduous trees as far as possible. Upland Drainage Modifications; Catchment 31 Progress Option to Short List Yes 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 300000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management 38 Title: 600000 Long Listing Catchments (Hydrological Screening) 39 Key 40 River Dee Catchment Outline 41 Carsphairn Primary Receptors ! ! NFM considerations after hydrological screening 590000 42 Yes (subject to further investigation) No (hydrological screening did not show significant changes in flow as a result of NFM) Study Priority Areas 32 SEPA Potential Vulnerable Areas 43 Dalry Floodplain 580000 49 ! 33 44 New Galloway 29 34 52 ! Clatteringshaw Loch 31 ! DRAFT A1 570000 6 36 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. 45 14/11 37 35 30 47 46 48 Castle Douglas ! Scale @ A3: 1:230,000 560000 Coordinate System: British National Grid © Crown Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence 0100031673. 0 2.5 Date: 27-02-17 10 km 5 Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_012 Drawing by: Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com Kirkcudbright 550000 !14/22 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 300000 ¯ Checked by: AP Layout: N/A Document Reference:1138879 Appendix D – Shortt List Li NFM Measures for Initial Option Op Appraisal Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 300000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management 600000 38 Title: Short Listing Catchments (Subject to Landowner Agreement) 39 Key 40 River Dee Catchment Outline 41 Carsphairn Primary Receptors ! ! Study Priority Areas 590000 42 SEPA Potential Vulnerable Areas NFM Short Listing Catchments Runoff reduction Runoff reduction & River reach and floodplain storage 32 NFM not considered at this time 43 Dalry Floodplain 580000 49 ! 33 44 New Galloway 29 34 52 ! Clatteringshaw Loch 31 ! DRAFT A1 570000 6 36 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. 45 14/11 37 35 30 47 46 48 Castle Douglas ! Scale @ A3: 1:230,000 560000 Coordinate System: British National Grid © Crown Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence 0100031673. 0 2.5 Date: 15-03-17 10 km 5 Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_013 Drawing by: Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com Kirkcudbright 550000 !14/22 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 300000 ¯ Checked by: AP Layout: N/A 250000 255000 260000 265000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management Title: 605000 Carsphairn Catchment Short Listed NFM Measures Key Primary receptors River Dee catchment outline 38 NFM short listing catchments Carsphairn NFM Areas Carsphairn NFM short listing (Grouped by Measure Group as per table 2.1 of the SEPA NFM handbook) River and Floodplain Restoration 5 Instream structures (Rivers identified for consideration) (river reach and floodplain storage) Washland and/or offline storage pond (river reach and floodplain storage) 600000 Woodland Creation Riparian woodland (runoff reduction/river reach and floodplain storage) Floodplain woodland (river reach and floodplain storaage 39 Land Management Low density native vegetation buffers Upland drainage modifications (runoff reduction) * Considerations are subject to landowner agreement and confirmation of fellingplans **Catchment 38 considers areas of felling that have been confirmed as a result of constructiuon of Windy Standard II, the South West Scotland Connections Project as well as potential areas of felling that may occur should Windy Standard III receive consent 4 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. 40 595000 41 3 2 Scale @ A3: 1:65,000 Coordinate System: British National Grid © Crown Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence 0100031673. Carsphairn 0 42 0.5 1 Date: 28-07-17 1 2 km Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_014 Drawing by: Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com 250000 255000 260000 265000 Checked by: AP Layout: N/A 250000 260000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management Title: Clatteringshaws Loch Short Listed NFM Measures Key Primary Receptors NFM Short Listing Catchments Upland Drainage Modifications* Areas considered for upland drainage management are based on the National Forest Inventory and areas identified as being "Felled", "Open", "Unplantable or bare" and "Unplanted Streamsides". 32 Data downloaded from Forestry Commission website on 23rd March 2017 at https://www.forestry.gov.uk/datadownload. Suitability of areas for upland drainage modification will be subject to approval from Forestry Commission Scotland 43 580000 49 33 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. 44 29 Clatteringshaw Loch 34 Scale @ A3: 1:60,000 Coordinate System: British National Grid © Crown Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence 0100031673. 0 0.75 Date: 23-03-17 1.5 Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_016 Drawing by: DRAFT A1 250000 260000 3 km Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com Checked by: AP Layout: N/A 261000 262000 263000 264000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management Title: 579000 New Galloway Catchment Short Listed NFM Measures Key Primary Receptors NFM Short Listing Catchments Land Management Practices Hedgerow Considerations (full extent of mapping based on field boundaries shown on aerial photography) Woodland Creation 578000 31 Riparian Woodland (based on watercourses with catchments >0.5km2) New Galloway *Hedge row considerations are based on planting along existing field boundaries. 577000 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. Scale @ A3: 1:15,000 Coordinate System: British National Grid © Crown Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence 0100031673. 0 0.125 0.25 576000 Date: 26-06-17 0.5 km Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_015 Drawing by: Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com 261000 262000 263000 264000 Checked by: AP Layout: N/A Document Reference:1138879 Appendix E – Hydrolo logical Model Figures, Results and a Tables Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 Document Reference:1138879 Hydrological Model Figur ures Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Project: Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management Title: 600000 HEC-HMS Model Extent Key River Dee Catchment Outline HEC-GeoHMS Subbasins (catchments >0.5km2) Carsphairn Primary Receptors 590000 Study Priority Areas SEPA Potential Vulnerable Areas 580000 Dalry Floodplain Clatteringshaw Loch New Galloway DRAFT A1 570000 Notes: a) Information on this map is directly reproduced from digital and other material from different sources. Minor discrepancies may therefore occur. Where further clarification is considered necessary, this is noted through the use of text boxes on the map itself. b) For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated: 1. where a line recorded in the key demarcates a boundary on this plan, the boundary edge is the outside edge of the line. 2. where a line or feature recorded in the key of this plan is also shown as a line or feature by the Ordnance Survey, and that line or feature is located in a different position on the ground than shown by the Ordnance Survey, then the line or feature shall be deemed to follow the position as existing on the ground. 3. this plan should be used for identification purposes only, unless specifically stated above or in accompanying documentation. 4. Natural Power Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of data supplied by third parties. 14/11 Castle Douglas Scale @ A3: 1:220,000 Coordinate System: British National Grid 560000 © Crown Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence 0100031673. 0 2.5 Date: 20-04-17 5 10 km Prepared by:KW Ref: GB11820_M_020 Drawing by: Natural Power Consultants Ltd The Green House Forrest Estate, Dalry Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS, UK Tel: +44 (0)1644 430008 Fax: +44 (0)845 299 1236 Email: sayhello@naturalpower.com www.naturalpower.com Kirkcudbright 14/22 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 Checked by: AP Layout: N/A Document Reference:1138879 Calibration Hydrographs hs The following hydrographs illustrate rate the comparison between the flow hydrograph h generated using the FEH methods and those produced byy tthe HEC-HMS model at the key calibration locat ations within the River Dee catchment. The reference (e.g. J261 613) relates to the particular node within the model el representing r the calibration location. J2613 - Carsphairn 450 400 Flow (m3/s) 350 300 250 200 FEH Flow 150 HMS Flow 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10121416 1618202224262830323436384042444648 Duration (Hrs) J2574 - Water of Ken 300 Flow (m3/s) 250 200 150 FEH Flow HMS Flow 100 50 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 0 Duration (Hrs) Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 Document Reference:1138879 J276 768 - Polharrow Burn Catchment 180 160 Flow (m3/s) 140 120 100 80 FEH Flow 60 HMS Flow 40 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 0 Duration (Hrs) J3095 - Intake to Loch Ken 1400 1200 Flow (m3/s) 1000 800 FEH Flow 600 HMS Flow 400 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 0 Duration (Hrs) Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 Document Reference:1138879 J275 2754 - Shirmers Burn Catchment 100 90 Flow (m3/s) 80 70 60 50 FEH Flow 40 HMS Flow 30 20 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 0 Duration (Hrs) J2742 - Downstream Do of Clatteringshaws Loch 600 Flow (m3/s) 500 400 300 FEH Flow HMS Flow 200 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 0 Duration (Hrs) Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 Document Reference:1138879 J2571 - Black Bla Water of Dee at inlet to Loch Ken 800 700 Flow (m3/s) 600 500 400 FEH Flow 300 HMS Flow 200 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 0 Duration (Hrs) J2637 - Downstream of outlet of Loch Ken 1800 1600 Flow (m3/s) 1400 1200 1000 800 FEH Flow 600 HMS Flow 400 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 0 Duration (Hrs) Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 Document Reference:1138879 J2539 - Carli rlingwark Lane Canal at Castle Douglas 50 45 Flow (m3/s) 40 35 30 25 FEH Flow 20 HMS Flow 15 10 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 0 Duration (Hrs) Outlet - Ups pstream of Kirkcudbright at Tongland 1800 1600 Flow (m3/s) 1400 1200 1000 800 FEH Flow 600 HMS Flow 400 200 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30 32.5 35 37.5 40 42.5 45 47.5 0 Duration (Hrs) Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 Document Reference:1138879 Long List Model Simulatio ations Table 10.2: Long List Model Simul ulations Model Run No. Compliance Point NFM Action NFM measures applied to Catchm hments Grouped Catchments NFM measures applied to 1 Carsphairn Rive ver Reach and Flood oodplain Stora orage Instream Structures 38, 39, 40, 41 & 42 Floodplain Woodland 40 & 42 Riparian Woodland 41 Washlands and Offline Storage Pon onds 42 Land and Soil Management Practice tices 38 & 39 Riparian Woodland 38, 39, 40 & 41 Upland Drainage Modifications 38 & 39 2 Carsphairn Runo noff Reduction Agricultural and Modifications 3 4 Carsphairn Dalry Floodplain Upland Dra Drainage 41 & 42 Sedi diment Mana anagement River Bank Restoration 38, 39, 41 & 42 Overland Sediment Traps 40, 41 & 42 Rive ver Reach and Flood oodplain Stora orage Washlands and Offline Storage Pon onds 52 Floodplain Woodland 52 5 New Galloway Rive ver Reach and Flood oodplain Stora orage Riparian Woodland 31 6 New Galloway Runo noff Reduction Riparian Woodland 31 Land and Soil Management Practice tices 31 Upland Drainage Modifications 31 Sedi diment Mana anagement Overland Sediment Traps 31 River Bank Restoration 31 Rive ver Reach and Flood oodplain Instream Structures 29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 & 49 7 8 New Galloway Clatteringshaws Loch Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 Document Reference:1138879 Model Run No. Compliance Point NFM Action NFM measures applied to Catchm hments Grouped Catchments NFM measures applied to Land and Soil Management Practice tices 29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 & 49 Upland Drainage Modifications 29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 & 49 Stora orage 9 Clatteringshaws Loch Runo noff Reduction 10 Clatteringshaws Loch Sedi diment Mana anagement River Bank Restoration 29, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44 & 49 11 Castle Douglas Rive ver Reach and Flood oodplain Stora orage Instream Structures 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 47 & 48 Washlands and Offline Storage Pon onds 6 Riparian Woodland 35 & 48 Upland Drainage Modifications 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46 & 47 Land and Soil Management Practice tices 35 & 48 River Bank Restoration 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46 & 47 12 13 Castle Douglas Castle Douglas Runo noff Reduction Sedi diment Mana anagement River Morphology Restoration 14 15 16 Kirkcudbright Kirkcudbright Kirkcudbright Galloway Glens Partnership Rive ver Reach and Flood oodplain Stora orage Runo noff Reduction Sedi diment and Flood oodplain 6 Overland Sediment Traps 35 & 48 Instream Structures 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 47 & 48 Washlands and Offline Storage Pon onds 6 Riparian Woodland 35 & 48 Upland Drainage Modifications 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46 & 47 Land and Soil Management Practice tices 35 & 48 River Bank Restoration 6, 30, 35, 36, 37, 06 December 2016 Document Reference:1138879 Model Run No. Compliance Point NFM Action NFM measures applied to Catchm hments Grouped Catchments NFM measures applied to 45, 46 & 47 River Morphology Restoration 6 Mana anagement and Overland Sediment Traps Galloway Glens Partnership Flood oodplain 35 & 48 06 December 2016 Document Reference:1138879 Long List Model Results Table 10.3: Long List Model Resul ults Model Run No. Description 1 Carsphairn: River Reach and Floodplain Storage 2 3 4 5 Carsphairn: Runoff Reduction Carsphairn: Sediment Management Dalry Floodplain: River Reach and Floodplain Storage New Galloway: River Reach and Floodplain Storage Galloway Glens Partnership Compliance Point % Reduction in Flow Fl for Return Period 1 in 2 1 in 10 1 in 50 1 in 200 Carsphairn 10.3 7.8 6.2 5.2 Dalry Floodplain 3.8 3.1 2.7 2.6 New Galloway 3.4 2.9 2.4 2.3 Clatteringshaws Loch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Castle Douglas 2.0 1.6 1.1 1.2 Kirkcudbright 1.7 1.5 1.1 1.2 Carsphairn 23.4 16.9 13.0 10.6 Dalry Floodplain 6.0 4.8 4.3 3.6 New Galloway 5.7 4.4 3.9 3.3 Clatteringshaws Loch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Castle Douglas 2.9 2.2 1.8 1.7 Kirkcudbright 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.7 Carsphairn 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.3 Dalry Floodplain 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 New Galloway 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 Clatteringshaws Loch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Castle Douglas 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.4 Kirkcudbright 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.3 Carsphairn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dalry Floodplain 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 New Galloway 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 Clatteringshaws Loch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Castle Douglas 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 Kirkcudbright 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 Carsphairn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dalry Floodplain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Galloway 2.0 1.3 0.0 0.7 Clatteringshaws Loch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Castle Douglas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kirkcudbright 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 06 December 2016 Document Reference:1138879 Model Run No. Description 6 New Galloway: Runoff Reduction 7 8 9 10 11 New Galloway: Sediment Management Clatteringshaws Loch: River Reach and Floodplain Storage Clatteringshaws Loch: Runoff Reduction Clatteringshaws Loch: Sediment Management Castle Douglas: River Reach and Floodplain Storage Galloway Glens Partnership Compliance Point % Reduction in Flow Fl for Return Period 1 in 2 1 in 10 1 in 50 1 in 200 Carsphairn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dalry Floodplain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Galloway 7.8 6.6 4.6 4.1 Clatteringshaws Loch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Castle Douglas 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Kirkcudbright 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Carsphairn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dalry Floodplain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Galloway 2.0 1.3 0.9 0.7 Clatteringshaws Loch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Castle Douglas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kirkcudbright 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Carsphairn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dalry Floodplain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clatteringshaws Loch 3.3 1.1 1.4 2.4 Castle Douglas 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.4 Kirkcudbright 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 Carsphairn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dalry Floodplain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clatteringshaws Loch 16.7 9.8 7.5 7.1 Castle Douglas 2.8 1.9 1.1 1.1 Kirkcudbright 2.6 1.8 1.2 1.1 Carsphairn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dalry Floodplain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clatteringshaws Loch 2.5 0.5 0.8 1.3 Castle Douglas 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 Kirkcudbright 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 Carsphairn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dalry Floodplain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 06 December 2016 Document Reference:1138879 Model Run No. 12 13 14 15 16 Description Compliance Point % Reduction in Flow Fl for Return Period 1 in 2 Castle Douglas: Runoff Reduction Castle Douglas: Sediment Management Kirkcudbright: River Reach and Floodplain Storage Kirkcudbright: Runoff Reduction Kirkcudbright: Sediment Management Galloway Glens Partnership 1 in 10 1 in 50 1 in 200 Clatteringshaws Loch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Castle Douglas 1.0 1.2 0.6 1.2 Kirkcudbright 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.1 Carsphairn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dalry Floodplain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clatteringshaws Loch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Castle Douglas 1.2 1.4 0.7 1.2 Kirkcudbright 0.9 1.0 0.7 1.1 Carsphairn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dalry Floodplain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clatteringshaws Loch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Castle Douglas 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.4 Kirkcudbright 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.4 Carsphairn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dalry Floodplain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clatteringshaws Loch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Castle Douglas 1.0 1.2 0.6 1.2 Kirkcudbright 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.1 Carsphairn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dalry Floodplain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clatteringshaws Loch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Castle Douglas 1.2 1.4 0.7 1.2 Kirkcudbright 0.9 1.0 0.7 1.1 Carsphairn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dalry Floodplain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Galloway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clatteringshaws Loch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Castle Douglas 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.4 Kirkcudbright 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.4 06 December 2016 Document Reference:1138879 Appendix F – Site Rec econnaissance Surveys Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016 1. Site Reconnaissance Surveys This appendix presents the results of the reconnaissance surveys to provide supporting information for the Galloway Glens Natural Flood Management scoping study. Data collected allow the feasibility of short listed options to be put into context with environmental conditions. The key areas were surveyed: · Carsphairn – the catchments upstream of the receptor have been split into 5 distinct areas where natural flood management has been identified ad as presented in Figure GB11820_M_014. Section 2 presents the results of the surveys at Carsphairn; · New Galloway – the catchment of the Mill Burn is the primary tributary that encompasses New Galloway. The site reconnaissance surveys were carried out within areas upstream of the receptor and focussed on the NFM measures outlined in Figure GB1180_M_015. Section 3 presents the results of the surveys at New Galloway. 2. Carsphairn 2.1. Carsphairn Area 1 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 1A WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 6 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 1A – Upper Garryhorn Burn Overview Photos of upper catchment. Looking south through south west from marker point. Observations; · Upland catchment comprising open heathland and grassland. · Larger channels incised into glacial deposits, unless in steeper ground where incised into bedrock · Smaller channels often incised into peat with a few not being visible at all. These ephemeral channels are likely to move locations quickly making in-channel modification potentially problematic. Closer inspection would be required to determine feasibility · Apart from the higher ground extensive areas have been artificially drained with vertical ditches dug into the peat Additional Note – vehicular access is very good to this location PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference – NX 53254 93665 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 1 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (1A) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 2 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (1A) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 3 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 1B WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 6 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 1B – Garryhorn Burn Tributary Photos of immediate catchment and channel morphology Observations: · Shallow channel slope <5 degrees with very slow flow · Upstream appears engineered / disturbed by mine workings · Lots of small gravel bars, falls and pools within mine workings · Bed material a mixture of boulders, gravel and sand with rocky banks · Where steam isn't in workings channel is narrower and very vegetated and flowing through boggy areas · Banks are rocky inside workings and grass and peat outside · Stream width 0.2m to 3m with depth varying but predominantly shallow Additional Note – vehicular access is very good to this location PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 53466 93510 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 4 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (1B) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 5 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (1B) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 6 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 1C WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 6 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 1C – Garryhorn Burn Photos of immediate catchment and channel morphology Observations; · Channel slope is ~5 degrees with a moderate flow speed · Channel is slightly sinuous and is incised into surrounding peat /soil. In the upper catchment above this point that channel has current terraces down into the glacial deposits · Gravel bars often situated on the inside of meanders with occasional braided sections on flatter ground. Some evidence of bank collapse · Bed material is gravel, cobbles and boulders with a lot of boulders protruding the water surface. Finer sediments situated in lower flow areas · Banks are predominantly grassy however can be rockier on the inside of meanders · Stream width is ~10m and is generally shallow Additional Note – vehicular access is very good to this location PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 53468 93441 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 7 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (1C) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 8 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 9 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 1D WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 6 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 1D – Garryhorn Burn and Mine Workings Overview Photos of mine workings and upper catchment Observations; · Mine workings have influenced available bedload material such as gravels and finer sediments. Channels are rockier with channels themselves being poorly defined on flatter ground · Main burn appears to be incised into late glacial deposits, with steep banks leading down to river terraces where the channel has laterally migrated and back filled. Good location for riparian woodland PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 53585 93557 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 10 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (1D) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 11 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 1E WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 6 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 1E – Garryburn Main Channel Photos of immediate catchment and channel morphology Observations · Channel slope ~5 degrees with a moderate flow speed · Sinuous with meanders · Minor depositional gravel bars on inside banks · Banks incised into peat/ till and have collapsed into channel in some locations · Bed material is boulders, cobbles and gravel · Banks are grassy / peat. Very water logged · Width3-4 m and generally shallow Additional Note – vehicular access is very good to this location PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 53609 935502 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 12 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (1E) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 13 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 1F WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 6 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 1F – Garryhorn Burn Photos of flat areas north of the Burn looking over towards areas considered for LMPs Observations; · Area is very tussocks with a few patches of grazed grasslands · Very water logged where flat · Evidence of land draining also seen to the south west with numerous narrow linear ditches discharging towards the main channel Additional Note – vehicular access is very good to this location PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 53772 93580 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 14 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (1F) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 15 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 1G WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 6 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 1G – Garryhorn Burn River Terrace Area Photos of flat and level ground below track just above the main burn Observations; · Linear artificial land drainage channels cut into the peat on level, boggy ground close to main channel · 0.4-0.6m deep & 0.2-0.4 m wide with a very slow flow · Very shallow channel angle <5 degrees · Silt/ peat bedload with banks being tussocks and bog Additional Note – vehicular access is very good to this location PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 54229 93406 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 16 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (1G) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 17 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 18 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 1H WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 6 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 1H – Garryhorn Burn Photos of immediate catchment and channel morphology Observations; · Channel slope upstream is ~5 degrees and moderate flow speed with slope increasing ~ 5-10 degrees downstream with moderate to fast flow · Upstream the channel is more level and sinuous and downstream becomes steeper and more linear · Upstream · · – Bedload cobbles and boulders with some gravel bars in lower flow areas and is slightly sinuous – Additional exposed terrace deposits on meanders suggest channel regularly migrates – Banks are vegetated (peat, grass with some trees) and are comprised of soil / gravels – Very boggy upstream of location Downstream – Bedload is limited due to exposed bedrock, with cobbles and boulders being caught in plunge pools and low flow areas etc – Banks are on bedrock and grass with thin soils – Banks are covered with numerous trees which are more extensive than upstream in flatter areas Channel is ~7m wide while flowing through river terraces, but is narrower ~5m downstream where incised into bedrock Additional Note – vehicular access is very good to this location PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 54323 93338 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 19 SURVEY DETAILS SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (1H) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 20 SURVEY DETAILS Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 21 SURVEY DETAILS Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 22 SURVEY DETAILS Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 23 SURVEY DETAILS Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 24 2.2. Carsphairn Area 2 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 2A WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 9 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 2A – Upper Water of Deugh Photos of immediate catchment and channel morphology Observations; · Channel slope very low ~2-5 degrees with a slow flow · Channel is sinuous and meandering · Bedload is silt and sand with some gravels · Very few boulders protruding water surface · Banks are vegetated and occasionally tree lined. Combination of soil and peat. Wide and flat · Nearby slopes often artificially drained by vertical drainage channels. Channels are incised into the peat Additional Note – vehicular access is good to this location PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 55080 93833 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 25 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (2A) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 26 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 27 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 28 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 2B WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 9 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 2B – Upper Water of Deugh (aka Carsphain Lane) Photos of catchment. Looking south through south west from location Observations; · Area contains sinuous channel ~15m wide · Banks appear to be gassy and boggy with some small trees dotting the base of the valley · Extensively flat and terraced with a lot of water saturated ground · Slopes above to the SW are grassy with some tussocks. Looks suitable for hedgerows, burrows etc. Additional Note – vehicular access down to the river is very poor, with very wet and boggy ground PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 55231 94873 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 29 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (2B) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 30 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 31 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 2C WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 9 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 2C – Carsphairn Lane (river just east of Loch Doon) Photos of immediate catchment and channel morphology Observations; · Low channel slope, less than 5 degrees with very slow flow · Channel is sinuous and is incised into peat / gravel soil. More extensive gravels on inside of meanders. Some bank protection engineered around bridge · Bedload comprises of boulders, cobbles and gravels, some of which protrude t he water surface · Banks are flat and level and generally grassed Additional Note – vehicular access is reasonable at this location PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 53216 961159 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 32 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (2C) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 33 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 34 2.3. Carsphairn Area 3 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 3A WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 8 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 3A – Water of Deugh Photos of immediate catchment and channel morphology Observations; · Channel slope is between 5-10 degrees with a moderate flow speed · Channel incised into bedrock with steep bedrock and soil banks · Channel 10-15m wide and 0.2-1m deep · Bedload of gravels, cobbles and boulders with pools and falls. Boulders protruding through water surface · Banks are generally tree and grass lined · Road and track drainage appears to discharge into the river · Storm debris washed into tree ~1-2m above current river level · Some bank engineering around the bridge Additional Note – bankside vehicular access is good at this location PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 55729 94395 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 35 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (3A) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 36 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 37 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 3B WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 8 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 3B – Water of Deugh Photos of immediate catchment and channel morphology Observations; · Channel slope ~5-10 degrees with a moderate to fast flow. · Gorge like morphology with plunge pools and falls with channel incised into bedrock with large sections of bedrock base protruding water surface · Channel 10m wide with depths varying due to plunge pools and falls · Bedload is predominantly cobbles and boulders · Banks are bedrock and boulders with grass and soil. Tree higher up intermittently lining the bank · Lots of artificial and drainage into stream reducing water logging in the surrounding soil · Channel appears to be more meandering just up stream. Again evidence of very high flow volumes with debris 2-3m above current channel level Additional Note – bankside vehicular access is good at this location PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 55766 94577 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 38 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (3B) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 39 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 40 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 3C WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 8 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 3C – Water of Deugh Photos of immediate catchment and channel morphology Observations; · Main channel has a slope of 5 degrees with a high to moderate flow speed · Channel is braided with sequences of gravels, cobbles and boulders · Channel has a very high sediment yield with gravel banks and bars and is incised only on river bend outside banks · Channel is 7m wide with braided area being 25m in diameter · Banks are grass, soil and gravel however significant erosion and bank collapse is happening in some places (see photos) · Recent engineering work around track for stabilisation and protection · Location possibly more suited to riparian woodland as opposed to floodplain woodland? · Catchment hill slopes are steeper closer to the river (where note terraced) but predominantly gently sloping. Visible vertical drainage ditches which are likely to be artificial Additional Note – bankside vehicular access is good at this location. Far bank may be more complicated. PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 56150 95094 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 41 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (3C) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 42 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 43 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 44 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 3D WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 8 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 3D – Benloch Burn (Water of Deugh tributary) Photos of immediate catchment and channel morphology Observation; · Channel slope is between 5-10 degrees with a moderate flow rate · Channel morphology varies between small sinuous / braided deposits to falls and plunge pools · Bedload varies between gravels and solid bedrock · Channel is deeply incised into bedrock with steep banks in some locations but is only incised into the peat in others and is more sinuous · Banks are bedrock or soil / peat and in steeper sections contain small trees · Evidence of widespread artificial drainage on slope to west with vertical ditches running the length of the hill side · Localised bog draining closer to the channel on northern side as well Additional Note – bankside vehicular access is poor at this location PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 56323 95050 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 45 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (3D) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 46 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 47 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 48 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 3E WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 8 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 3E – Upper Deugh and Benloch Overview Photos of upper catchments, looking north and west Observations; · Ground is grazed grassland with some scree and tussocks and are probably only suitable for hedgerow planting 250m elevation due to the exposed nature of the hill side · Areas of bog have been vertical artificial drained using ditches. These extend across most hillsides · Many of the channels identified for in channel modification are small and incised into the peat / soil and are characterised by falls and plunge pools. Some are also ephemeral and would be difficult to locate. Additional Note – vehicular access is very good to this location but the track deteriorates further uphill. PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 56323 95050 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 49 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (3E) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 50 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 51 2.4. Carsphairn Area 4 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 4A WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 8 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 4A – Lamford Burn Photos of immediate catchment and channel morphology Observations; · Narrow upland channel with a slope of 5-10 degrees which is incised into the peat and tussocks . Flow speed is moderate · Bedload is a mix of sand and gravel which is heavily silted and discoloured by the peat · Channel is ~0.3-0.5m wide and of similar depth with plunge pools and small falls · Banks are grass tussocks Additional Note – bankside vehicular access is reasonable at this location PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 53020 99083 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 52 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (4A) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 53 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 54 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 4B WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 8 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 4B – Lower Lamford Burn Photos of immediate catchment and channel morphology Observations; · Channel slope ~20-25 degrees with a fast to moderate flow speed · Channel morphology is gorge like and is deeply incised into bedrock / glacial sediments to ~10m, with grass growing most of the way down to the channel · Channel is falls and plunge pools and becomes more sinuous further downstream · Bedload comprises mainly of solid bedrock with cobbles and boulders in plunge pools · Banks are mainly steep grass with protrusions of bed rock · Channel is ~0.1 to 0.5m wide with depth varying due to runs and pools · Suitable location for tree planting Additional Note – bankside vehicular access is good at this location PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 53020 99083 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 55 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (4B) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 56 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 57 2.5. Carsphairn Area 5 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 5A WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 8 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 5A – Dun Hill & Craignane (Windy Standard) Photos of proposed locations, looking north from access track Observations; · Photo vantage point of cleared forest west of Polwat Rig · Forest has been cleared in locations marked with some minor regrowth · Conversations with on-Site personnel eluded to the fact that many of the smaller channels are likely to already contain logs, branches etc PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NS 59543 01776 (Blue mark er denotes location. Yellow highlights mark observed locations and confirm the extent of deforestation) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 58 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (5A) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 59 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 60 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 5B WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 8 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 5B – Waterhead Hill & Meaul (Windy Standard) Photos of proposed locations, looking south and west from access track Observations; · Areas listed for UDM have been cleared, however some areas exhibiting regrowth · Channels flowing north from Waterhead Hill are often small, with plunge pools and falls · Channel bedload is mainly fine sediments and is discoloured by the peat · Debris often in the channel reducing flow rate PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NS 58509 01970 (Blue mark er denotes location. Yellow highlights mark observed locations and confirm the extent of deforestation) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 61 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (5B) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 62 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 5C WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 8 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 5C – Land south of Brockloch Rig (Windy Standard) Photos of proposed locations, looking north from access track and inspection of channel Observations; · Areas listed for upland drainage management have been cleared, however some areas exhibiting regrowth · Channels flowing west was small, with plunge pools and falls · Channel bedload is mainly fine sediments and is discoloured by the peat · Debris often in the channel reducing flow rate · Channel was close to being dry so could be ephemeral in summer PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NS 58858 01278 (Blue mark er denotes location. Yellow highlights mark observed locations and confirm the extent of deforestation) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 63 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (5C) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 64 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 65 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 5D WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 8 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 5D – Observations of Cairnsmore of Carsphain (Windy Standard) Photos of proposed locations, looking south and east from access track Observations; · Mountainside comprises of steep heather / peatland terrain · Drainage channels likely to be incised into peat but are not well defined, with re-entrant features around burns being very minor · Soil appears shallow with smoothed bedrock visible as outcrops nearby · In channel techniques may be effective however planting tree may be difficult due t o shallow soil and exposure to wind Additional Notes – From observations made from the photo location, the Site access will be very difficult / impossible for vehicles PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NS 58946 00884 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 66 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (5D) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 67 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 5E WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 8 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 5E – Goat Burn Photos of immediate catchment and channel morphology Observations; · Channel slope ~10-15 degrees with moderate flow speed · Minor channel which is incised into peat and soil with plunge pools and falls · Channel is ~0.1-0.3m wide with depth depending on plunge pool but no more than 0.3m · Bedload is fine gravel, sand and silt but has a coating of moss · Banks comprise of grasses and moss · Extensive artificial drainage ditches accords the hill sides feeding into the channel Additional Note – bankside vehicular access is good at this location PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 54182 99830 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 68 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (5E) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 69 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 70 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-04-05 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Sam Wainwright Location ID: 5F WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Cold, 8 degrees, overcast Recent Weather: Overcast with light rain COMMENTS 5F – View of Lamford Hill Photos of Lamford Hill looking east, south east Observations; · Grazed grassland with tussocks · Several small natural drainage channels as well as addition artificial drainage channels running predominantly vertically down the hillside PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 54016 99473 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 71 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (5F) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 72 3. New Galloway SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-06-14 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Scott Bennet Location ID: NG1 WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Mild, 12 degrees Recent Weather: Overcast with sunny intervals COMMENTS NG1 – View north of unnamed tributary of Mill Burn Observations; · Heavily grazed grassland with water logged and heavily vegetated riparian corridor · Sparse presence of trees along the riparian corridor PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 63062 77925 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 73 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (NG1) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 74 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-06-14 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Scott Bennet Location ID: NG2 WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Mild, 12 degrees Recent Weather: Overcast with sunny intervals COMMENTS NG2 – view upstream and downstream of Mill Burn Observations; · Heavily grazed grassland with water logged and heavily vegetated riparian corridor · Evidence of livestock of watercourses, with minor areas of exposed soils · Riparian corridor dominated by grasses, interspersed with sparse denser vegetation · Coarse bed material PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 62783 77886 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 75 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (NG2) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 76 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 77 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-06-14 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Scott Bennet Location ID: NG3 WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Mild, 12 degrees Recent Weather: Overcast with sunny intervals COMMENTS NG3 – View north east Observations; · Heavily grazed grassland with extensive network of existing field boundaries. Potentially suitable for the plantation of hedgerows along these boundaries PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 61942 77800 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 78 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (NG3) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 79 Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 80 SURVEY DETAILS Date: 2017-06-14 Site: Galloway Glens Hydrologist: Scott Bennet Location ID: NG4 WEATHER DETAILS During Site Visit: Mild, 12 degrees Recent Weather: Overcast with sunny intervals COMMENTS NG4 – View north, headwaters of the Mill Burn Observations; · Heavily grazed catchment · Riparian corridor dominated by grasses, interspersed with sparse denser vegetation · Good vehicular access PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION Grid Reference –NX 61297 78329 (Blue mark er denotes location) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 81 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (NG4) Galloway Glens Partnership - Natural Flood Management Scopin 26 June 2017 82 Document Reference:1138879 What we do Natural Power is a leading independentt re renewable energy consultancy and products provi vider. The company offers proactive and integrated consultancy, ma anagement and due diligence services, backed by an innovative product range, across the onshore wind, offshore re wind, wave, tidal, renewable heat, solar pv and d hydro h sectors, whilst maintaining a strong outlook on other new ew and emerging renewable energy sectors. Established in the mid 1990s, Natural Pow ower has been at the heart of many groundbreakin king projects, products and portfolios for more than two decades, ass ssisting project developers, investors, manufacture rers, research houses and other consulting companies. With its iconi onic Scottish headquarters, The Green House, Natu atural Power has expanded internationally and now employs more than tha 330 renewable energy experts. Creating a better environment Our global exper ertise Natural Power delivers services and oper erates assets globally for our clients, with eleven offices of across Europe and North America and agencies active in Sou outh America and AsiaPac. UK & IRELAND Registered Office, Scotland Stirling, Sco cotland Inverness, Scotland D Dublin, Ireland The Green House, Forrest Estate Ochil House se Suite 3, Spey House, Dochfour Dalry, Castle Douglas, DG7 3XS Springkerse e Business B Park SCOTLAND, UK Stirling, FK7 7 7XE Business Centre, Dochgarroch Inverness, IV3 8GY First Floor, Suite 6, The Mall, Fi Be Beacon Court, Sandyford, D Dublin 18 SCOTLAND, D, UK SCOTLAND, UK IR IRELAND Aberystwyth, Wales London, Eng ngland Newcastle, England Harbour House, Y Lanfa Token House se Business Centre Unit 5, Horsley Business Centre Aberystwyth, Ceredigion 11/12 Tokenh enhouse Yard Horsley SY23 1AS City of Londo don, EC2R 7AS Northumberland, NE15 0NY WALES, UK ENGLAND,, U UK ENGLAND, UK Paris, France rance Nantes, Fran Ankara, Turkey [Agent] 4 Place de l’Opéra re-consult 75002 Paris 1 boulevard d Salvador S Allende, 44100 Nante tes FRANCE FRANCE EUROPE Bagi’s Plaza - Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Cad. 43/14 TR / 06520 Balgat-Ankar TURKEY THE AMERICAS New York, USA Seattle , USA SA Valparaiso, Chile [Agent] 63 Franklin St 2701 First Av Avenue, Suite 440 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Seattle, WA A9 98121 USA USA Latwind Energías Renovables Lautaro Rosas 366, Cerro Alegre Valparaiso, CHILE naturalpower.com sayhello@naturalpower.com No part of this document or translations of it may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or any other information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from Natural Power. All facts and figures correct at time of print. All rights reserved. © Copyright 2017 Galloway Glens Partnership 06 December 2016  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Natural Flood Management Scoping Study Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_42 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2016 Description An account of the resource Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Commissioned Report undertaken by Natural Power flooding GGLP https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/500/GGLP-Arctic-Charr-Reintroduction.pdf 9a7b2544689729935c7142fedf4a3989 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Loch Grannoch Arctic charr re-introduction feasibility project Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Reports Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document A Scottish Registered Charity No. SC 020751 Commissioned Report No. – JGAD09 Loch Grannoch Arctic charr re-introduction feasibility project For Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership For further information on this report please contact: Name of GFT Project Manager – J Graham Galloway Fisheries Trust Fisheries House Station Industrial Estate Newton Stewart DG8 6ND Telephone: 01671 403011 E-mail: jackie@gallowayfisheriestrust.org This report should be quoted as: Galloway Fisheries Trust. May 2017. Loch Grannoch Arctic charr re-introduction feasibility study. Galloway Fisheries Trust Report No. – JGAD09 This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of Galloway Fisheries Trust. This permission will not be withheld unreasonably. © Galloway Fisheries Trust Year – 2017 Summary Final report for the Arctic charr translocation to Loch Grannoch feasibility study Commissioned Report No.: Report No. – JGAD09 Contractor: Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Year of publication: May 2017 Keywords Arctic charr; Loch Grannoch; south west Scotland; Kirkcudbrightshire Dee; species reintroduction; translocation; acidification. Background Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus L.) is a species of freshwater fish that was historically present in two freshwater lochs in south west Scotland: Loch Grannoch and Loch Dungeon. Both Lochs are part of the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee river system. This report concentrates on Loch Grannoch. The Arctic charr population in Loch Grannoch died out because of acidification. At this time, research showed that there was also a severe impact upon the trout, however they were able to survive. In recent years it is known that the water quality has improved and the trout population appears to have recovered significantly. There has been desire locally to introduce charr back into the loch however the exact status of the water quality was not known. This feasibility study, supported by the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership through the Heritage Lottery Fund Development Funding, aimed to ascertain whether the loch was suitable for sustaining a re-introduced population of Arctic charr, and, if it was, the next stage of the work would be to carry out a full re-introduction of the species into the loch. Main findings • An event was held and attended by experts in the field of Arctic charr and other stakeholders. All who attended the event supported the re-introduction of charr into Loch Grannoch, if deemed feasible. • Spawning substrate around the perimeter of Loch Grannoch was completed and concluded that there is ample spawning material which an introduced population of charr could use for spawning. • Water quality monitoring was carried out in the loch and two main inflowing tributaries. A multi-parameter sonde was installed in the loch which continually recorded the pH of i the water over three months. Results from the water quality monitoring showed that the water in Loch Grannoch was below pH 5, except on one occasion. pH of ranged from 4.80 to 5.01. • The necessary licenses required for the re-introduction of Arctic charr to Loch Grannoch was explored via discussion with Marine Scotland Science. Discussions were held with SNH regarding the Scottish Code for Conservation Translocations. • The suitability of the loch to support a population of Arctic charr was investigated and it was concluded that only the pH of the loch is the limiting factor. Expert opinion was sought and the consensus was that since the loch water was almost consistently below pH 5, then it was unfortunately still too early in the recovery of the loch to re-introduce Arctic charr. • GFT does believe that the loch will continue to recover and the information contained within this report can be used as a basis for future introduction work. For further information on this project contact: Name of Project Manager – J Graham Telephone No. of Project Manager – 01671 403011 ii Table of Contents Page 1 INTRODUCTION AND AIMS 1 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 3 ENGAGE WITH RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING AGENCIES AND LANDOWNERS TO BUILD SUPPORT AND BUY IN FOR A LOCH GRANNOCH ARCTIC CHARR TRANSLOCATION PROJECT 3 3.1 Stakeholder engagement 3 4 ESTABLISH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS THAT A POPULATION OF ARCTIC CHARR REQUIRES 4 4.1 Background on Arctic charr 4 4.2 Environmental parameters that Arctic charr requires 4 4.2.1 Water temperature and depth 4 4.2.2 pH 5 4.2.3 Dissolved oxygen 6 4.2.4 Spawning habitat 6 4.2.5 Feeding 6 5 EXAMINE AND MAP HABITATS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER SUITABLE AND SUFFICIENT SPAWNING MATERIALS ARE PRESENT AND ACCESSIBLE 8 5.1 Historical spawning at Loch Grannoch 8 5.2 Present status of spawning material at Loch Grannoch 8 6 RESEARCH AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE WATER (LOCH AND INFLOWING TRIBUTARIES) IS OF ADEQUATE QUALITY TO SUSTAIN ACRTIC CHARR EGGS AND ALEVINS. ESTABLISH A WATER QUALITY DATA BASELINE ACROSS THE ARCTIC CHARR SPAWNING PERIOD TO HATCH TIME 11 6.1 Researching water quality in Loch Grannoch and tributaries 11 6.1.1 Spot sampling 11 6.1.2 Establishing a water quality baseline 12 6.2 Results 13 6.2.1 Spot sampling results 13 6.2.2 Constant monitoring results from Loch Grannoch 14 6.2.3 Dissolved oxygen results 15 7 DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF THE LOCH TO SUPPORT A JUVENILE AND ADULT ARCTIC CHARR POPULATION 16 7.1 Other species and interactions 16 7.2 Potential impacts 16 7.3 Predator/prey interactions 16 7.4 Determine the suitability of the loch to support a juvenile and adult arctic charr population 17 8 INVESTIGATE OTHER RELEVANT ARCTIC CHARR WORK SUCH AS REINTRODUCTIONS AND REARING PROGRAMMES; ENGAGE WITH EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, POTENTIALLY ESTABLISHING A LEVEL OF PARTNERSHIP WORKING AND/OR RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES 19 8.1 Other Arctic charr re-introductions 19 8.2 Engage with experts in the field 19 9 INVESTIGATE AND IDENTIFY PRACTICAL METHODS OF UNDERTAKING THE ARCTIC CHARR RE-INTRODUCTION WORK INCLUDING ASSESSING ACCESS ISSUES 21 iii 10 INVESTIGATE AND IDENTIFY POTENTIAL SUITABLE SOURCE (DONOR) POPULATIONS OF ARCTIC CHARR WITH CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO GENETICS 22 10.1 Potential donor populations of charr 22 10.2 Considering genetics 23 11 IDENTIFY THE NECESSARY LICENCES AND ENGAGE WITH RELEVANT LICENCING AGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL BODIES INCLUDING THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT, WITH REFERENCE TO THE SCOTTISH CODE FOR TRANSLOCATIONS AND CORRESPONDING TRANSLOCATION PROJECT FORM 25 12 DETERMINE AND DESCRIBE, WITH EVIDENCE, WHETHER THE ARCTIC CHARR TRANSLOCATION PROJECT IS DEEMED FEASIBLE AT LOCH GRANNOCH 26 12.1 Is it appropriate to re-introduce Arctic charr into Loch Grannoch? 26 12.2 Reasoning for the decision 26 13 APPENDIX 1: STAKEHOLDER MEETING ATTENDEES, PRESENTATION AND MAIN OUTCOMES 27 13.1 Invitees 27 13.2 Attendees 27 13.3 Main outcomes of meeting 27 14 APPENDIX 2: REFERENCES 29 Baroudy, E. (1995) Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) in Windermere (Cumbria). Freshwater Biological Association Freshwater Forum, Vol 5, No 3. 29 iv 1 INTRODUCTION AND AIMS Under Heritage Lottery Fund Development Funding, the Galloway Fisheries Trust (GFT) was contracted by the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership to undertake a study into the feasibility of re-introducing Arctic charr to Loch Grannoch. This project had the following aims:  Engage with relevant stakeholders, including agencies and landowners, to build support and buy-in for a Loch Grannoch Arctic charr translocation project;  Establish the environmental parameters that a population of Arctic charr requires;  Examine and map habitats to ascertain whether suitable and sufficient spawning materials are present and accessible;  Research and determine whether the water (loch and inflowing tributaries) is of adequate quality to sustain Arctic charr eggs and alevins. Establish a water quality data baseline across the Arctic charr spawning period to hatch time;  Determine the suitability of the loch to support a juvenile and adult Arctic charr population (e.g. other species interactions, potential impacts, predator/prey interactions);  Investigate other relevant Arctic charr work such as re-introductions and rearing programmes; engage with experts in the field, potentially establish a level of partnership working and/or research opportunities;  Investigate and identify practical methods of undertaking the Arctic reintroduction work including assessing access issues; charr  Investigate and identify potential suitable source (donor) populations of Arctic charr with consideration given to genetics;  Identify the necessary licences and engage with relevant licencing agencies and environmental bodies including the Scottish Government, with reference to the Scottish Code for Translocations and corresponding Translocation Project Form;  Determine and describe, with evidence, whether the Arctic charr translocation project is deemed feasible at Loch Grannoch. 1 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Galloway Fisheries Trust would like to thank the following people for their input, information and advice: Abigail Thompson, APEM Alan Kettle-White, Argyll Fisheries Trust Alex Lyle, Alex Lyle Projects Alisdair MacDonald, Marine Scotland Science Alison Bell, Scottish Environment Protection Agency Alistair Duguid, SEPA Alistair McCartney, Marine Scotland Science Andrew Jarrott, Forest Enterprise Andy Gowans, Environment Agency Archie McNellie, Forest Enterprise Barry Robertson, Scottish Environment Protection Agency Brian Shaw, Spey Foundation Carolyn Bryce, Loch Lomond Fisheries Trust David Summers, Tay Foundation Diane Baum, Lochaber Fisheries Trust Don Monteith, Centre of Ecology and Hydrology Duncan Baillie, local angler Emily Taylor, Crichton Carbon Centre Ewan Shilland, University College London Gareth Ventress, Forest Enterprise Helen Bennion, University College London Iain Malcolm, Marine Scotland Science Ian Winfield, Centre of Ecology and Hydrology Jan Krokowski, Scottish Environment Protection Agency Jason Godfrey, Marine Scotland Science John Gilbey, Marine Scotland Science John Gorman, Scottish Environment Protection Agency Karen Morley, Dumfries and Galloway Council Marshall Halliday, Esks Rivers and Fisheries Trust McNabb Laurie, Dumfries and Galloway Council Paul Hopper, Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust Peter Cunningham, Wester Ross Fisheries Trust Peter Norman, Dumfries and Galloway Council Professor (Emeritus) Andy Ferguson, Queen’s University Belfast Professor Colin Adams, University of Glasgow Professor Colin Bean, Scottish Natural Heritage Professor Eric Verspoor, University of the Highlands and Islands Professor Paulo Prodohl, Queen’s University Belfast Professor Peter Maitland, Fish Conservation Centre Richard Bond, Environment Agency Richard Miller, Deveron, Bogie and Isla Charitable Trust Rick Battarbee, University College London Ross Gardiner, Marine Scotland Science Shona Marshall, West Sutherland Fisheries Trust Stuart Brabbs, Ayrshire Rivers Trust Stuart Middlemas, Marine Scotland Science Tom Nisbet, Forestry Commission Victoria Bauer, University College London 2 3 ENGAGE WITH RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING AGENCIES AND LANDOWNERS TO BUILD SUPPORT AND BUY IN FOR A LOCH GRANNOCH ARCTIC CHARR TRANSLOCATION PROJECT 3.1 Stakeholder engagement Stakeholder engagement began early with identifying known experts in the Arctic charr field in Scotland, namely Professor Colin Adams (University of Glasgow), Professor Colin Bean (Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)) and Professor Peter Maitland (Fish Conservation Centre). Through discussion with these people, other experts and those involved in Arctic charr and fish conservation were identified from across the UK. Further to this work, landowners and the licencing authorities were also identified. In addition to this it was important to identify individuals involved in water quality analysis and licensing (which would be required prior to any re-introduction work). A stakeholder meeting was held in November 2016 which experts in the field and interested parties attended to discuss the project, provide their views on the potential re-introduction of charr to Loch Grannoch and to tease out additional thoughts and information, as well as gaining a consensus on which parameters the project should focus on. The meeting was well attended (see Appendix 1 for attendees and meeting note) and the discussions provided useful information. Within the meeting it was of particular importance to gain the support of Scottish Natural Heritage for the re-introduction of charr to Loch Grannoch. All meeting attendees) agreed with the principle aims of the project and supported the re-introduction of charr to Loch Grannoch (if deemed feasible). Other individuals and organisations were contacted throughout the length of the project, especially associated with water quality analysis. 3 4 ESTABLISH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS THAT A POPULATION OF ARCTIC CHARR REQUIRES 4.1 Background on Arctic charr Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus L.) is a salmonid fish species and is believed to be one of the first fish to have re-entered the freshwater environment after the last ice age ended and the ice cap retreated (FRS, 2004; Maitland & Campbell, 1992; Maitland, 2007). The charr is a Holarctic species occurring around the northern hemisphere (Maitland & Campbell, 1992) and is the only species with a circumpolar distribution (Klemetsen et al, 2003). Charr can be both freshwater or sea-water residents and can inhabit lakes or rivers. However, in Scotland all species of charr reside in freshwater lochs. These are generally large, deep, oligotrophic still waters with glaciated basins (Maitland & Campbell, 1992). Scotland is host to 258 separate populations of charr (SNH, 2013 1), moreover in some lochs up to three genetically and morphologically different forms can be found. Each of these may exhibit different patterns of habitat use, spawning location and the timing of reproductive behaviour (SNH, 2013). Figure 1: Loch Grannoch, November 2016 4.2 Environmental parameters that Arctic charr requires 4.2.1 Water temperature and depth Optimum temperature for Charr growth appears to be 12-16˚C which is the same as brown trout. Although thought to be one of the most resistant salmonids to low temperatures, there are conflicting beliefs in the tolerance of charr to high water temperatures. Jobling et al (1998) mention that charr appears to be amongst the least resistant to high temperatures. However, Maitland and Campbell (1992) note that in North America, Arctic charr are known to live at summer water temperatures of 20˚C and in swift running water even as high as 23.8˚C. In regards to spawning temperatures, as different populations can spawn at varying times, winter spawning is seen at around 6 to 9˚C and in spring it is between 4 and 6˚C. 1 http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/species/fish/freshwater-fish/charr/ 4 In the British Isles, Arctic charr have the reputation of being found only in large deep oligotrophic lakes lying in glaciated basins. Although this is usually the case, many populations are also found in shallow, biologically rich habitats. Charr are not limited in their distribution to particularly cold lakes and appear to thrive in the same upper ranges as brown trout. Maitland and Campbell (1992) suggest that the pelagic behaviour of charr in lakes is probably due more to having to compete with the more aggressive Brown trout, other competitors and predator species than having to find deep cool water. However there is evidence that they are able to thrive relatively better than other salmonids in very cold conditions. 4.2.2 pH The pH of the water in Loch Grannoch is a crucial factor to consider as it is widely accepted that acidification of the loch was the primary reason behind the loss of the original population of Arctic charr. The pH balance in the water is essential for fish metabolism. Stability of pH is critical because changes in pH initiate complex water quality changes which could cause harm to the fish, in particular their gills (Sæther & Siikavuopio 2). Most salmonids can tolerate pH within the range of 5 to 9 and maximum productivity occurs between pH 6.5 and 8.5 (Jobling, 1994). Jones et al (1987) investigated the response of charr to acid stress. Fish were exposed to pH 4.5 (Hydrogen Chloride) for two weeks and then returned to control conditions of pH 7.8. Reaction to the acid was evident: the charr were initially hyperactive but became hypoactive with continued exposure to the low pH conditions. Furthermore, feeding intensity and attraction to food extract were depressed throughout the exposure, but periods of partial recovery occurred (Jones et al, 1987). After a review of literature, it appears that the tolerance of Arctic charr to low pH is incredibly variable between populations so genetic testing would be required to find suitable populations for the proposed translocation if the pH of Loch Grannoch was still low. One of the most characteristic effects of acidification on fish populations is the failure of recruitment of new age classes into the population (Rosseland et al, 1980; Harvey, 1982). Early life stages of fish are more sensitive to acidification therefore there is a higher mortality rate in younger fish (Baker et al, 1996; Baker & Schofield, 1981). Being unable to increase the population size due to increased mortality at a young age is thought to be an important factor contributing to the extinction of fish populations (Jeffries et al, 2003) and indeed this is likely to have been the cause of the previous die out in Loch Grannoch. A shift in the age and size structure of a population is a resulting effect of decreased population which occurs when acidification increases the mortality of eggs and larvae. Populations suffering as a result of acidification are seen to have larger and older fish: older due to the recruitment failure of young and larger in size due to less competition for the available food (Lochhart & Lutz, 1977). It has also been suggested that the reduced number of young fish could be the result of a reduction in egg deposition. This can result from disruption to the spawning behaviour or the reproductive physiology of maturing adults (Schofield, 1976). Sub lethal acid stress can also inhibit the growth and development of embryos and can cause malformation. Although extinction of fish species due to fish mortality is normally linked to the younger stages of fish life, mortality in adults can also occur. When these cases have been 2 https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjHwqqO6IXUAhWrA sAKHRmdABwQFggmMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.northernperiphery.eu%2Ffiles%2Farchive%2FDownloads%2FProject_ Publications%2F4%2FArctic%2520charr%2520%2520water%2520production%2520standard.doc&usg=AFQjCNGMI0y2Djp4iY pBqXkmoIjUg3MzSA 5 observed, they have been linked with the episodic changes in water quality during spring snow melt or heavy autumn rain. An indirect observation of this occurrence can be seen when there is a lack of older fish in the population being observed. Aluminium concentration in water is inversely related to the pH, i.e. the concentration of aluminium increases as the pH of the water decreases (Sharma, 2003). Low pH, particularly below pH 4.5 (Walker et al., 2001) increases the solubility of metals and therefore leads to increased levels of toxic forms of aluminium (labile aluminium) being absorbed by fish. Salmonids are known to be highly sensitive to elevated levels of labile Al which affects gill function and ionic regulation (Kernan et al, 2010). This becomes the most important factor responsible for the death of fish in acidified areas (Walker et al, 2001). Baker and Schofield (1982) showed that Labile aluminium concentrations of 0.2 mg/L and higher resulted in reduced survival of young stages of brook trout at all pHs. 4.2.3 Dissolved oxygen Arctic charr are amongst the most tolerant of salmonids to low oxygen levels, tolerating oxygen levels of 1.8 to 2.4 mg per litre (Baroudy, 1995; Baroudy & Elliott 1994) depending on temperature. The egg and alevins stages of the lifecycle are the least tolerant and the older life stages of parr and adults are more tolerant. 4.2.4 Spawning habitat Arctic charr become sexually mature relativity early. Maturation is generally at 2+ (over two years old) for males and 3+ (over three years old) for females. It has been suggested that a fish of 250 g might be expected to produce 400-600 eggs. The eggs are amber in colour and comparatively large compared to eggs of other salmonids. The spawning period of Arctic charr is variable and depends on the population. Spawning generally takes place in the autumn and early winter months between September and December (Walker, 2007). Other charr are known to spawn in the spring, e.g. Lake Windermere. Different populations in the same water body have been known to spawn at different times, e.g. in Lake Windermere, there are three different strains in the charr population which spawn in different locations and different depths. One strain migrates up an inflowing river and spawns in November and December, a second strain spawns in autumn in the shallow waters around the perimeter of the lake around 1-3 m deep and a third strain spawns in the spring (February to March) using much deeper water at some 2030 m deep (Maitland & Campbell, 1992). Reference material on the absolute requirements for charr spawning was limited however Maitland and Campbell (1992) suggest that spawning takes place over gravel and stones in fairly shallow water near the shore or on a submerged reef. Frost (1965) goes further to suggest that in shallow water spawning areas in Lake Windermere substrates were hard, with a range of particle sizes ranging from sand through to large stones or small boulders up to 25 cm in diameter. There is a consensus that spawning grounds may range from sand to small boulders and they generally would contain a lower percentage of fine sediments (silt). In practice it is difficult to identify exactly where charr will spawn as they will generally spawn where they are able to in a range of substrates. 4.2.5 Feeding Arctic charr have a similar diet to brown trout, however when the two species occur together they tend to alter their feeding habits. Brown trout will prefer shallow water insect larvae and freshwater shrimp, while the Arctic charr will feed on zooplankton, small mussels and midge larvae (Maitland & Campbell, 1992). In a study of Loch Doon charr gut contents, Maitland et al (1991) found that prey items changed from benthic material in October, 6 February and April/May to almost 100% zooplankton in July. It was found that the benthic material consumed in October was of Planktonic origin. Arctic charr often exclusively feed on zooplankton and are equipped to do so having welldeveloped gill rakers. These allow rapid feeding on plankton where it is abundant and easily taken in. Trout however need to use more energy to consume the plankter individually. This could be one reason behind Arctic charr outnumbering trout where they co-exist. Certain populations of charr can be piscivorous (fish eating), and are known to eat Threespined sticklebacks and their eggs. In one of the few sites in the British Isles where charr exist without trout, the charr are known to behave like trout, completely ignoring the plankton (Maitland, 2007). 7 5 EXAMINE AND MAP HABITATS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER SUITABLE AND SUFFICIENT SPAWNING MATERIALS ARE PRESENT AND ACCESSIBLE 5.1 Historical spawning at Loch Grannoch Charr spawn in areas where there are smaller substrates (see Section 4.2.4). As well as a relatively large area of shoreline, Loch Grannoch has three significant inflowing tributaries along the western shore: the Cuttie Shallow Burn, the Cuttiemore Burn and an un-named burn at Loch Grannoch Lodge. It is possible that the historical charr population may have used some or all of these areas for spawning. In factual terms almost nothing is known about the historical spawning at Loch Grannoch, the only information that was sourced is the quote below: “…charrs of the deep Galloway lochs, which could only be secured in sufficient quantity for potting purposes when they came to the margins of gravel in the autumn months” (Service, 1902). This comment would appear to suggest that charr in Galloway were probably autumn spawners and spawned along the shoreline in gravels and pebbles. The consensus of experts at the Stakeholder meeting was that as the majority of charr populations are ‘lake spawners’ rather than ‘river spawners’, the Loch Grannoch population would indeed most likely have spawned in the shallows around the loch shore. Thus the habitat assessment work was concentrated around the perimeter of the loch as opposed to concentrating on the inflowing tributaries. 5.2 Present status of spawning material at Loch Grannoch In early March 2017, GFT undertook a spawning habitat assessment around the shore of the loch to assess whether there would be sufficient good quality spawning substrates for any introduced charr to spawn in (see Section 4.2.4 for information on charr spawning habitat). The habitat surveys evaluated spawning habitats through looking at sediment sizes (based on the Wentworth (1922) scale and modified by the Scottish Fisheries Coordination Centre 3) and using GFT experience of surveying other salmonid spawning habitat. Kayaks and a boat were used (Figure 2) to gain easier access the perimeter of the loch. Bathyscopes were used to assist in viewing substrates. 3 http://www.sfcc.co.uk/assets/files/SFCC%20Habitat%20Training%20Manual.pdf 8 Figure 2: Setting off on the kayaks to carry out the spawning substrate survey Results of the survey are presented in Figure 4. The majority of spawning material was located in the west and south of the margins of the loch where inflowing tributaries have created deltas and there are more bays compared to the east and north banks. Figure 3 shows an area of spawning material near the Cuttiemore Burn inflow. The eastern shore of the loch does have some areas where charr may spawn but in general the quantity of the spawning sized gravels is lower than that available on the western shore. Figure 3: An area of spawning gravels near the Cuttiemore Burn inflow 9 Figure 4: Showing the spawning areas recorded in the survey Following the survey it was concluded that there are adequate areas of spawning habitat around Loch Grannoch although some areas are currently compacted. This is likely to be due to the amount of granite sand within the substrates that has been washed into the loch from the surrounding tributaries. This siltation may have worsened following the conifer afforestation of the basin surrounding the loch which required extensive drainage. It may also be that spawning beds were less compacted in the past because of the annual digging of redds by spawning charr. In conclusion a lack of spawning material is not considered to be a limiting factor for any reintroduced population of charr. 10 6 RESEARCH AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE WATER (LOCH AND INFLOWING TRIBUTARIES) IS OF ADEQUATE QUALITY TO SUSTAIN ACRTIC CHARR EGGS AND ALEVINS. ESTABLISH A WATER QUALITY DATA BASELINE ACROSS THE ARCTIC CHARR SPAWNING PERIOD TO HATCH TIME 6.1 Researching water quality in Loch Grannoch and tributaries Due to the importance of water quality in the survival of Arctic charr, the current status of the water quality at Loch Grannoch and its main tributaries needed to be assessed to determine whether the pH and labile aluminium levels were at acceptable levels. Two different sampling techniques were used:   Periodic spot sampling for detailed analysis of pH and labile aluminium, and Continual pH monitoring of the loch water over the spawning period. 6.1.1 Spot sampling Periodic sampling work was undertaken which encompassed collecting water samples from the two main inflowing tributaries (Cuttiemore Burn and Cuttie Shallow Burn) and from the loch itself. After discussion at the Stakeholder meeting and with Marine Scotland Science the sampling strategy was agreed:  Samples were to be taken monthly for a period of four months over the winter months, covering the time that charr eggs would be present in the gravels,  Water samples would be taken at pre-existing historical sampling locations on the tributaries  In the loch, a water sample would be taken from near the surface and one from >15 m deep. A specialised depth sampler was borrowed from Marine Scotland Science to complete this task. As charr are known to dwell in deeper waters, particularly when cohabiting with a trout population, it was important to assess any differences there may be in deeper water as opposed to at the surface. Figure 5: Taking a water sample and measuring the pH of the Cuttiemore Burn A boat was launched each sampling day from the south bay near Loch Grannoch Lodge to 11 collect the following samples:    Cuttiemore Burn Cuttie Shallow Burn Loch Grannoch c. 20 m deep - a depth gauge was used to locate the deepest part of the loch (c. 20.5 m in depth) where the depth water sampler (Figure 6) was deployed to collect a water sample from c.20 m depth  Loch Grannoch at the surface All samples were decanted into clean sample bottles. These four samples were sent monthly to the Marine Scotland Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory where they were fully analysed. Results are presented in Section 6.2. Figure 6: The depth water sampler used to collect water from c.20 m deep for analysis 6.1.2 Establishing a water quality baseline In order to obtain a true picture of the pH of the loch over the winter when it is likely to be at its lowest, a multi-parameter sonde (Figure 7) was used to constantly monitor the pH of the loch (this also collected the dissolved oxygen content of the water over the same timescale). To install the sonde a boat was used. A depth gauge was used to locate an area of water greater than 10 m deep where the sonde could be installed at a depth of 8 m. The sonde was tethered to the surface via two buoys and secured in location using a concrete block as an anchor. The sonde constantly took readings of the water at 15 minute intervals and was installed from 09/12/2016 to 09/03/2017. Results are presented in Section 6.2. 12 Figure 7: The multi-parameter sonde Figure 8: The sonde being installed at 8 m depth in Loch Grannoch 6.2 Results 6.2.1 Spot sampling results The pH of the loch at the surface and at ~20 m depth are shown in Figure 9. It can be seen that on only one occasion was the pH of the loch water above pH 5, at 5.01 (December 2016). All other readings from the loch (surface and ~20 m depth) were below pH 5, with 13 pH 4.80 the lowest recorded. The Cuttie Shallow and Cuttiemore Burns had pHs over 5, all towards the end of 2016. The highest pH recorded was in the Cuttiemore Burn in November 2016 where a pH of 5.59 was recorded. Readings in both burns in 2017 were all lower than pH 5, with the lowest recorded in the Cuttie Shallow Burn (pH 4.1) in January 2017. In general it can be seen that the pH of the tributaries fluctuates more significantly than that of the loch where it is more stable. The labile aluminium results show that the loch has much lower levels than those recorded in the 1980s and 90s (see Section 7.4) which was encouraging. Sample location Date pH Surface of Loch Surface of Loch Surface of Loch Surface of Loch 09/12/16 10/01/17 07/02/17 09/03/17 5.01 4.92 4.80 4.81 Labile Aluminium (µgL) 54 32 45 54 Loch at ~20 m depth Loch at ~20 m depth Loch at ~20 m depth Loch at ~20 m depth 09/12/16 10/01/17 07/02/17 09/03/17 4.97 4.89 4.81 4.86 40 31 44 67 Cuttie Shallow Burn Cuttie Shallow Burn Cuttie Shallow Burn Cuttie Shallow Burn Cuttie Shallow Burn 14/11/16 09/12/16 10/01/17 07/02/17 09/03/17 5.31 4.90 4.17 4.26 4.48 16 11 10 6 2 Cuttiemore Burn Cuttiemore Burn Cuttiemore Burn Cuttiemore Burn Cuttiemore Burn 14/11/16 09/12/16 10/01/17 07/02/17 09/03/17 5.59 5.07 4.60 4.62 4.86 31 87 52 38 47 Figure 9: Showing results of the spot sampling of Loch Grannoch and two main tributaries 6.2.2 Constant monitoring results from Loch Grannoch Results from the sonde in Loch Grannoch over a three month period (Figure 10) showed a relatively stable loch pH. The lowest pH recorded was pH 4.57 on 13/12/16 whilst the highest was 4.9 on 07/02/17. 14 Figure 10: The average daily pH of Loch Grannoch between 09/12/2016 and 09/03/2017 at 8 m deep 6.2.3 Dissolved oxygen results The sonde deployed in Loch Grannoch collected dissolved oxygen (DO) information as well as pH. Results presented in Figure 11 shows that the daily average DO in the loch ranged from 94.9 % saturation on 06/03/17 to 100.6 % saturation on 21/02/17 showing that there was sufficient oxygen available for adult charr in the water column. DO could not be collected from a depth greater than 10 m due to pressure constraints of the sonde. Figure 11: The pH of Loch Grannoch between 09/12/2016 and 09/03/2017 15 7 DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF THE LOCH TO SUPPORT A JUVENILE AND ADULT ARCTIC CHARR POPULATION 7.1 Other species and interactions Arctic charr are known to show adverse effects if living in low densities. In several low productivity lakes in Iceland it has been found that introducing charr has reduced trout numbers (A. Ferguson, pers. comm.). However as charr are usually found cohabiting waterbodies with trout it has been suggested by experts that there is not likely to be a major impact on a healthy population of brown trout. In the initial project specification it was planned to undertake plankton sampling in order to gauge if there was sufficient prey items in the loch to sustain a population of both charr and trout. After discussion with charr and trout experts it was decided that this would not significantly add to our knowledge or assist in any application made to re-introduce charr because a) there appears to be a relatively healthy population of trout in the loch, and b) charr and trout living together prey on different food items, thus there would be little competition for the food resource. Indeed the feeding habits of charr and brown trout in waterbodies containing only one of these fish species was shown by Nilsson (1963) to be very similar – prey items include Gammarus, Limnaea, Ephemeroptera nymphs, Trichoptera larvae, terrestrial insects, and small crustacean (Nilsson, 1963). However, when trout and charr occur together, which is common in the UK, trout typically occupy the littoral zone and feed on benthic invertebrates and surface insect whereas charr are predominantly zooplanktivorous and utilise the habitat between the profundal and littoral zones (Jensen et al, 2017). 7.2 Potential impacts Maitland et al (2007) explained that the greatest threats to charr are pollution, eutrophication, acidification, afforestation, engineering, exploitation, aquaculture, climate change (particularly in lakes already affected by fish introductions and eutrophication) and the introduction of alien species. In the case of a re-introduced charr population in Loch Grannoch, apart from acidification, few of the above threats would be likely to have an impact. Although unlikely, there is potential for the catchment to become more afforested in the future which would include new ground preparation and tree planting. The current main land use in the catchment of the loch is commercial forestry (mainly Sitka spruce plantations) but there are a range of ages and thus felling years. There is some open space and long term retention forestry within the catchment and it is anticipated that future replanting will include higher environmental standards such as larger riparian buffer zones which would imply that the impact of forestry activities in the future is likely to be lower than it has been. 7.3 Predator/prey interactions There are few piscivorous birds based at Loch Grannoch therefore the likelihood of the reintroduced population being impacted by birds is low. Furthermore, charr are known to live at depth and therefore only diving birds would be likely to interact with a re-introduced charr population. Loch Grannoch is not heavily fished by anglers. Usually Forest Enterprise holds up to six open angling days per year on the loch between July and September, and the anglers are usually concentrated around the south end, fishing in the shallower waters of the south bay. These anglers are targeting the abundant brown trout which appear to have flourished in the loch since numbers had been depressed by acidification in the 1970s and 80s. On 16 average 25 anglers per day attend these fishing events and catch, on average, 134 fish per angling day (between 2012 and 2016) (Archie McNellie pers. comm.). Angling is therefore unlikely to have a significant effect on an introduced charr population in the loch. In time, introduced charr could become a resource for angling, particularly specialised charr anglers, if the population was determined to be healthy enough. 7.4 Determine the suitability of the loch to support a juvenile and adult arctic charr population Figure 12: Loch Grannoch looking north from the south The labile aluminium results obtained during the spot sampling work show that levels are much lower than those recorded as part of the UK Upland Waters Monitoring Network in the 1980s and90s which is encouraging. Kernan et al (2010) has suggested that there is a more muted recovery of acidified waterbodies in afforested sites which is likely to be a reflection of the more acidic starting conditions. This appears to have been the case at Loch Grannoch. The main chemical response to falling acid deposition is Loch Grannoch has been falling Labile Aluminum rather than rising pH (Kernen at al, 2010). Results from the spot samples show that the labile aluminium levels are much reduced from those observed in the 1980s. Labile aluminium levels in Loch Grannoch are shown in Figure 13 (taken from The United Kingdom Upland Waters Monitoring Network Data Report 2014-2015). Figure 13: Labile aluminium levels in Loch Grannoch from 1988 to 2015 (taken from The 17 United Kingdom Upland Waters Monitoring Network Data Report 2014-2015) In terms of pH, the results obtained from the spot sampling work show that levels are somewhat improved than those recorded as part of the UK Upland Waters Monitoring Network in the 1980s and 90s (Figure 14). Although the results since 1988 show an improving trend, the pH has not recovered as quickly as was hoped. All but one result from the spot sampling recorded a loch pH of below pH 5. Figure 14: The pH of in Loch Grannoch from 1988 to 2015 (taken from The United Kingdom Upland Waters Monitoring Network Data Report 2014-2015) After discussion with experts it was concluded that the loch could support charr in physical terms but the pH of the water is not yet suitable for the re-introduction of charr. Maitland (2003) suggested that the water should be consistently above pH 5 before reintroduction was considered. 18 8 INVESTIGATE OTHER RELEVANT ARCTIC CHARR WORK SUCH AS REINTRODUCTIONS AND REARING PROGRAMMES; ENGAGE WITH EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, POTENTIALLY ESTABLISHING A LEVEL OF PARTNERSHIP WORKING AND/OR RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES 8.1 Other Arctic charr re-introductions Charr were translocated from Loch Doon to the Talla and Megget Reservoirs (River Tweed catchment) in the early 1990s in order to establish genetic refuge sites because Loch Doon charr were, and potentially still are, threatened by acidification. The translocation involved rearing of eggs stripped from adult fish the previous year. A survey carried out in 2010 found that the translocated charr populations had established at these sites (SNH, 2011). There was a recent attempt at translocating charr from Lake Windermere to Grimwith Reservoir in Yorkshire. Eggs were stripped from an autumn spawning population in the south basin and were incubated in a hatchery and introduced as fingerings between 1989 and 1991. Gill netting afterwards suggested reasonable initial survival however no further monitoring was carried out. Following a sharp decline in a population of river spawning charr in Ennerdale Water in the Lake District, because of forestry and acidification impacts, charr were raised at Kielder hatchery and stocked into Kielder Reservoir by the Environment Agency. This now an ‘ark site’ for the Ennerdale population. Due to a lack of resources, there hasn’t been a follow up survey to assess the success of this programme (Richard Bond, pers. comm.) Wales has seen a number of translocations of Arctic charr. Between 1977 and 1982 Arctic charr were translocated to lake Ffynnon Llugwy primarily from the charr population in Llyn Pardarn. Surveys conducted in 1982 found a spawning population had become established. Further surveys in 2004 showed a healthy spawning population still present in the lake. In Lake Llyn Diwaunedd a spawning population of charr was discovered in the early 1990s however it is thought that charr were not native to this lake. This indicated a translocation may have taken place however the timing and the source of fish are uncertain (Maitland, et al 2007). Accidental translocations have occurred in the past due to connections created by hydropower schemes. For example, charr were pumped up several hundred meters from Loch Awe into Cruachan Reservoir (Maitland, et al 2007). 8.2 Engage with experts in the field From the beginning of this project GFT has been in touch with experts in the charr field, indeed the principal researchers were all invited to the Stakeholder meeting (i.e. Professor Peter Maitland, Alexander Lyle, Professor Colin Adams and Professor Colin Bean). Since we do not currently have charr in Dumfries and Galloway, GFT was keen to engage with these experts in order to gain knowledge on charr prior to any re-introduction work. GFT was also eager to hear their views on the aims of the project and gain their support for the re-introduction work, if it was deemed feasible. Due to charr being ‘poor cousins’ of the most recognisable salmonids, the salmon and the trout, there is much less information available on distinct populations of charr in Scotland. Since we were most concerned with water quality and charr, we had to seek out those who held any information on water quality in locations which also held extant populations of charr. In terms of research, the University of Glasgow, Professor Colin Adams in particular, carry out various research on charr at different times. It is likely that if charr are re-introduced to 19 Loch Grannoch then there would be research opportunities, perhaps as post graduate projects. Professor Paulo Prodohl and Queen’s University, in conjunction with Professor Andy Ferguson, have indicated that they would be very interested in the genetic evolution of an introduced charr population. 20 9 INVESTIGATE AND IDENTIFY PRACTICAL METHODS OF UNDERTAKING THE ARCTIC CHARR RE-INTRODUCTION WORK INCLUDING ASSESSING ACCESS ISSUES One of the most positive areas of management for endangered stocks of fish lies in the establishment of new populations – either to replace those which have become extinct or to provide an additional safeguard for valuable stocks in threatened waters (Maitland, 1985). Stock may be transferred as eggs, fry, juveniles or adults. Adult translocation, if the health of the donor stock allowed this (Maitland et al, 1991), would allow nature to take its course. However the removal of adults could pose a threat to the parent stock (Maitland et al, 2007) so the health of the donor population would have to be assessed if unknown. It would be very difficult to get a wide range of genetic populations without carrying out several translocations from different populations across the UK. Transferring eggs, fry or juveniles does allow increased choice from a wide range of charr populations. These would be chosen for their genetic characteristics by sampling known populations which have shown a tolerance to acidic waters to ensure the best possible chance at survival in Loch Grannoch. With regards to eggs there are questions surrounding the best method of rearing to give the greatest survival. One method would be to raise eggs and feed the alevins past their most sensitive stages before releasing them. However by feeding on the alevins you risk dampening their natural feeding instinct and increasing their domestication. It also reduces their predator avoidance as they will be attuned to feeding at the surface which is not natural. Alternatively they could be released straight after hatching, however this exposes the alevins to acidic water at a particularly sensitive life stage. Adult broodstock could either be returned safely to their original waterbody to spawn in future years however depending on the parent stock, adults can also be moved (Maitland et al, 1991). Creating redds in suitable spawning locations and transferring fertilised eggs is another method which could be monitored and this would provide an insight into the ability of the charr to become a spawning population. Alevins and adult charr sourced from Loch Doon have been successfully translocated into Megget and Talla Reservoirs (Maitland et al, 1991; Maitland & Lyle, 2003). It is therefore considered that a transfer of both adult and juvenile charr into Loch Grannoch would be most appropriate. This would avoid the transfer of eggs and alevins which are the most sensitive life stages. Stocking should be carried out over a period of at least two years. It has been suggested by Maitland and Lyle (2003) that around 30 female and 30 male adult charr should be transferred along with 50 to 100 juvenile charr. Obtaining the stock to transfer would entail netting adult charr in shallow water from the source waterbody(ies) during the spawning period. Juvenile fish may be harder to source, depending on which donor populations were selected, however rearing eggs stripped from adults and rearing them through to the juvenile stage would be an option. 21 10 INVESTIGATE AND IDENTIFY POTENTIAL SUITABLE SOURCE (DONOR) POPULATIONS OF ARCTIC CHARR WITH CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO GENETICS In order to identify suitable donor population/s of charr it was required to look at the genetics of potentially suitable populations. After consultation with experts it was decided that because of the historical low pH of Loch Grannoch, it was required to identify charr populations in other waterbodies which also had a lower pH. After this was done it would be necessary to ascertain whether those charr populations were in a favourable state, i.e. healthy enough to remove charr for the translocation work. 10.1 Potential donor populations of charr In order to establish which charr containing waterbodies were of lower pH, numerous people were contacted to obtain water quality data and charr population information. It proved to be extremely difficult to obtain up to date pH data from most waterbodies supporting charr, as many of these lochs and lakes are not periodically monitored. Certainly in Scotland, many charr bearing lochs are relatively inaccessible and are not monitored for either the pH or the current status of their charr population. SEPA were able to provide recent water quality information on some lochs that had been provisionally identified by experts as likely candidates for having a low pH. In addition, some recent water quality information was obtained from researchers involved in the UK Upland Waters Monitoring Network 4. The SNH Standing Waters Database 5 was queried using information supplied by Professor Colin Adams on charr holding lochs and this gave some pH data collected from between 25 to 30 years ago. Data available is shown in Figure 15 below. Charr loch pH Date of sampling Loch Suainabheal Loch nan Geireann Loch Naver Loch Awe Loch Lubnaig Loch Tarff Loch an t-Seilich Loch Einich Loch Lee Loch an Duin Loch an t-Seilich Loch Avon Loch Bhrodainn Loch Builg Loch Callater Loch Einich Loch Bhrodainn Loch Callater 6.2 6.4 6.48 6.779 6.83 6.856 7.08 6.42 6.67 6.99 6.89 5.42 6.91 7.21 6.74 6.32 6.61 6.83 Recent SEPA reading Recent SEPA reading Recent SEPA reading Recent SEPA reading Recent SEPA reading Recent SEPA reading 1995 Recent SEPA reading Recent SEPA reading 2002 Recent SEPA reading Average of 6 readings from 1979 to 1993 Average of 2 readings from 1990 to 2002 Average of 3 readings from 1980 to 2002 Average of 6 readings from 1980 to 1993 Average of 7 readings from 1955 to 1993 1990 1988 4 http://awmn.defra.gov.uk/ 5 http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/pls/apex_cagdb2/f?p=111:1000:::::: 22 Loch Avon Loch An Duin Loch An Duin, Lewis Loch an Duin Loch Bhrodain Lochan a Choire Loch a Mhuilinn Lochan Dubh Loch Uaine Dubh Loch Loch a Chroisg Loch an Easain Uaine Loch a Choire Lochan na Seilg Loch Scamadal Lochan Uaine Loch an Duin Loch nan Ealachan Loch Fada Loch na Dail Loch Uidh Tarrraigean Loch Bad a Ghaill Loch Eilenach 6.3 6.74 7 6.71 6.82 4.7 6.6 4.8 6.27 4.58 6.15 8.7 4.7 6.76 5.1 5.55 6.74 5.53 7.02 5.81 6.49 6.39 7.06 1996 1995 1995 1995 1995 1987 1989 1987 1993 1898 1990 1988 1988 1988 1989 1988 1995 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1988 Figure 15: Showing available pH data from some known charr lochs in Scotland It was concluded that there are not many known low pH lochs with a population of Arctic charr present. Indeed much of the available data is almost 30 years old so does not provide an accurate picture of the pH of these (likely extant) charr waterbodies. 10.2 Considering genetics At the same time as looking into potential donor populations of charr, it was required to ascertain from which populations existing genetic samples were available for analysis. The analysis was to be carried out by Professor Paulo Prodohl at Queen’s University Belfast using Arctic charr mitochondrial DNA markers already held by the University. To attempt to answer the question of which donor population(s) would be the most suitable for translocation there needed to be >20 specimens from as many waterbodies as possible. This initial screening would identify potential donor populations however a Risk Assessment would also be required to assess whether the source(s) were healthy enough to act as donors. In order to make this assessment between 30 to 50 individual samples from potential source populations would need to be screened to identify how viable they were in terms of genetic diversity. It is desirable to ensure maximum genetic diversity of donor population/s of charr that are introduced into Loch Grannoch because over time natural selection will act on genetic variation so the best genes for coping with the Loch Grannoch environment are retained in the reintroduced population. This differs from previous practices which advised to simply use the geographically closest population, but which may not provide the most suitable genetic characteristics for the local environment. For this screening to take place it was required to identify individuals and organisations that 23 held physical samples of charr genetic material and which of these were available for analysis. All fisheries trusts in Scotland were contacted and asked if they held any charr genetic material. Charr experts were also contacted as well as Marine Scotland Science, the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology, the University of the Highlands and Islands and the Environment Agency. Glasgow University held the greatest number of samples from different populations, with Marine Scotland Science and the University of the Highlands and Islands also holding material from several populations of interest (see Figure 14). Agreement was reached and permission was granted from these three organisations to provide their samples for genetic analysis. In early spring 2017 Queen’s University provided information on what was needed in terms of samples and how long analysis would take. Genetic analysis of these samples did not actually take place because discussion on the final pH analysis of the loch water had taken precedence. Funds allocated to cover this important genetic analysis were therefore reallocated within the Galloway Glens project. 24 11 IDENTIFY THE NECESSARY LICENCES AND ENGAGE WITH RELEVANT LICENCING AGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL BODIES INCLUDING THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT, WITH REFERENCE TO THE SCOTTISH CODE FOR TRANSLOCATIONS AND CORRESPONDING TRANSLOCATION PROJECT FORM In order to protect native biodiversity from the consequences of introductions of non-native species of fish, legislation came into force on August 2008 regulating the introduction (i.e. stocking) of all species of freshwater fish within Scotland. The legislation makes it an offence for any person to intentionally introduce any live fish or spawn of any fish into inland waters, or possess such with the intention of introduction without previous written agreement (i.e. a licence) from the appropriate authority 6. In addition to licencing requirements, GFT was advised by SNH to refer to and fill in a ‘Translocation Project Form’. This form is part of the Scottish Code for Conservation Translocations which provides best practice guidelines for conservation translocations 7. A conservation translocation is the deliberate movement and release of living organisms for conservation purposes which includes: reinforcement (adding to an existing population), reintroduction (restoring a species to parts of its natural range from which it has been lost), and conservation introduction (establishing new populations of a species out with its natural range). The Translocation Project Form was partially completed with information gained whilst the project was running. If the outcome of the project was favourable and Loch Grannoch had been suitable for the introduction of Arctic charr then the fully complete Translocation Project Form would have been submitted to SNH for approval. 6 http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Licensing/fishintros 7 http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/wildlife/CodeTranslocationsGuidelines.pdf 25 12 DETERMINE AND DESCRIBE, WITH EVIDENCE, WHETHER THE ARCTIC CHARR TRANSLOCATION PROJECT IS DEEMED FEASIBLE AT LOCH GRANNOCH 12.1 Is it appropriate to re-introduce Arctic charr into Loch Grannoch? With consideration to all information and data collected over the course of this project, along with full consideration of expert opinion, unfortunately Loch Grannoch was deemed unsuitable for the re-introduction of Arctic charr at this time. 12.2 Reasoning for the decision The reasons for the decision not to re-introduce Arctic charr into Loch Grannoch at this time are:  The pH of the loch was still more acidic than had been anticipated. Because of the apparent healthy populations of trout in the loch and the recovery of other upland lochs in Galloway it had been assumed that the pH was likely to have recovered to levels over pH 5. Unfortunately when measured over the sensitive winter and early spring period when charr eggs would be in gravels, the pH of the loch remained just below 5.  The historical Loch Grannoch charr population is widely accepted to have died out because of the effects of acidification. Expert opinion has strongly suggested that because the pH of the loch has still not reached acceptable levels for the reintroduction of charr it is, at the moment, too low for there to be a realistic chance of successful survival of a re-introduced population. GFT does believe that the loch will continue to recover. The lowest pHs recorded in the spot sampling are not too far away from what might be considered acceptable (pH 5). When the pH of the loch consistently recorded above 5 then the information contained within this report can be used as a basis for future introduction work. 26 13 APPENDIX 1: STAKEHOLDER MEETING ATTENDEES, PRESENTATION AND MAIN OUTCOMES 13.1 Invitees Alexander Lyle, Alex Lyle Projects Alisdair MacDonald, Marine Scotland Science Alison Bell, SEPA Alistair McCartney, Marine Scotland Science Andrew Jarrott, Forest Enterprise Andy Gowans, Environment Agency Archie McNellie, Forest Enterprise Duncan Baillie, local angler Emily Taylor, Crichton Carbon Centre/Biosphere Ian Winfield, CEH James Ingall, Kirkcudbrightshire Dee District Salmon Fishery Board John Gorman, SEPA Karen Morley, Dumfries and Galloway Council/Galloway Glens McNabb Laurie, Dumfries and Galloway Council/Galloway Glens Peter Norman, Dumfries and Galloway Council Biodiversity Officer Professor Andy Ferguson, Queen’s University Belfast Professor Colin Adams, University of Glasgow Professor Colin Bean, SNH Professor Paulo Prodohl, Queen’s University Belfast Professor Peter Maitland, Fish Conservation Centre Robin Ade, local angler Stuart Ferns, Scottish Power 13.2 Attendees Alisdair MacDonald, Marine Scotland Science Alison Bell, SEPA Alistair McCartney, Marine Scotland Science Duncan Baillie, local angler Emily Taylor, Crichton Carbon Centre/Biosphere Ian Winfield, CEH Jackie Graham, GFT John Gorman, SEPA Karen Morley, Dumfries and Galloway Council/Galloway Glens Peter Norman, Dumfries and Galloway Council Biodiversity Officer Professor Andy Ferguson, Queen’s University Belfast Professor Colin Adams, University of Glasgow Professor Colin Bean, SNH Professor Paulo Prodohl, Queen’s University Belfast Victoria Semple, GFT 13.3 Main outcomes of meeting  Water quality is important, however habitat quality is also important in order to sustain a population of charr. Water quality of the loch itself is key. Tributaries are important but the loch is more so as this is where the charr are most likely to spawn and live all the time. Access to water quality data was discussed and data sharing from Ian Winfield, Colin Bean, Colin Adams, Alistair McCartney and Alison Bell was agreed. 27  The reason for the charr extinction was discussed – the consensus and the same as the widely accepted reason –they died out because of acidification. A discussion was held surrounding time frames of extinction and reasons. It was agreed that habitat must be assessed as it may be more important than previously thought.  It was discussed and agreed that any future donor populations should be selected from lochs of similar conditions and pH ranges. These areas needed to be identified as well as individuals/organisations with which to engage with.  An intermediate study using egg boxes to determine the survival of charr at its most sensitive life stage was suggested. Important that this is explored further.  Eggs or adults to be used for re-introduction was discussed.  Logistics and resources would need to be considered when determining donor populations as spawning times can vary widely between charr waterbodies.  Future monitoring post re-introduction was discussed. The need for identifying future partnerships/collaborations/research work was highlighted and this may fit into the project legacy. University researchers/PhDs to carry out monitoring was suggested.  The historical population of charr in Loch Dungeon was discussed – relatively recent anecdotal evidence had suggested there may still be a remnant population of charr there. If this population is confirmed then could these be a potential donor or would numbers be too sparse? Using eDNA to determine presence/absence in Loch Dungeon was discussed.  Environmental matching most suitable way of determining which donor population to use. We have nothing to use for genetic matching at Loch Grannoch and common ancestry is not always reliable. 28 14 APPENDIX 2: REFERENCES Baker, J. P. and Schofield, C. L., (1982) Aluminium toxicity to fish in acidic waters. Water, Air and Soil Pollution. 18 (1), pp289 – 309. Baker, J. P., Sickle, J. V., Gragen, C. J., DeWalle, D. R., Sharpe, W. E., Carline, R. F., Baldigo, B. P., Murdoch, P. S., Bath, D. W., Krester, W. A., Simonin, H. A., Wigington, P. J., (1996) Episodic Acidification of Small Streams in the North-Eastern United States: Effects on Fish Populations. Ecological Applications 6 (2) pp422-437. Baldigo, P. B. and Lawrence, G. B. (2001) Effects of Stream Acidification and Habitat on Fish Populations of a North American River. Aquatic Science 63: pp196-222. Baroudy, E. & Elliott, J. M. (1994) Tolerance of parr of Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus, to reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations. Journal of Fish Biology 44: pp736-738. Baroudy, E. (1995) Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) in Windermere (Cumbria). Freshwater Biological Association Freshwater Forum, Vol 5, No 3. Effects of Exposure to Aluminium on Fish in Acidic Waters. C.M. Sharma. 2003. A term paper submitted to The Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management (INA) Agricultural University of Norway. Fisheries Research Services (2004) Scotland’s Arctic Charr. Available: http://www.gov.scot/Uploads/Documents/FW15ArcticCharr.pdf. Last accessed 18th January 2017. Harvey, H. H. (1982) Population responses of fish in acidified waters. In: Johnson, R.E., ed. Proceedings of an International Symposium on Acidic Precipitation and Fishery Impacts in Northeastern North America. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society, pp227–242. Jeffries, D.S., Brydges. T. G., Dillon, P. J., Keller, W. (2003) Monitoring the results of Canada/U.S.A. acid rain control programs: some lake responses. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 88: pp3–19. Jensen, H., Kiljunen, M., Knudsen, R., Amundsen, P.-A. (2017) Resource Partitioning in Food, Space and Time between Arctic Charr (Salvelinus alpinus), Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) and European Whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus) at the Southern Edge of Their Continuous Coexistence. PLoS ONE 12 (1): e0170582. doi:10.137 1/journal.pone.0170582. Jobling, M. (1994) Fish Bioenergetics. Chapman & Hall, Fish and Fisheries Series 13, pp155-201. Jobling, M., Tveiten, H. and Hatlen, B., (1998) REVIEW Cultivation of Arctic charr: an update. Aquaculture International, 6 (3), pp181-196. Johnson, L. (1980) The Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus. In: Charrs: Salmonid Fishes of the Genus Salvelinus (ed. E.K. Balon) Dr W. Junk: The Hague, pp15–98. Jones, K. A., Brown, S. B., Hara, T. J. 1987. Behavioural and Biochemical Studies of Onset and Recovery from Acid Stress in Arctic Charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 1987, Vol. 44, No. 2 pp. 373-381. 29 Kernan, M., Battarbee, R.W., Curtis, C.J., Monteith, D.T., Shilland, E.M. 2010. Recovery of lakes and streams in the UK from the effects of acid rain UK Acid Waters Monitoring Network 20 Year Interpretative Report. Klemetsen, A., Amundsen, P.A., Dempson, J. B., Jonsson, B., Jonsson, N., O'Connell, M. F., Mortensen, E. (2003) Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L., brown trout Salmo trutta L. and Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (L.): a review of aspects of their life histories. Ecology of Freshwater Fish. 12 (1) pp1-59. Lochart, W. L. and Lutz, A. (1977) Preliminary Biochemical Observations of Fishes inhabiting an Acidified Lake in Ontario, Canada. Water, Air and Soil Pollution. 7: pp317-332. Maitland, P. & Campbell, R. N. (1992) Freshwater Fishes. The New Naturalist Series. Harper Collins, pp132-140. Maitland, P.S. (1985) Criteria for the selection of important sites for freshwater fish in the British Isles. Biological Conservation. 31: 335–353. Maitland, P. (2007) Scotland’s freshwater fish. Ecology, conservation & folklore. London: Trafford Publishing (UK) Ltd. pp243- 251. Maitland, P. S. and Lyle, A. A. (2003). Assessment of fish species in Loch Grannoch, Galloway, with special reference to Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus. Forest Enterprise contract 03/01 Maitland, P.S. May, L. Jones, D.H. Doughty, C.R. (1991) Ecology and conservation of artic charr, Salvelinus alpinus (L.), in Loch Doon, an acidifying loch in southwest Scotland. Biological Conservation 55 (1991) 167-197 Maitland, P.S., Winfield, I.J., McCarthy, I.D., Igoe. F. (2007) The status of Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus in Britain and Ireland. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 2007: 16: pp6–19. 2006 Blackwell Munksgaard. Nilsson, N. -A. (1963) Interaction Between Trout and Char in Scandinavia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 92 (3), pp276-285. Rosseland, B. O., Sevaldrud, I., Svalastag, D. & Muniz, I.P. (1980) Studies on freshwater fish populations – effects of acidification on reproduction, population structure, growth and food selection. In: Drabløs, D. & Tollan, A., eds. Ecological impact of acid precipitation: Proceedings of an International Conference, Sandefjord, Norway, March 1980. Oslo: SNSFprosjektet, pp. 336–337. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). (2013) Arctic Charr. Available: http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/species/fish/freshwater-fish/charr/. Last th Accessed: 14 Feb 2017. Scottish Natural Heritage (2011) Loch Doon site of special scientific interest site management statement file. Available: ///C:/Users/Neil/Downloads/site976-doc3%20(2).pdf. Last Accessed 22nd Feb 2017. Service, R. (1902) The vertebrates of Solway. Transactions of the Dumfries and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society. 17, pp15-31. Steinar Sæther, B. and Siikavuopio, S. I. Water quality requirement and holding conditions of 30 Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus L.) under intensive fish farming conditions. From the Northern Periphery Programme http://www.northernperiphery.eu/en/projects/show/&tid=4 Interreg IIIB, 200-2006. The United Kingdom Upland Waters Monitoring Network Data Report for 2014 – 2015 (Year 27). Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Contract EPG 1/3/160). 2016. Walker A. F. (2007) Stream spawning of Arctic charr in Scotland. Ecology of Freshwater Fish. 16: pp47–53. Walker, C.H., Hopkin, S.P., Silby, R.M., Peakall, D.B., (2001) Principles of Ecotoxicology. Second Edition. Taylor & Francis, London, UK. Wentworth, C.E. (1922) A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. Journal of Ecology, 30, 377-392. 31  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Loch Grannoch Arctic charr re-introduction feasibility project Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_41 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017 Description An account of the resource Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Commissioned Report undertaken by Galloway Fisheries Trust. environment GGLP https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/499/GGLP-LCAP-Appendix-9-Access.pdf 48e959e0b02c6fe763955406b5897153 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Access Audit for the Galloway Glens Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Reports Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 CONTENTS Ch. 1 Page Number Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3 2 Supply Audit ....................................................................................................... 4 2.1 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 Core Paths and Rights of Way used by walkers, cyclists and riders ................... 4 Promoted route ......................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Around Kirkcudbright ...................................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Around Castle Douglas ................................................................................... 5 2.2.3 Loch Ken and surround area ........................................................................... 5 2.2.4 North of the Valley .......................................................................................... 6 Other significant paths not core or rights of way ................................................. 6 Long distance routes and cycle networks ............................................................. 6 2.4.1 The Southern Upland Way .............................................................................. 6 2.4.2 Sustrans’ National Cycle Network (NCN) Route ............................................. 7 Sites for water-based recreation and access to them............................................ 7 2.5.1 Galloway Activity Centre (GAC) ...................................................................... 7 2.5.2 Loch Ken Marina ............................................................................................ 8 2.5.3 Crossmichael Marina ...................................................................................... 8 2.5.4 Boat O’Rhone layby ........................................................................................ 8 Equestrian access ................................................................................................... 9 Current works / initiatives ...................................................................................... 9 Facilities and sites suitable for all abilities (disabled access) ............................. 9 Quiet roads / pavements ......................................................................................... 9 Carparks / stopping places ...................................................................................... 9 Quality of Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 10 Sensitive areas ....................................................................................................... 10 Conflict between users .......................................................................................... 11 3 Demand Audit ................................................................................................. 12 3.1 Current Demand .................................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Walking ......................................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Wild Swimming ............................................................................................. 12 3.1.3 Triathlons and Ultramarathon ........................................................................ 13 3.1.4 Equestrian Access ........................................................................................ 14 3.1.5 Water sports ................................................................................................. 14 3.1.6 Angling.......................................................................................................... 15 3.1.7 Cycling .......................................................................................................... 15 3.1.8 Missing Links ................................................................................................ 16 3.1.9 Viewpoints and stopping places .................................................................... 16 3.1.10 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 17 Potential Demand .................................................................................................. 17 3.2.1 Tourism Trends ............................................................................................ 17 3.2.2 Active sports and event ................................................................................. 17 3.2.3 All ability access ........................................................................................... 17 3.2.4 Cycle / Equestrian access ............................................................................. 18 3.2.5 Access to the shore at Loch Ken................................................................... 18 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.2 Title 1 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 3.2.6 3.2.7 Water sports access ..................................................................................... 18 Long distance routes..................................................................................... 18 4 Policy Audit ...................................................................................................... 19 4.1 4.2 Legislation .............................................................................................................. 19 Government policies ............................................................................................. 19 4.2.1 Physical Activity Implementation Plan ........................................................... 19 4.2.2 Let’s Get Scotland Walking ........................................................................... 19 4.2.3 Cycling Action Plan for Scotland ................................................................... 19 Local authority statutory plans ............................................................................. 20 4.3.1 Dumfries and Galloway: Active Travel Strategy ............................................ 20 4.3.2 Open Outdoors: The Dumfries & Galloway Outdoor Access Strategy ........... 21 4.3.3 The Dumfries & Galloway Core Path Plan..................................................... 21 4.3.4 Dumfries & Galloway Council Local Development Plan ................................ 21 4.3.5 Dumfries and Galloway Open Space Strategy .............................................. 22 4.3.6 Dumfries & Galloway Regional Tourism Strategy .......................................... 22 4.3 5 Resource Audit ........................................................................... 24 5.1 5.2 Existing Resources ................................................................................................ 24 Potential Resources .............................................................................................. 24 6 Proposed Projects areas ........................................................................... 25 6.1 6.3 6.4 Strategic / long distance routes ........................................................................... 25 6.1.1 Castle Douglas to Cairnsmore of Fleet via Loch Ken Viaduct ....................... 25 6.1.2 Source to Sea - Carsphairn to the Coast ....................................................... 25 6.1.3 Loch Ken – Boat O Rhone to Ken Bridge ..................................................... 25 6.1.4 Kirkcudbright to Doon Bay ............................................................................ 26 6.1.5 Circular walk around Loch Ken ..................................................................... 26 6.1.6 Canoe trail – Lock Ken and the River Dee .................................................... 26 Localised access ................................................................................................... 26 6.2.1 Access to Loch Ken’s shores ........................................................................ 26 6.2.2 Angling Sites around Loch Ken ..................................................................... 27 6.2.3 All ability access in the Galloway Glens ........................................................ 27 6.2.4 Increased Equestrian Access in the Galloway Glens .................................... 27 Layby and Stopping Points around Loch Ken .................................................... 27 Improving access to the core path network ........................................................ 28 7 Projects priorities ........................................................................................... 29 7.1 7.2 High priority projects ............................................................................................. 29 Reserve projects .................................................................................................... 30 6.2 Appendix A B C D Core paths in the Galloway Glens area ................................................................. 31 Strategic Routes ..................................................................................................... 34 Improvements to Core Paths ................................................................................ 36 Improvement to views and stopping places ......................................................... 38 2 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 Access Audit for the Galloway Glens 1. Introduction Focusing on the catchment of the Ken and Dee in the Stewartry area of Dumfries and Galloway, the Heritage Lottery funded Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership scheme aims to undertake a series of projects that will connect people and communities with the unique natural and cultural heritage of the area. Access to this heritage is key to the success of the scheme. Outdoor access is now recognised as a key driver for delivering a range of outcomes for residents and visitors including improved health and wellbeing, economic growth and increase interest in and appreciation of the value of our rich local heritage. Outdoor recreation and tourism is worth £302m to the region’s economy as it supports 7,000 jobs and plays a vital role in the physical and mental health wellbeing of its residents.1 This is particularly important to the Ken/Dee Valley with its extensive opportunities for outdoor recreation in a stunning rural environment. The potential for access is however under-utilised and under promoted. This audit will critically assess the existing provision for outdoor access in the area, the demand and potential for increasing this access and how this demand might best be met through the Landscape Partnership Scheme and beyond. Our aim is to work with local residents, partners, and businesses to achieve significant increase in access for all users across the valley. 1 Dumfries & Galloway Regional Tourism Strategy 2016-2020, Dumfries & Galloway Council, (April 2016) 3 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 2. Supply Audit 2.1 Core Paths & Rights of Way used by walkers, cyclists & riders Under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 all access authorities had a statutory duty to produce a core path plan, ‘sufficient for the purpose of giving the public reasonable access throughout their area’. This was adopted in Dumfries and Galloway in 2013. The Council has invested significantly since then in upgrading and signing these core path routes to ensure they are in a ‘reasonable condition’. This is the priority for the Council’s access department. Often paths deemed in ‘reasonable condition’ by the Council would benefit from further work to make them more attractive to users especially those with additional needs or to ensure visitors have a higher quality experience on their visit. It is recognised that the methodology for the identification of the core paths focused heavily on the paths identified by local communities. This has meant that sometimes more strategic routes, minority user groups and often popular local routes were not identified through this process. In addition stopping places, access to public transport and additional facilities such a picnic areas and camping opportunities, were not considered. The Galloway Glens projects gives the opportunity now to consider this from a strategic level considering core paths, rights of way, other non-designated routes. We can also consider the provision for different user groups and whether there is opportunity to encourage certain activities through increased provision. Diagram 1.0 shows the existing core paths and rights of way within the project area 2.2 Promoted routes Dumfries & Galloway Council’s Environment team, in conjunction with the Wild Seasons’ (WS) partnership/website www.wildseasons.co.uk , promotes and provides information on specific targeted walks through downloads and leaflets. The routes the Council promote include core paths and local community paths. A number of these promoted routes are within Galloway Glens area.2 Please see Appendix A for a list of the core paths within and nearby the Galloway Glens catchment area at present.3 Added investment would link up and fill in any gaps which would make routes more inclusive. 2.2.1 Around Kirkcudbright There are a number of the promoted community paths surround the town of Kirkcudbright such as Torrs Point, Balcary and Rascarrel Bay. Also, there is a linear riverside walk around the River Dee with a woodland loop to Tongland. Barhill 2 For a full detailed list of core paths please see: http://www.dumgal.gov.uk/article/15304/Core-pathsin-Dumfries-and-Galloway, [accessed: 11/01/2017] 3 Appendix A. 4 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 Woods which abut the town on the eastern side is an important recreational site for the residents and visitors to the town (popular with dog walks and children alike). Barhill Woods is partially owned by the Council and the Forestry Enterprise Scotland but will soon pass into community management (the Council and FES will maintain ownership). St Marys Isle provides an attractive route with good views over the bay. 2.2.2 Around Castle Douglas There are also promoted community routes around Castle Douglas. The Carlingwark Circular is a local circular route around Carlingwark Loch on the outskirts of the town. There is also a circular woodland walk around Doach Wood. The Castle Douglas Town Trail is an easy circular town route using roadside pavements. The National Trust for Scotland also promotes an extensive path network around the wider Threave estate. The promoted routes to and around Threave Estate are easily accessible from the town centre and there are also parking facilities on site at Threave house and Kelton Mains. The Threave paths take in woodlands, wetlands, a disused railway line and bird hides. 2.2.3 Loch Ken and surround area Forestry Enterprise Scotland (FES) maintains three forest routes near Loch Ken including the route around Bennan Viewpoint, the path to Parton Viewpoint and the path at Kenick Burn, which also has a designated viewpoint and picnic facilities. FES also promotes a number of short trails from its visitor centres or carparks. In our area this includes Bruce’s Stone Trail and Loch View Trail from Clatteringshaws Visitor centre and the Buzzard trail from Loch Stroan car park. FES also promotes the Raider’s Road, a Forest Drive which includes the popular picnic/parking spot – the Otter Pool by the Black Water of Dee and which provides access to a number of core paths. These routes are all located in the Galloway Forest Park within a short drive from Loch Ken. The RSPB’s Galloway Kite Trail (GKT) is an anti-clockwise route around Loch Ken. During the winter, the trail is twenty four miles around the loch. In the summer, an additional fourteen miles of forest drive is added to the trail. The trail offers an 5 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 opportunity to walkers and cyclists to view red kites as they follow the trail. Bike racks are provided at Boat O’ Rhone, New Galloway and Mossdale. The west side of Loch Ken in particular is attractive for cyclists because the roads are relatively quiet. RSPB state that they promote the route as a stimulus in promoting ‘nature-based tourism to benefit local communities in the area’ and hope that ‘the trail helps to strengthen the ownership of the kites by local communities and tourist operators’. The GKT has several viewpoints with interpretation boards. 2.2.4 North of the Valley Dundeugh Forest is situated north of Galloway Glens between the Water of Ken, Kendoon Loch and Glenhoul Glen – near Dalry and Carsphairn. There is a walking circuit that compromises of mostly forestry terrain. There are limited parking spaces at the start of the track. 2.3 Other significant paths not core or rights of way Core path 190 leads from Forest estate to the summit of Corserine. However the popular walk along the ridge of the Rhinns of Kells to the summit of Meikle Millyea and back to forest estate is not designated as a core path. Garrock estate near New Galloway has an extensive network of paths and an access friendly owner, however these paths have become difficult to use due to lack of maintenance. The extensive areas of forestry plantation in the area result in many miles of forest road often highly suitable for a variety of forms of access. 2.4 Long distance routes and cycle networks 2.4.1 The Southern Upland Way The Southern Upland Way was one the first four of Scotland's Great Trails (formerly known as long distance routes) to be established. The Way is one of four of Scotland’s Great Trails within Dumfries and Galloway. It is the first coast to coast long distance route in Scotland, spanning the length of country from the Atlantic Ocean to the North Sea. The Way stretches 341 kilometres in total and is typically broken up into twelve stages. Two sections of the Way pass through the Galloway Glens area. The first being the Bargrennan to Dalry section which goes through Galloway Forest Park, Clatteringshaws Loch and then back up the hills before reaching St John’s Town of Dalry. The second, the St John’s of Dalry to Sanquhar stretch takes the walker further north. 6 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 Way users have given the Environment team a steady flow of feedback over the past couple of years through correspondence with our Rangers and Countryside Officers. Some of the negative feedback has been concerning way-marking, poor signage and ground conditions. Access improvements would bring the Way up to par with expected standards associated with long distance routes nationally. The same users also commented on positive aspects of the route such as encountering friendly locals and the views offered of the scenery along the way. This feedback could be used to enhance the experience of Way users who encounter this section which has such close proximity with Loch Ken and the River Dee by exploiting the area’s beautiful scenery and hub of human interaction. We recently reached out to providers who have accommodation along the Way’s route. From the feedback given, it was found that the amount of people who are walking the Southern Upland Way and staying in their accommodation has been declining for some years. Some of the comments on how usage of the Way could be better promoted included improving the information available to people before they arrive in the area. 2.4.2 Sustrans’ National Cycle Network (NCN) Route 7 Sustrans’ National Cycle Network (NCN) is a series of routes on safe, traffic-free paths. The NCN is not intended solely for cyclist use but also walkers, joggers, wheelchair users and horse riders. The routes on the NCN are laid out so that they connect towns with major cities. Route 7 of the NCN is 601 miles long and links Sunderland to Inverness. It passes through Castle Douglas, by the bottom of the River Dee, Kirkcudbright and Galloway National Forest Park. The route contains a Sustrans’ Greener Greenway which helps protect undeveloped land for environmental conservation and recreational use. Many cyclists have documented their thoughts on Route 7 through blogs and forums. Their comments reflect the benefits that the Dumfries and Galloway countryside can offer. One user noted that on his cycle there was ‘great countryside… the main roads are quiet even at the best of times’ and ‘few people’ are spotted. Other documented experiences mention 7 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 the enjoying the coastal scenery and the cycle stretch that passes by Clatteringshaws Loch. 2.5 Sites for water-based recreation and access to them Loch Ken is a 9 mile long originally natural loch extended in the 1930s by the Galloway Hydro scheme into a reservoir of freshwater. Water flows to the loch from the north by the Water of Ken and from the west from the River Dee. It is an idyllic and suitable location for water based recreation due to its calm flat waters. It is used for a number of activities including sailing, water-skiing, power-boating, canoeing, fishing and swimming. Water-based recreation use is varied on the loch, ranging from those that come to the loch with their own resources, to those that rent equipment from or pay a mooring or launching fee to local businesses on the loch. 2.5.1 Galloway Activity Centre (GAC) Situated on the eastern side of Loch Ken Galloway Activity Centre offers equipment hire and tuition for a range of water-based sports including kayaking, canoeing, sailing and windsurfing. The centre offers sessions by qualified sports instructors, planned group activities, equipment hire, café facilities and on-site accommodation. The centre also offers launching and mooring facilities. 2.5.2 Loch Ken Marina The centre for power boats on the loch the Loch Ken Marina includes a Water Ski School and slarlem course. Water ski lessons are available along with boat launching and mooring facilities 2.5.3 Crossmichael Marina Towards the southern end of the loch, Crossmichael Marina caters for fishing boats and recreational power boats, with launching and hire facilities; this is also the centre for regular organised wild swimming. 8 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 2.5.4 Boat O’Rhone layby Offering the only formal public launch facility around Loch Ken, Boat O’Rhone layby and has car and trailer parking and a slipway which is kept locked. Access to the slip way is through purchase of a key on a short term or seasonal basis. The layby and slip way are run by Dumfries and Galloway Council who operate a power boat registration scheme for the loch. The Council employs a part time seasonal ranger to administer and police the boat registration scheme and loch regulations. There are many opportunities for informal launching of non-powered craft along loch ken and the nearby river systems however there relatively few formalised locations. 2.6 Equestrian access Equestrian access within the area is largely confined to the forest roads and tracks. These provide an extensive network of routes although often key linkages are missing. There is currently no specific targeted route for horse riders or carriage drivers in the area and little information on suitable routes and access points. 2.7 Current works / initiatives The council is currently nearing completion of its upgrade works to core paths across the region. This investment in the network (worth £2.5 million over 5 years) should see every core path signed and barrier free by 2018. This work does not however always address the wider issues on paths such as ground conditions, availability of parking etc or add value to a path with interpretation, resting places and viewpoints. 2.8 Facilities and sites suitable for all abilities (disabled access) There are a limited number of access route within the area which are suitable for all abilities. These include the Bruce’s stone path by Clatteringshaws Visitor centre and the RSPB reserve at Ken Dee marshes, the reserve also offers accessible hides. There are very short sections of path at the Otterpool and some forest roads are suitable. 2.9 Quiet roads / pavements With the exception of the A75 and the A713 the roads in the area can be considered relatively quiet. Such roads can provide important cycling routes as well as short connecting sections for longer walking routes. Pavements in the area are restricted to the larger towns and villages with the exception of the partially complete section from Castle Douglas to Crossmichael along the eastern side of the A713. However narrow width, blind bends and often large agricultural vehicles, along with excessive 9 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 speed of the few vehicles on the road, can still be a barrier to some users of the road network. 2.10 Carparks / stopping places All core paths and most other route will start at a public road. However the core path planning process and subsequent upgrade work has not addressed how users reach the path itself. Many paths start away from settlements, public transport is infrequent. Most users therefore use their cars to reach the start of a path and in many cases there is no or insufficient parking at path starts. Viewpoints, picnic areas and start points for recreational activities are also an important feature of the Galloway Glens area. Past road improvements have left a number of isolated sections of road around Loch Ken some of which are used for informal or more formal laybys. Elsewhere stopping place are less frequent, in general most stopping places are in a relatively poor condition. Suitable picnic areas throughout the Glens area are infrequent, particularly around Loch Ken. Laybys and stopping areas with some formal facilities are identified in Appendix D. 2.11 Quality of infrastructure Infrastructure around the area is a mixture of longer existing facilities/furniture with some more recent additions. Some long standing infrastructure is in need of maintenance, repair or replacement. Some of the better quality elements are standing up well and just require inevitable maintenance. Other more recent lower quality infrastructure performs the function it was designed for but does little to enhance the quality of the area. 2.12 Sensitive areas There are several designated natural, cultural and built heritage sites around Loch Ken: - Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI): Kenmure Holms and River Dee. - Special Protected Area (SPA): Loch Ken and River Dee Marshes - Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM): spanning Neolithic to medieval periods - RAMSAR sites - Sites of Archaeological interest 10 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 2.13 Conflict between users Where multiple activities take place in the same location or use the same facilities some conflict between users can be expected. This is particularly the case when facilities are inadequate and under pressure. The relative opportunities for outdoor recreation and limited current users should mean that there is space for all however in some key locations conflict does arise. This is particularly the case around and on Loch Ken. The boat registration scheme and zoning of the loch with its associated regulations generally keeps conflict between motorised and non-motorised craft to a minimum. The most significant conflict on the Loch Ken waters is between anglers and canoeists. Limited access to the shore for fishing pitches and for launching canoes mean the two groups are often trying to utilise the same frontage with inevitable conflicts occurring. There can also be conflicts between powerboats and other users when competing for space on Loch Ken. Canoeists tend to avoid the high speed zone unless traveling through it. There can be potential conflict and dangers with wild swimmers especially if swimmers don’t make themselves visible. The above generally highlight the competition for space and potential dangers that arise when different types of users use Loch Ken at the same time, however the current space and user numbers should allow for safe use by all especially if key pinch points are recognised and addressed. There can be conflict on paths in the Galloway Glens. Pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders all potentially clash when they are using the paths at the same time without due respect for other users. When dealing with conflict between users the Scottish Outdoor Access Code is the leading guidance for responsible access. One of sections three’s main points focuses on enjoying the outdoors responsibly by taking account of your own actions and the safety of others. As part of this, it states you share the outdoors with others so you should ‘not interfere unreasonably with the rights of other people’ while taking ‘proper account of the interests of others’.4 If it is deemed that you have not adhered to the Code you could be asked to leave the land/water you are using. This could be taken further as a criminal offense. 4 Ibid. 11 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 3. Demand Audit A number of organisations and individual have been consulted to try to get a picture of the current and potential demand for access in the Galloway Glens Area. At a recent meeting of the Outdoor Access Forum (OAF) of Dumfries and Galloway specifically organised to gain members perspective on the potential for increasing access through the Galloway Glens projects a range of insights were given to the current and potential demand from different user groups. In addition businesses and special interest groups have given their views and an online survey Monkey survey sort the views of members of the public. 3.1 Current Demand 3.1.1 Walking The most popular outdoor recreational activity undertaken by people in the UK’s is walking. Millions of people across Britain – visitors and residents enjoy walking outdoors for enjoyment every day. Data of this nature was captured by the Ramblers organisation a few years ago in one of their publications. They note that journeys on foot are decreasing but walking for leisure is increasing.5 This can be attributed to increases in car ownership and improvements in the public transport infrastructure. Yet, walking still tends to be the preferred method of transport for short distances. This trend shows that walking has instead become an activity of choice for people in their free time and is used for enjoyment and as a way to get fit. The Scottish Recreation Survey indicates walking is easily the most popular outdoor pastime enjoyed by Scottish adults and is the main activity of 75% of visits to the outdoors. In Dumfries and Galloway 88% of those answering the 2010 D&G Outdoor Access Strategy public surveys named walking as their most frequent physical activity. Walks of different lengths, types of scenery and challenge will always be popular with a wide range of locals and visitors. Existing routes are already popular and the demand for upgrading of quality and new routes is constant. 3.1.2 Wild Swimming A recent national trend which is evident on Lock Ken and surrounding Lochs is for wild swimming, with the Telegraph stating in 2015 that ‘in less than a decade, the 5 The Ramblers, Participation in Walking, (2010) 12 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 number of outdoor swimmers (i.e. those who regularly dive into lidos, lakes, rivers and the sea) has exploded from a handful to tens of thousands’.6 This was just one article amongst many that has been written in the interim period between 2015 to late 2016 commenting on the increasingly popular national trend of wild swimming throughout the UK. The sport is attributed countless times in these articles for its health benefits both physical and mental. The Outdoor Swimming Society’s website www.wildswim.com is a useful resource for swimmers all round the world. Their mapping tool, which pinpoints wild swim locations, has three recommended places within the Galloway Glens area. They identified Loch Ken, Loch Whinyeon and Crossmichael Marina as ideal wild swim locations. There is increasing demand for organised events, races and endurance events as well as information on where wild swimmers can enjoy more solitary experiences. 3.1.3 Triathlons and Ultramarathon A local group organises events in and around the Galloway Glens area. These included more extreme sporting activities like wild swimming at Crossmichael, triathlons which involves running, biking and swimming around the loch. There is potential to see it grow to attract more participants and spectators in the future, if the right infrastructure and marketing was put in place. Ultramarathons tend to have a smaller number of participants opposed to marathons. This is so that there is a more community feel and also because they take place in more natural environments. This culminates in an altogether uniquely different experience for the runners. Evidence suggests runners are changing the demand for the type of marathons in the UK.7 There have been a number of enquiries to the Council from organisers who have identified the region as a destination for one of their upcoming ultramarathons. One such will be 214 miles following the Southern Upland Way route which starts at Portpatrick. This route’s landscape has made it attractive for the ultra-marathons organisers who cater for participants who want a challenging rough terrain with a great way-marked landscape. The organisers have honed in on the heritage of the location by placing emphasis on it being an important location of ‘The Killing Times’ – Scotland and England’s turbulent political period of unrest in the 1600s. The ultramarathon is planned for August 18, 2018 and organisers have the capacity for up to 200 participants.8 Village halls and town venues along the route are planned to provide assistance (food and medical) to all participants along the way. 6 Etherington, J., The Telegraph, Why Open Water Swimming is the Trend of 2015, (Jan 5, 2015) O’Hagan, S., The Independent, London Marathon seems almost tame in these days of ultrarunning…, (April 22, 2016 8 Ahotu Marathons, https://marathons.ahotu.com/event/ultra-great-britain-2018, [accessed: 12/01/2017] 7 13 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 3.1.4 Equestrian Access The estimated GB horse population, including both private and professional ownership, is just below one million horses (988,000). Of riders who ride once a week or less, 46 percent cited access safe off-road riding as a factor that would increase their riding opportunities. There is a tradition of horse ownership and traditional equine based festivals such as the Riding of the Marches in the area yet no specific provision for riders or carriage drivers. In addition an estimated 3 million people have taken a riding holiday in the past 12 months. Older riders, of 55 and over, are more likely to do this and this is an increasing trend. Often simple measures such as addressing locked gates and providing sufficient space for parking a horse box or trailer can open up miles of new trails for this group. The tracks within the forest estate can be ideal opportunities but varied experiences are also necessary. If this resource is provided in the area more local people will be encouraged out into the natural environment and more local businesses could take visitors out of offer ‘bring your horse on holiday’ offers. Information about parking and where to go is also crucial. 3.1.5 Water sports Loch ken and associated rivers systems are ideal for watersports of all kinds. In recent years there has been a move away from power boats to lower cost paddle sports. While registrations of power boats have declined sharply there have been a noticeable increase in use of the loch and rivers by canoeist. This increase has highlighted the need for increase launch points and information available to visitors either before they arrive or on the day. This increase in demand has highlighted that lack of facilities can cause conflict with other users (i.e. fishermen on the banks where canoeist want to launch) and safety concerns at obstacles such as the Glen Lochar Barrage where there is currently no formal portage route and safe access and egress points. With good facilities the opportunity to promote a route down loch ken and the lower Dee would be a valuable addition to the attraction of the area. There is an existing demand to improve disabled access in the Galloway Glens area especially around communities and at key visitor ‘hot spots’. Making access more inclusive would benefit a wide section of the communities including families with young children, older residents and visitors with an existing impairment. 14 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 3.1.6 Angling Loch Ken caters for a variety of types of angling from specimen perch and pike to match fishing with bag weights of up to 70lb in 3-4 hours with high levels of prize money. Recreation anglers fish from both the banks and boats both in summer and winter catching a wide range of species. Loch Ken has long been famous for its course fishery however in recent years negative publicity the presence of American signal crayfish is the loch has led to a drop in numbers visiting. It is clear from resent research that the fish population is however still very healthy and represents an attractive course fishery. Match angling is still popular with matches being regularly oversubscribed and healthy bag weights achieved. In addition there has been a rise in the size and weight of ‘specimen’ fish of some species caught in the loch. With positive publicity and the increase in facilities for anglers in the loch numbers fishing could rise significantly. Issues which need to be addressed are;  Negative publicity around crayfish and fish stocks in the loch  Restrictive number of fishing pegs for matches  Facilities to improve easy access to the loch shore i.e. parking, paths  Reduction in conflict with other users i.e. canoeist by ensuring sufficient facilities for all and education of both sides about respecting others rights.  Ease of obtaining fishing permits and information on the law in Scotland  Information about the above readily available both before a visit and while on site. 3.1.7 Cycling After walking cycling in all its forms is the most popular form of physical activity enjoyed in the outdoors. The 7 Stanes mountain bike network alone has generated £9 million and attracts 400,000 visitors a year making it one of the top 20 visitor attractions in Scotland (2007). None of the 7 stanes are located in the area however Kirroughtree and Dalbeattie are sufficiently close to cater for visitors to the area. There are many more opportunities for mountain biking on the forest roads and tracks within the area. The relatively quiet roads are also attractive to road cyclists with facilities such as bike shops available locally. One area which is lacking is easy, family friendly off road cycling. Some of our forest track may be suitable but a dedicated low gradient surfaced path aimed at easy cycling for families would 15 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 complement the more challenging cycling available in the region. There are currently no easy off road cycleways outside the region’s main towns and cities. As with many other users access to information both before and after arrival is a key requirement. 3.1.8 Missing Links A number of ‘missing links’ have been highlighted in consultations, some of these may be achievable relatively easily other may talk considerable amount of time, negotiation and finance to achieve:  A connection between Castle Douglas to Kirkcudbright by making a walking route, connecting the two towns  An off road cycle route from Castle Douglas to Crossmichael  An off road cycle route from Kirkcudbright to the Doon (Nun Mill Bay)  A circular walk around Loch Ken (27 miles)  Mossdale Village to Galloway Forest/Cairnsmore of Fleet Nature Reserve on the old railway line.  Route from Loch Ken Holiday Park to Crossmichael pub.  All ability access from Castle Douglas to Kelton Mains  A walking route down the valley ‘from source to sea’  A route from New Galloway to the Raiders road 3.1.9 Viewpoints and stopping places The Galloway Glens area is rich in many spectacular and attractive views. Many of them are at their best from off road walks and tracks but there are also a significant number readily enjoyed from beside the public road. These viewpoints and stopping places are available to all regardless of their ability. However many of the existing stopping places and viewpoints are in need to improvement. Many have developed organically over time and are little more than dirt laybys, other used to have views which have been obscured over the years by unchecked tree growth. This has led to a feeling amongst many that Loch Ken in particular appears ‘private’. Other laybys are suffering from their popularity and lack of maintenance. Around the shores of Lock Ken in particular there are various opportunities to pull off the road, admire the view and maybe go down to the shore. Here facilities vary but common problems occur;  Views obscured by sapling trees and undergrowth  Lack of suitable surface  Lack of facilities i.e. seats or picnic benches  Lack of signage, interpretation or general information. 16 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17   Lack of easy access to the Loch shore Lack of shore side walking routes. In other areas clear interesting views exist, often with features of interest (i.e. parts of the Hydro Scheme, but there is no opportunity to safely stop and admire the view or learn more about the landscape and the heritage elements within it. 3.1.10 Conclusion This mesh of national trends can be seen on a more local level with the changing demand for more extreme sporting activities and events amongst various ages along with increasing access for leisure and health and wellbeing. As these trends spread and become more inclusive to those of all ages and backgrounds the use of the countryside also changes. Scotland’s progressive access rights make it a perfectly suited destination for individuals and larger event organiser alike. However the facilities to attract and provide a rewarding experience need to be in place to safeguard reputation and ensure repeat visits. 3.2 Potential Demand 3.2.1 Tourism Trends Tourism trends. Visit Scotland’s 2017 Tourism trends report highlights the increasing importance to visitor of authentic experiences, health and wellbeing, quiet areas, dark skies and fluid itineraries. We need to therefore consider how we help our visitor experience our landscape and wildlife in a way that meetings these needs. 3.2.2 Active sports and event Active /adventure holidays are increasing in popularity and the Galloway Glens is an ideal place to promote this type of holiday. Events on Loch ken are already proving popular and could easily grow with investment in facilities and promotion. Linking in with other attraction and facilities nearby in the region will also add to the offer. 3.2.3 All ability access By making the Galloway Glens region accessible to all, we can make it a destination attractive for those with a disability or a young family. Cornering this market would benefit many who live and travel here, but have difficulty accessing rugged countryside. Dumfries and Galloway has an increasingly aging population. By increasing the accessibility of our natural environment we encourage active participation amongst the local population. Being active for longer helps stave off mental and physical decline and helps combat social isolation. Dementia friendly walks a new concept, 17 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 beneficial for those living with dementia and their carers. Nature based activities and time spent outdoors can potentially offer a reprieve for both parties. 3.2.4 Cycle / Equestrian access Both cycling and horse riding are under provided for in the area and to some extent within the region. Both have potential to connect to special interest holidays as well as providing facilities for local users. The benefits include that facilities created for both these groups are mutually compactable and benefit all users. Greater off road riding opportunities are needed for both groups as roads become increasing busy and dangerous. 3.2.5 Access to the shore at Loch Ken Access to and walking beside water is always popular with a wide range of users. There are currently limited opportunities to access the shore of Loch Ken any increase will be a draw for both locals and visitors. 3.2.6 Water sports access In 2016, canoeing remained the most popular boating activity with 1.5 million UK participants. Similar activities including small sailboat activities, yacht cruising and small sailboat racing also saw an increase in participation in 2016 (500,000, 362,000 and 166,000 participants respectively). Across water sports activities, the biggest growth in the percentage of UK adults taking part in a boating or water sports activity was in the ever-growing trends of kitesurfing, stand up paddle boarding, bodyboarding and surfing (+0.4% points across these activities or an increase of 275,000 participants). Stand up paddle boarding enjoyed the greatest increase within this segment (with growth of +0.3% points or 176,000 participants). For our area sailing, paddle boarding and canoeing are the water sports most applicable. There have been reported increases in canoe use of Loch Ken, including Kayak fishing. As an accessible, family friendly sport which can also be taken to higher levels the potential exists to create better facilities and to promote increased use of the River Dee and Loch Ken. Better information and access and egress points are the main areas of improvement needed along with widespread promotion. 3.2.7 Long distance routes Long distance route are increasingly popular as more people look to recreational walking for holiday ideas. The number of new long distance trails being developed in Scotland is testament to this. These route appeal as they give purpose and challenge to a walking holiday. Two very long distance routes already pass through the area. However there is the opportunity to make a medium distance route achievable in a long weekend which would take in the variety of landscapes of the Galloway Glens. 18 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 4. Policy Audit 4.1 Legislation The Access Audit is undertaken within the context of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, The Scottish Outdoor Access Code and the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. Dumfries & Galloway Council have a legal duty to protect and assert access rights. 4.2 Government policies 4.2.1 Physical Activity Implementation Plan The Physical Activity Implementation Plan: A More Active Scotland - Building a Legacy from the Commonwealth Games 2014 makes the case for action in tackling physical inactivity in Scotland. This national programme is a ten year plan that has adapted key elements used in Canada’s Toronto Charter for Physical Activity. The charter was focused on creating opportunities for physical active lifestyles for all. This includes local authority cross-departmental cooperation in providing sustainable ways for people to enjoy the outdoors and carry on being physically active. This national policy is the Scottish Government’s attempt at proving a positive legacy for the Commonwealth Games for years to come. 4.2.2 Let’s Get Scotland Walking Scotland’s Let’s Get Scotland Walking: National Walking Strategy (2014) is a key element in delivering the Physical Activity Implementation Plan. It outlines the Scottish Government’s vision of a Scotland where everyone benefits from walking. Scotland has outstanding opportunities for walking both in urban and rural areas. This is down to spectacular scenery, landscapes, walkable urban centres, community routes, long distance routes and the country’s world-class access rights. Walking is highly cost-effective when looking at how to improve policy concerning recreation, local community routes, tackling elderly loneliness, connecting communities, improving the workforce’s attitudes and healthier lifestyles. The health risks of inactivity are staggering ‘7 Scots die every day due to inactivity, often long before they have to’. This demonstrates that prevention really is better than cure. 4.2.3 Cycling Action Plan for Scotland The vision set by the national Scottish Government in the Cycling Action Plan for Scotland 2013 (CAPS) was for 10% of everyday journeys taken in Scotland to be done by bike by 2020. To reach this ambitious goal set out in CAPS, local governments need to deliver infrastructure improvements and change behaviours amongst communities. To encourage cycling access must be made suitable. By allow better access for cycling the Council will support the sustainable economic growth that Scotland pursues as a nation. 19 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 A Long Term Vision for Active Travel in Scotland 2030 recognises that walking and cycling are the most popular choices for shorter everyday journeys for people. By improving access this allows individuals to feel more confident to travel by foot or cycle. A combination of increased investment in pedestrian and cycle infrastructure along with a shift in outlook has culminated in a generational change to travel habits. Walking and cycling as mainstream travel options support equality in opportunity and improvements to the environment. 4.3 Local authority statutory plans 4.3.1 Dumfries and Galloway: Active Travel Strategy Dumfries and Galloway: Active Travel Strategy (2015-2017) was developed with the aim of increasing walking and cycling throughout Dumfries and Galloway. The region is largely rural, with long distances between towns, so it is not always easy to incorporate active travel strategies. The local authority invested in the existing core path system so that the network of paths can be expanded upon to make enjoying the outdoors more accessible and to connect communities. Improving access in the Galloway Glens area would do exactly that – improve the existing surrounding network, make the outdoors more accessible and link communities. The Strategy identified that existing networks should provide ‘more direct, user friendly, accessible, signed, safe and sustainable links for residents and visitors’. The Strategy’s main focus was to promote and increase ‘the opportunities for easy, safe and accessible day to day functional walking and cycling, particularly for short journeys (walking – under 2 miles; cycling – under 5 miles)’ for both residents and visitors. Short walks were focused on because when compiling the Strategy, VisitScotland’s survey found that 1 in 3 visitors to Dumfries and Galloway cited short walks as their most popular activity during their stay in the region. Furthermore, the Strategy details the economic goals it hopes sustainable transport will bring to the region. It sets out the benefits brought to communities that offer good and accessible walking and cycling links. One benefit was increased leisure and tourist activity. This type of focus allows more social inclusion as it was found that more than 1 in 5 household in Dumfries and Galloway has no access to a car (SHS 2012/2013). Therefore linking up towns and areas of woods and lochs with path infrastructure allows for more mobility. The Strategy also had an emphasis on assisting in enhancing health and wellbeing to keep people active throughout life. In support of this, the Strategy noted that active travel is one of the most sustainable ways people can build physical activity into their daily lives and that walking and cycling are practical way in which people can reach the 150 minutes of physical activity a week recommended by doctors. 20 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 The Strategy gives further thought to the environmental benefits that sustainable transport and improved access can bring by reducing traffic, pollution and reaching CO2 reduction targets set by the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Therefore, improving access in the Galloway Glens area can help improve and increase walking and cycling routes and in turn help reach the tourism, economic, socially inclusive, health and environmental benefits set out in the Dumfries and Galloway: Active Travel Strategy. 4.3.2 Open Outdoors: The Dumfries & Galloway Outdoor Access Strategy Open Outdoors: The Dumfries & Galloway Outdoor Access Strategy 2012-2017 has five overarching objectives. They are: 1. To promote Scottish Outdoor Access Code to all residents; 2. for residents to lead more active lifestyles with increased opportunities for outdoor recreation and sustainable travel; 3. to increase tourist numbers and spend and increase the economic benefits of access; 4. to ensure Countryside facilities are maintained and communities develop a sense of responsibility for local paths, and; 5. to assert and protect access rights an ensure land and water is managed responsibly for access. Building on and improving the access around the Loch Ken area will contribute to all five of the Strategy’s objectives. 4.3.3 The Dumfries & Galloway Core Path Plan The Dumfries & Galloway Core Path Plan 2013 was a direct requirement of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The Act establishes a right of responsible access to most land and inland water in Scotland. People have the right to use land for recreational purposes as long as they are behaving responsibly. This right extends to walks, cyclists, canoeists and horse riders. The overall network of core paths has to provide for all abilities and all types of users. Further access in the Galloway Glens area would build on and compliment the current core path infrastructure. 4.3.4 Dumfries & Galloway Council Local Development Plan Dumfries & Galloway Council Local Development Plan 2014 (LDP) sets out how and where land and property will be used in Dumfries and Galloway. Within this falls the protection of conservation areas and national and international importance of biodiversity and geodiversity. The issues mentioned all concern the area of Loch Ken and the River Dee due to its’ wetland RAMSAR sites, the protected marshes and local nature reserves. Investment in the area would yield benefits for these specially protected sites. 21 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 4.3.5 Dumfries and Galloway Open Space Strategy The Dumfries and Galloway Open Space Strategy 2014 acknowledges the important part of open spaces on local communities. This can be seen with enhanced public health and the type of recreational opportunities provided. Open spaces not only bring health benefits to locals but they also play a part in attracting visitors. This can be seen in an excerpt from the Strategy: ‘Tourism is the single most important rural industry in the region and is the only sector that is growing annually, although the tourism economy of the region is considered to be fragile and underdeveloped. Good quality open spaces, incorporating recreational opportunities, have an important role to play in enhancing tourism.’ Loch Ken currently serves as an open space but access to its shores is limited. Opening up the shores more would complement the Strategy. The Strategy also touches upon the relationship open spaces have with The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. The Act required all those involved in flood management to make better use of natural flood management options. By upholding flood management measures this ensures that current access routes are kept undamaged. 4.3.6 Dumfries & Galloway Regional Tourism Strategy The Dumfries & Galloway Regional Tourism Strategy 2016-2020 places an emphasis on the importance of nature-based tourism and access to natural resources. The Strategy agrees that the region’s most valuable tourism asset is the natural environment. Therefore increasing access would increase the Strategy’s effectiveness. It attributes the region’s marine, coastal and inland based tourism assets with providing visitors with an authentic experience. It says that these assist in supporting a broad range of nature, environment and activity providers. For example, this can be seen looking at the businesses specifically surround Loch Ken that provide fishing licenses, water sport equipment and caravans for overnight stays. The Strategy also embraces how having natural lochs, coastline, woodland and forestry can be a lure to those visiting due to suitable places for outdoor activities such as walking, cycling and mountain-biking. All in all, the Galloway Glens’ natural environment and landscape is a real asset in this Strategy that is working to assess and improve the strategic economic benefits of tourism. The Strategy has aligned its objectives with Visit Scotland. By 2020, they have set out to: - Increase the value of tourism from £300m to £330m by 2020; increase the volume, length of stay and extend the season - growing visits from 2.43m to 2.6m; increase direct and indirect jobs created by tourism to increase from 6,969 to 7,300, and; 22 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 - to build Dumfries & Galloway’s reputation as a place to return to and be recommended by satisfied visitors. All the objectives are based on investment, innovation, internationalisation and inclusive growth. From this, has come a focus on quality, sustainability and inclusive tourism. By investing in access in the Galloway Glens area, all four objectives would be touched upon. 23 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 5. Resource Audit 5.1 Existing Resources   5.2 DG Council – Core path capital budget this budget is nearing the end as the Environment team are hopeful that all core paths will be signed and barrier free by 2018. However subject to financial pressures and other demands this may free up capital budget to look at enhancing routes. If new routes are to be created and the Council approached to adopt them for long term maintenance then they will need to be designated as core paths FES – budget remain very limited and are directs to core route in areas of high demand. In recent years due to financial pressures FES has reduced the number of path it promotes on its land. Potential Resources        Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Dumfries and Galloway Council – competing with other access improvement projects across the region after 2018 SRDP Improving Public Access Fund – this very useful fund will pay set rates for a limited number of operations. The fund will be open for application in May 2018 although its future after that is uncertain and depends on how long the allocated funding lasts. Other Lottery Funds Paths for all – Community grants Wind farm Community Benefits Fund other funders 24 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 6. Proposed Projects areas 6.1 Strategic / long distance routes 6.1.1 Castle Douglas to Cairnsmore of Fleet via Loch Ken Viaduct As it stands, Loch Ken Viaduct is currently under private ownership. The reopening of the viaduct would allow for an important access point to be opened to the public. There is currently no existing route to cross the loch’s middle section. The viaduct could offer a connected route from Loch Ken to walk Galloway Forest Park and Cainsmore of Fleet National Nature Reserve – connecting east and west. Many tourist businesses on the east side of the loch have expressed an interest in the viaduct opening to the public. The project would aim to renew physical and cultural links between communities on the East and West banks of Loch Ken by opening foot and bicycle access across the middle of the Loch using the former railway viaduct. This will renew an historic physical link between Parton and Mossdale and facilitate extended pedestrian and bicycle access between Castle Douglas and the Galloway forest Park, using sections of the former railway where practical, via Crossmichael, Parton, Mossdale and Loch Stroan. 6.1.2 Source to Sea - Carsphairn to the Coast A route has already been identified from Carsphain to New Galloway. There exists a small missing link from New Galloway to core path 177 if the route is to travel down the western side of the Loch. If it goes down the eastern side a new route will need to be agreed from Ken Bridge to Boat o Rhone. On the western side core path 177 leads to 141,205 &485 to Mossdale then over the Loch Ken Viaduct to Boat O Rhone. The route will ideally follow the old railway line through Parton down to Crossmichael. From Crossmichael to Castle Douglas the route follows the road on a largely complete tarmac path. Past Castle Douglas a route to Kirkcudbright is yet to be identified, but once in Kirkcudbright the route could end at the harbour or continue on existing core paths to the mouth of the bay. 6.1.3 Loch Ken – Boat O Rhone to Ken Bridge This route will form part of a round Loch Ken route and will form an important link. This route lends itself more to informal access mainly focused on walkers. It is important to keep as close to the shore of the Loch as possible to take advantage of the Loch side views. 25 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 6.1.4 Kirkcudbright to Doon Bay The residents of Kirkcudbright view Doon bay on the western cost of the bay as their place to recreate and swim. Consequently large numbers of children regularly walk or cycle the 1.5 miles along the road to the bay, the road is narrow and fast and not safe for this use at present. A cycleway to the bay would for a number of functions.  Give safe access to the bay for locals and visitor  Encourage non-motorised transport and recreational cycling and walking  Plug a missing link in the wider coastal path currently under development.  Connect the town to core path 220 out to Ross bay 6.1.5 Circular walk around Loch Ken Unlike many other similar sites (i.e. in the Lake District) Loch Ken has no path around its shore, most access (still limited) is point access at laybys or commercial businesses. The attractiveness of the loch and the connection people can make with the loch would be greatly increased by formal path access around the shore. This would increase active travel and health and wellbeing amongst the local community and the visiting public by encouraging exercise in a natural environment. In addition the route around the loch would be approximately 26 miles which is ideal for the running of events such as marathons and triathlons which is a growing business for the loch. The addition of such an attractive route would make the marketing of the loch to visitor easier. By sensitive design people will be able to interact with and observe the various natural habitats and wildlife of the loch shore as well as the cultural heritage. 6.1.6 Canoe trail – Lock Ken and the River Dee A long distance canoe trail has been identified from Dalry in the north down through Loch Ken and down the Dee to Tongland. A number of access and egress points are being considered along with information for paddlers and portage routes around obstacles. The route also includes a spur off along the Carlingwaulk Lane to Castle Douglas. 6.2 Localised access 6.2.1 Access to Loch Ken’s shores There is very limited public access to the shore of Loch Ken, including limited viewpoints and picnic areas. Existing access is limited to commercial businesses and a few laybys. This gives an impression that Loch ken is ‘private’ or is not easy to access. These existing points of access are point access with no linear access along the shore. There also limited public facilities i.e. picnic areas information. We would like to create new access point(s) of high quality which will be attractive to visitors and locals. This would involve potential purchase or lease of land, creation of 26 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 physical facilities (car parking, picnic area and information). It will create greater access for people to enjoy the natural heritage of the loch. Also, it could create opportunities to provide information on the cultural heritage of the loch. The increase in tourist and local use will support local businesses. 6.2.2 Angling Sites around Loch Ken There is a demand for access to an increased number of sites for match fishing in particular. New site have been identified as part of the Loch Ken Fisheries Study. Elsewhere parking and access to the shore is the main restriction for bank anglers. 6.2.3 All ability access in the Galloway Glens There is a general lack of planned all ability access within the Galloway Glens area. Areas for possible improvements include existing visitor centres and honey pots where some facilities already exist. And popular routes near to centres of population where the greatest benefit can be obtained. Possible locations are;  Castle Douglas to Threave estate path  The Otter Pool – Raiders Road  Bruce’s Stone Path – Clatteringshaws visitor centre  Others to be investigated 6.2.4 Increased Equestrian Access in the Galloway Glens Tackling parking issues and obstructions is the greatest need. A dedicated route for horse riders would also be welcome. Better information on where to ride or carriage drive and potential obstacles and route terrain would help attract users to the area. 6.3 Layby and Stopping Points around Loch Ken There are a number of laybys on the roads along the edge of Loch Ken and elsewhere in the Galloway Glens area. Some of those next to Loch Ken contain interpretation and access to the edge of the loch but most do not. They are all in need of improvement and none, even those with access to the edge of the loch, provide good views of Loch Ken. Upgrading these laybys, improving the views of the loch, adding interpretation would improve public access to, and understanding of, the natural and cultural heritage of Loch Ken. Improving these laybys together would allow them to be done in a consistent way. This would ensure that facilities such as bins, picnic facilities and interpretation were available to a consistent standard and without duplication or conflicting information. Negotiations would be done with local landowners to remove trees in order to improve views over the loch. 27 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 Horse riders and canoeists would benefit from more an increase in more suitable stopping places e.g. parking at the bottom end of the loch. 6.4 Improving access to the core path network  Missing links o New Galloway to Core path 177/142 o Kirkcudbright to Doon Bay o Corcerine (core path 190) to Miekle Millyea (core path 15) o Link from core 155 over road bridge to meet adopted road at Lodge Cottage o Link from core path 155 to the road next to the river Dee at Bridge of Dee o Off road link from Castle Douglas to Kirkcudbright    Improved access to paths See table in Appendix A Improvements to paths – various to be explored Improved signage and interpretation – various to be explored 28 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 7. Projects priorities 7.1 High priority projects Priority Project Project Mossdale to Cairnsmore of fleet Mossdale to Crossmichael including Loch Ken Viaduct – surfaced cycle route Glenkens Way Development required Landowners agreed funding applied for decision in autumn. Standalone project from existing car park at Mossdale Landowner negotiations started, some issues. Agreement not reach as yet. Given its size likely to be pursued outside of the Galloway Glens Scheme (8KM) Landowner agreements secured. Costings agreed with DGC Cost estimate £96,000 £1.3 million £40,000 Boat O Rhone to Ken Bridge – informal walking path unsurfaced Landowner discussions underway – informal path predominantly for walking (10KM) £50,000 Loch Ken Canoe Trail Negotiation taking place with landowners, Scottish Power on board £150,000 All ability access Otter Pool, Castle Douglas to Threave path and 2 other sites. In discussions with FES £100,000 New Angling sites around Loch Ken Survey undertaken, discussions underway with landowners £53,000 Improvements to core paths 7 out of 14 paths identified. In discussions with DGC Countryside Services £35,000 29 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 Laybys and stopping places Improve 10 out of 21 existing identified. Create 2 out of 4 new ones identified. Negotiations with landowners underway, survey undertaken. Garroch Estate & New Galloway Golf Club paths Volunteers to undertake the majority of the work costings £21,000 for materials and training Castle Douglas/Bridge of Dee paths Improvements to Southern Upland Way 7.2 New or upgraded path connections to Threave estate, including one all ability access Upgrades to the route in the Galloway glens includings where necessary £140,000 £57,591 £50,000 Reserve projects Reserve Projects Project Development required Cost estimate Improvements to core paths Additional 7 core paths £35,000 Laybys and stopping places Improve a further 11 existing. Create 2 further new ones. £150,000 Castle Douglas to Kirkcudbright path Route needs to be identified and negotiated –would complete the Source to Sea route £150,000 Kirkcudbright to Doon Bay Cycle route Route needs to be identified and negotiated £400,000 Complete round Loch Ken path Complete more difficult sections subject to landowner negotiations £100,000 30 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 APPENDIX A Core paths in the Galloway Glens area **Please note, shaded ones have opportunities for improvements Core path # 13 15 16 Route name Dee Walk to Tongland (near Tongland Power Station) Forest Lodge to Loch Dungeon Garryhorn Rig 21 Dalry to New Galloway/Dalry to New Galloway Riverside Path 23 Dundeugh Hill 24 Ardoch Hill 28 Glengap and Laurieston Forest (stops at the Laurieston Forest boundary) 29 The Gunney, Parton 30 Glenlee 135 Nethertown near Crossmichael 141 142 Raiders Road East Raiders Road to Kenmuir Link 143 Raiders Road 144 Retreat Wood, Laurieston 151 153 St Mary’s Isle Arie, near Mossdale Comments Accessible from Kirkcudbright and Tongeland Parking available? Parking needed to avoid conflict with Farms/houses? At end of public roads. River bank route with parking available in both Dalry and New Galloway Parking in nearby layby short walk on verse and need to cross road. Entrance could be widened to provide room for a couple of cars Makes a circular route from Dalry using the road and Southern Upland Way, no parking on road access but available in Dalry No parking available would be a great long all user route potential to make good parking area just off the road. Good parking at the layby (old Road) Limited parking available at power station. Accessible from Dalry Local route? Accessible from Crossmichael with some road walking. Possible limited verge parking at eastern end. Minor link off Raiders road Parking at the Otter Pool on Raiders Road Parking at Otter Pool but alternative option would be of benefit. Access from this route to others in the area (forest tracks) Links to Kennick burn walk carpark at northern end could do with small layby at southern. Accessible from Kirkcudbright Links to old railway line unsure of parking at far end 31 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 154 155 Forest Lodge Threave Estate 156 Tongland 157 164 165 Torrs Point Bardennoch Trail Pack Road Barhill Woods 168 Barney Water to Loch Skerrow 172 177 Benniguinea Cain Edward Hill 179 Carlingwark Loch, Castle Douglas 182 190 Cairnsmore of Carsphairn by Craig of Knockgrey Castle Douglas Town Walk Clatteringshaws to Gatehouse Station Corserine 191 Craigshinnie Bridge to SUW 192 Cruichie 193 Culgruff 199 Kendoon Youth Hostel to Butterhole Bridge 200 205 Kenick Burn Walk Mossdale Walk, Red Kite Trail 208 Livingston Hill 185 187 Parking available at Forest Lodge Network of paths. Parking on road by wooden gate? Ends in river? All ability access needed by Kelton mains for route to CD and in centre of Castle Douglas. Parking at Kelton Mains Accessible from Kirkcudbright and Tongland Parking area short way down road Parking at site of Pollmaddy village Accessible from town but also FCS carpark just out of town. Possible management takeover by local community Makes a circular route from Mossdale via Raiders Road and Old railway line. Parking available at Otterpool and Mossdale Parking at the visitor centre Could do with parking at northern end but residents would probably object Accessible from town, car parking at park Parking needed off public road. Local path accessible from town Informal parking at entrance. From Clatteringshaws side Ties into 154 Forest Estate – parking available Opportunities for informal parking as no gated access? Should formal parking be created? Opportunities for bike and horse access Good parking at the Boat O Rhone layby Local route from Crossmichael accessible from centre of village No parking except verge – opportunity to formalise parking for 2 -3 cars. Has its own carpark Accessible from carpark at Mossdale Opportunity to formalise parking at one end or other. Informal one or two cars can be accommodated at 32 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 209 Loch Dee to Loch Doon 210 Loch Roan 219 Mary of the Mosses and Floors Loch 220 Millhall to Ross Bay 222 Balmangan, Borgue 224 Mulloch Hill, Dalry 344 Craigencallie 485 Mossdale to Gatehouse Station Railway Walk 487 Cairnsmore of Carsphairn by the Green Well 504 Southern Upland way 516 New Galloway West 572 High Boreland farm road (near Tongland Power Station) Bridge of Dee to Rhonehouse 573 594 Carsphairn Forest and Knockengorroch northern end Possible parking needed at end of minor road to Craigencallie which would service other route as well. Could benefit from small parking provision along with 221 as some distance from Parton and Crossmichael Accessible from Castle Douglas with short road walk Parking at formal carpark at the Doon Ties into 220 potential for small verge parking at southern end. Part of local network around Dalry accessible from Dalry Opportunities for parking at end of public road – bike and horse access Has carpark at Mossdale. No link east on railway path and viaduct over to Parton and down to Castle Douglas as yet Car parking definitely needed private track entrance. Parking happening on verge Small layby for limited parking at Earlstoun Power station Opportunities already exist for parking at both ends Accessible from Kirkcudbright and Tongland – local route Accessible from both settlements local route Layby for parking where minor road turns off A713 33 APPENDIX B Strategic routes ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 34 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 35 APPENDIX C Improvements to Core Paths ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 36 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 37 APPENDIX D Improvement to viewpoints and stopping places ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 38 ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17 39  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Access Audit for the Galloway Glens Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_40 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2016 Description An account of the resource Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Commissioned Report undertaken by Dumfries & Galloway Council Environment Team access GGLP https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/498/GGLP-Loch-Ken-Fishery-Study-Final.pdf 79d85c3da211bc8e2b38ddb3cd18ceef Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Galloway Glens – Fish, Fisheries and Angler Survey in Loch Ken Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Reports Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document A Scottish Registered Charity No. SC 020751 Commissioned Report No. – JRRMCAD10 GALLOWAY GLENS - FISH, FISHERIES AND ANGLER SURVEY IN LOCH KEN For further information on this report please contact: Name of GFT Project Manager – Jamie Ribbens Galloway Fisheries Trust Fisheries House Station Industrial Estate Newton Stewart DG8 6ND Telephone: 01671 403011 E-mail: jamie@gallowayfisheriestrust.org This report should be quoted as: Galloway Fisheries Trust. 2017. Galloway Glens - Fish, fisheries and angler survey in Loch Ken, Dumfries and Galloway Council Commissioned Report Galloway Fisheries Trust Report No. – JRRMCAD10 This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of Galloway Fisheries Trust. This permission will not be withheld unreasonably. © Galloway Fisheries Trust Year – 2017 Summary Galloway Glens - Fish, Fisheries and Angler Survey in Loch Ken Commissioned Report No.: Report No. - JRRMCAD10 Contractor: Dumfries and Galloway Council Year of publication: 2017 Keywords Loch Ken; coarse angling; seine netting; crayfish; pike; citizen science. Background This study was commissioned by the Galloway Glens Partnership Project. Finance for the study was provided by Galloway Glens Partnership Project, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, and was managed by a steering group of these funders and Dumfries and Galloway Council. Loch Ken in South West Scotland is a popular angling venue, particularly for coarse fish with competition and recreational anglers fishing for the diverse fish community present. This fishery has been important to the local economy for many years. During the mid-1990’s North American signal crayfish were identified within the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee catchment and in Loch Ken itself. These non-native crayfish are now firmly established within Loch Ken and have had, it has been suggested, an adverse impact on fish within the system, and hence the value and quality of the fishery. However, such adverse impacts have not been quantified or robustly assessed. Based on current technologies and methods there is no prospect of eradicating North American signal crayfish from Loch Ken or the wider catchment of the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee. The main objective of this study was to undertake an assessment of the condition of the fish stocks within Loch Ken, and the overall status of Loch Ken as an angling venue. Information i and data was collected via open, public stakeholder events, the distribution of an angler questionnaire, interviews with anglers fishing (creel surveys), seine netting and through catch sampling at angling matches. These data collection techniques were developed during the recent pilot project undertaken on Loch Ken in 2016. Using the data collected, recommendations for the future management, monitoring and development of Loch Ken as a coarse fishery have been made. Main findings • • • • • • • • Loch Ken continues to be a popular fishery particularly for visiting anglers from out with Dumfries and Galloway, with most anglers stating they are ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with their angling experience on the loch. The loch is a popular venue for match anglers providing good catches over much of the year. Many match anglers feel that if further additional access opportunities to the loch were available, then more matches could be held. There is a concern amongst anglers that North American signal crayfish are negatively impacting on their angling particularly through interference with their baits. Many anglers report adapting their fishing techniques to minimise these problems. The main fish species targeted by anglers on the loch are bream, roach, pike, perch and to a lesser extent dace and ruffe. Consideration of the overall health of these fish populations including growth rates suggested all were healthy. Limited samples were collected from pike and these suggested a low growth rate which should be investigated further. Anglers feel that the population of large perch in Loch Ken has increased in recent years due to their feeding on juvenile signal crayfish. Examination of perch growth rates found a large increase in growth rates in perch over four years old which is consistent with this view. At present it appears that the coarse fish population in Loch Ken is able to support a viable and sustainable fishery in spite of the presence of a significant North American signal crayfish population. Ongoing monitoring is required to assess fish populations over time and to identify change and trends. Some biosecurity measures are undertaken by over half the anglers on the loch to help reduce the risk of transfer of invasive non-native species to or from the site. A number of recommendations are provided regarding understanding the fish populations in the loch and the future maintenance and development of Loch Ken as an important coarse fishery. These include - Future Monitoring of Fish Populations; Governance - Management and Planning of the fishery; Fishery Protection - Access and Local Management; Development - Promotion and increasing accessibility; Biosecurity; and Education and Research. ii For further information on this project contact: Name of Project Manager - Jamie Ribbens Tel No. of Project Manager - 01671403011 iii Table of Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Location and management 1.2 The fishery 1.3 North American signal crayfish 1.4 This study 1 1 2 3 3 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Public engagement 2.2 Loch Ken angling record 2.3 Loch Ken creel record 2.4 Seine netting 2.5 Angling matches 5 5 5 6 6 6 3. RESULTS 3.1 Public engagement 3.2 Loch Ken angling record 3.2.1 Angler profiles 3.2.2 Biosecurity 3.2.3 Catch returns 3.3 Loch Ken creel record 3.3.1 Angler profiles 3.3.2 Creel specific returns 3.3.3 Biosecurity 3.4 Seine netting 3.4.1 Netting undertaken 3.4.2 Fish species sampled 3.4.3 Condition factor 3.5 Angling matches 3.5.1 Angling matches attended 3.5.2 Further analysis of match data 3.5.3 Bag weights of coarse fish captured during matches on Loch Ken 3.6 Fish scale data 8 8 8 9 9 10 14 15 16 19 21 21 25 25 32 32 41 51 54 4. DISCUSSION 4.1 Public engagement 4.1.1 Fishery and fish protection, legal access and the right to fish 4.2 Loch Ken angling record 4.3 Loch Ken creel record 4.4 Seine netting 4.5 Angling matches 4.6 Fish scale data 4.7 Conclusions 4.7.1 – 4.7.6 60 60 60 61 62 63 64 65 65 65 5. RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Monitoring of Loch Ken fish populations 5.2 Governance, Management and Planning of the fishery 5.3 Fishery Protection, Access and Local Management Capacity 5.4 Development: Promotion and increasing accessibility 5.5 Biosecurity 5.6 Education and Research Opportunities 67 67 67 68 68 69 70 6. REFERENCES 71 ANNEX 1: LOCH KEN ANGLING RECORD 72 iv ANNEX 2: LOCH KEN CREEL RECORD 74 ANNEX 3: ANGLING MATCH STRATEGY 78 ANNEX 4: TABLE IDENTIFYING LOCATION BY SECTION NAME, PEG NUMBER AND GRID REFERENCE WHERE FISH WERE SAMPLED DURING THREE LOCH KEN MATCHES 80 ANNEX 5: MAP OF LOCATIONS WHERE ANGLER RECORDS WERE UNDERTAKEN ON LOCH KEN 81 ANNEX 6: MAP OF LOCATIONS WHERE CREEL SURVEYS WERE UNDERTAKEN ON LOCH KEN 82 ANNEX 7: MAP OF LOCATIONS WHERE SEINE NETTING SURVEYS WERE COMPLETED ON LOCH KEN 83 v Acknowledgements The following individuals are acknowledged for their time, local knowledge and expertise which assisted with the delivery of this project: Ronald Woods, Tim Ewing, Mark Trueman, Steve Woods, Andrew Struthers, John Reid, John McCubbing, John Barker, Stuart Ferns, Peter Wilson, Gareth Lambert, Wayne Bartholemew, Nigel Spencer and Andy Gowans. The numerous anglers who kindly completed Loch Ken Angling Records, participated in the Loch Ken Creel Surveys and input to discussions during the stakeholder engagement events. We would like to acknowledge the important role that the Project Steering Group played in the successful delivery of the study and reviewing the final report. The membership of the Group included McNabb Laurie (Galloway Glens Partnership Project), Karen Morley (Dumfries and Galloway Council), Callum Sinclair (Scottish Natural Heritage) and Anne Connick / Jackie Galley (Scottish Environmental Protection Agency). vi 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Location and management Loch Ken is a 14.5 km long freshwater loch situated in Dumfries and Galloway, South West Scotland (see Map 1). The flow of the loch is dominated by two inflowing river channels; the Black Water of Dee from the west and the Water of Ken from the north. The river leaving the loch is known as the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee which flows for nearly 15 km before entering the Solway Firth near the town of Kirkcudbright. In 1929 the Galloway Water Power Act authorised the construction of The Galloway Hydro-electric Energy Scheme. The scheme was built between 1932 and 1936, which included the construction of Glenlochar Barrage. While the loch feature was part of the natural form of the river, the construction of the Glenlochar Barrage significantly increased the overall size of Loch Ken and nearly doubled its length. Map 1: Location map of Loch Ken The control barrage at Glenlochar allows water to be stored in Loch Ken to assist with power generation further downstream at Tongland Power Station. There are long-standing operating procedures for the barrage which manage water levels in the loch. These procedures have been established to meet and accommodate a range of interests not solely related to power generation. For example, the barrage gates are closed when the loch level drops to a specified height in order to protect the ecology of the wetlands and the amenity value for the many users of the loch. There are no specific provisions for compensation flow volumes below Glenlochar. Under increased flow conditions the gates will typically be fully open allowing water to flow unimpeded through Loch Ken. The villages around Loch Ken include Glenlochar at the south, Laurieston and Mossdale on the west bank, and Crossmichael and Parton on the east bank. The village of New Galloway lies immediately to the north. 1 1.2 The fishery The Kirkcudbrightshire Dee was known historically for supporting excellent runs of salmon of which high numbers were caught by a combined rod and net fishery. Andrew Symson in 1823 wrote in the ‘A large description of Galloway’ that ‘This river [Dee] is abundantly plenished with excellent salmon’. In 1909, William L Calderwood wrote in his book ‘The salmon rivers and lochs of Scotland’ that Loch Ken was only about four miles long and the ‘sluggish stream that flow from it’ formed a confluence with the Blackwater below Parton. ‘The slack loch-like water between Parton and Crossmichael is a stronghold of pike …. A systematic war should be waged against these wretched fish when they spawn amongst the weeds in the spring, and all the little boys in the neighbourhood might set pike trimmers with advantage’. In 1774 it is reported that a huge 72 lb pike was caught by John Murray in Loch Ken. There are various accounts of the bait used with some suggesting a large fly made out of peacock feathers, live bait or spinning. One record even suggests the bait used was a dead duck! Another large pike was recorded in 1904 which was found emaciated and dying at the edge of the loch but still was weighed in at 39 lb. The increased size of Loch Ken following the construction of the Glenlochar Barrage would have made the water even more suitable for the resident pike population. The Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (DDSFB) and Dee Fishery Association supported a gill netting programme in Loch Ken aimed at reducing predation of salmon and trout. Many large pike were culled including one just over 35 lb in 1935. The Board ceased netting many years ago. As interest in pike angling grew and became more accessible and affordable for anglers, Loch Ken became a popular venue for pike anglers who could easily fish the loch from both the shore and boats. In 1972 a visiting German Kurt Vogel caught a pike of 40 lb 4oz while spinning for salmon in Loch Ken. It was weighed officially on post office scales. The loch continues to be recognised as a venue for catching good sized pike and is considered to be the second most popular pike fishing water in Scotland after Loch Lomond. In Dumfries and Galloway, Loch Ken is recognised by anglers as the prime location for pike angling of the region both due to the quality of its pike catches and angler accessibility. Although the loch lacks some migratory fish (eels and lamprey species) due to Tongland fish ladder being designed for salmon only, it holds one of the most diverse fish populations of any river system in Scotland. Many of the species present are not considered native to Scotland and appear to have been introduced as unused pike baits. Easy access and affordable fishing is offered at various points around Loch Ken and this has made it popular for anglers fishing for many of the species present - anglers report catching good numbers of pike, perch, dace, roach, ruffe and bream. Match angling has been popular on the loch for many years and historically it was known as a renowned roach fishery which was particularly popular with English anglers. As additional fish species have been introduced to the loch, such as dace and ruffe, the fish species caught during matches has changed over time and although the roach population appears to have reduced the catches of bream have grown and in ideal conditions bags of 80 lb are reported in the angling press. The importance of the fishery to the local economy is significant. In a 2009 Dumfries and Galloway Council study it was found that ‘Loch Ken and the angling it supports’ was worth between £273,321 and £553,651 per annum (Cameron 2010). The protection and enhancement of the economic value of the fishery to the local economy is, therefore, important. 2 1.3 North American signal crayfish In Dumfries and Galloway the first record of the non-native invertebrate North American signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) (referred to as signal crayfish in the rest of the report) was made in two tributaries of the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee in 1996 (Maitland 1996; West Galloway Fisheries Trust 1996 and Sinclair & Ribbens 1999). By 2004 signal crayfish were present in the Water of Ken (between Loch Ken and Glenlee) and were starting to be reported as a nuisance by anglers in Loch Ken (Ribbens & Graham 2004). In recent years, particularly since the mid 2000’s, there has been an increasing number of complaints made to Galloway Fisheries Trust (GFT), Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) from anglers stating that they were catching numerous signal crayfish as bycatch when pike angling in Loch Ken. These fishermen also reported that it was becoming increasingly difficult to successfully pursue their activities due to bait interference from signal crayfish. In 2009 the Scottish Government funded a five month trapping project on Loch Ken which examined the practicality and success of large scale signal crayfish trapping on a large water body, detailed the crayfish distribution within the loch and gathered a range of information on the population present (Ribbens & Graham 2009). The study confirmed both that large numbers of signal crayfish could be trapped in Loch Ken but also that this was expensive and could not eradicate signal crayfish from the loch. Distinct from angling, it is unclear if and how the signal crayfish population has impacted upon the fish populations in or ecology of Loch Ken. There are, however, many documented concerns relating to their potential impact on fish species in particular due to: their burrowing activity in banksides, competing for habitat, grazing pressure on aquatic plants and predation on invertebrates, fish and fish eggs (Maitland et al. 2001, Maitland 1996, Sibley in Rogers & Brickland 2000). Angling is affected by the presence of the signal crayfish, largely through interference with fishing baits. A Dumfries and Galloway Council (DGC) study conducted in 2009, found that ‘50% of the anglers surveyed felt that less signal crayfish in the loch would improve their experience’ and rated it their top priority to improve the fishery (Cameron 2010). In the same study, New Galloway Angling Association (NGAA) reported a significant fall in the value of Loch Ken ticket sales between 2002 and 2009 due to the negative publicity surrounding the presence of signal crayfish in the loch. In 2016 SNH and SEPA commissioned a study on Loch Ken to investigate the practicality of using a range survey options (including angler interviews) which could be deployed to gather information on fish populations present (Galloway Fisheries Trust 2016). Within that work, of 35 anglers interviewed, eight stated they felt the signal crayfish were a negative aspect of the fishery and 14 stated that removing the signal crayfish would improve the fishery. It is not possible to eradicate signal crayfish from Loch Ken. 1.4 This study This study was commissioned by the Galloway Glens Partnership Project (GGPP). Finance for the study was provided by GGPP, SNH and the SEPA, and was managed by a steering group of these funders and DGC. The main objective of this study is to undertake an assessment of the condition of the fish stocks within Loch Ken, and the overall status of Loch Ken as an angling venue deploying specified data and information collection methods. These data collection techniques were developed during the 2016 pilot project undertaken on Loch Ken (Galloway Fisheries Trust 3 2016). Using the data collected, recommendations for the future management of Loch Ken as a coarse fishery have been made. The study also considered the current extent of deployment of angler biosecurity measures and makes recommendations as to how biosecurity actions could be enhanced and developed on the loch. 4 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Public engagement To establish links with relevant stakeholders that would have an interest in the fishery of Loch Ken, GFT attended the Loch Ken Management Advisory Group on 5th October 2016, where they delivered a presentation to introduce the Loch Ken Fisheries Study and gathered contact details from individuals interested in inputting to the project. Thereafter, contact was initiated by email with these individuals. To seek public involvement in the study, two public drop-in events were arranged and these were publicised with an advert in the Galloway News (issue 03/11/2016) and through posters which were distributed widely in the local area and electronically via the GFT website and social media pages. Email contact was made with all angling interests identified within the pilot study (NGAA, Dalry Angling Club (DAC), members of the DDSFB, members of the Scottish Coarse Fishing Federation). The poster was shared on the Loch Ken Match Banter page – a Facebook page with 391 members, which details Loch Ken coarse fish matches and results – and once invited to join the page, a personal introduction to the project and a request to seek assistance from match organisers was posted by GFT. Two fliers were produced and approved by the Steering Group in advance of the open events – an information leaflet and a feedback form. The events took place on Wednesday the 16th and Wednesday the 23rd November in and around New Galloway. The first event was held during the day at CatStrand in New Galloway. The second event was held during the evening at the Ken Bridge Hotel, New Galloway. Fliers were distributed to recognised ticket outlets around the loch, McCowans angling shop in Castle Douglas and to match officials during attended matches on the 3rd December 2016, 31st March 2017 and 14th April 2017. Anglers engaged during the Creel Surveys were encouraged to complete the Loch Ken Angling Record (see 2.2), which were available on the Loch Ken Fisheries Study page of the GFT website. GFT attended a further Loch Ken Management Advisory Group on 1st March 2017, and delivered an update on the Loch Ken Fisheries Project within the main agenda on Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Projects. Attendees were encouraged to participate in the project if they had not done so to date. 2.2 Loch Ken angling record In order to establish a citizen science recording scheme for anglers on Loch Ken to report details of their catches, an angler questionnaire, composed during the pilot study, was revised to include information on participating outlets where records could be returned to. These were Loch Ken Holiday Park (Parton), The Post Office (New Galloway) and J R Hopkins Newsagents (New Galloway) and a postal return and email address for GFT (see record sheet in Annex 1). During the stakeholder engagement events, all anglers in attendance were given the Angling Record and requested to complete it on every occasion they fished the loch. McCowans Fishing Tackle Shop in Castle Douglas and Mossdale Village Shop also agreed to distribute and collect records. A downloadable version of the Angling Record was made available from the ‘Loch Ken Fisheries Study’ page on the GFT website. Match organisers were supportive and the record was distributed to anglers at the three matches GFT attended as well as matches they did not. Finally, the survey was sent out with an introductory letter to all boat users on Loch Ken via the DGC boat license registration service in February 2017. Altogether, it was felt that by the means described previously, most avenues for distributing the Angling Record had been utilised. 5 During this time, ticket outlets were encouraged to inform anglers of the incentive scheme, whereby completed and returned records would be entered into a monthly draw for a £50 angling tackle voucher. This incentive was displayed on all records distributed throughout the project. Outlets where the record was placed were visited on most occasions when the creel surveys were being undertaken. In total, 68 completed records were received during the project. 2.3 Loch Ken creel record It was identified that a more in-depth angler and catch survey could take place via individual angler interviews conducted at Loch Ken. These interviews, undertaken on an ongoing basis throughout the project, would have three main purposes. Firstly, to gather information on fish species present, their whereabouts, sizes and catches to better inform management of the fishery, secondly, to provide a more detailed profile of current anglers and of their opinions and perceptions on the quality of the fishery, its viability and future development and, thirdly, to allow for relevant information on biosecurity measures, knowledge and awareness to be collected. Annex 2 shows the Loch Ken creel survey used. In total, 110 interviews were completed using this method across 18 days (8.5 weekend days and 9.5 week days). 2.4 Seine netting It is standard protocol when sampling fish populations in still waters to utilise nets. There are various types which can be used including gill nets, fyke nets and seine nets. Following a protocol developed during the 2016 pilot study, seine netting was identified as the most appropriate, and non-lethal, method for gathering fish population information and data on Loch Ken. Three days of seine netting were undertaken at Mains of Duchrae (in the vicinity of GR:270470 568770) which was identified as the most suitable seine netting location on Loch Ken, after consideration of various parameters such as site access, water depth and substrate type. When netted, captured fish were processed on site and then returned to the water alive. A record of site conditions (weather, wind direction, water depth, water temperature and grid reference from the mid-point of net landing) were noted and fish caught were processed for species mix, length and weight before their return to the loch. A representative sample of each species was also sampled for scales. Data was collected from 248 coarse fish during the three netting events. 2.5 Angling matches In the pilot and this study, angling matches were identified as having the potential to provide an important source of coarse fish and fishery data due to the quantity of fish being landed and held during a single match. To understand the potential of utilising angling matches for collecting fisheries data, the match organisers from NGAA and DAC were approached to consider GFT involvement during a match and discuss potential match dates. Both organisers were supportive of GFT involvement and three dates were agreed which met the study requirements to access larger matches (including the Easter Festival) so as to gain access to a larger fish sample. These dates were Saturday 3rd December 2016, Friday 31st March 2017 and Friday 14th April 2017. 6 Two GFT staff attended each match from the opening of the competition and were joined by a further two staff at the competition close to undertake the fish sampling process. A match protocol was developed and revised following attendance at match 1 (Annex 3) in order to maximise data collection on fish health (length and weight) and age (scale data). In total, data was gathered from 2618 coarse fish during the three match days attended. 7 3. RESULTS 3.1 Public engagement The first public engagement event was held during the afternoon at CatStrand in New Galloway. The event was staged as a drop-in event, where members of the public were free to come and go as they pleased between 12:00 and 17:00. Thirteen people attended the event including representatives of the main angling interests on the loch – the NGAA and the DAC, their match organisers, coarse and trout fishing interests, members of the DDSFB and a member of the Federation of Coarse Anglers Scotland – and residents of New Galloway. Lengthy discussions took place with those present and both general and specific issues recorded. Comments raised included shifts in fish species in relation to crayfish presence, angling match popularity and a need to improve access for bank fishing. All comments were recorded for consideration within the recommendations section of the report. Seven people attended the second event, held during the evening at the Ken Bridge Hotel. Again, this event attracted NGAA members and boat and pike anglers from the loch. Amongst some lengthy discussions, one individual referenced the control of crayfish being the main priority of any management plan for the loch. These views were not shared by others present and in general, across the two events most accepted that crayfish were now an established and non-removable, if undesirable, part of the lochs ecology and that some fish populations were benefitting from the food source they provided. Most attendees at the open events were present as a result of personal invites by email or by viewing the posters. Only one individual said they attended due to the advert in the Galloway News. A final project event was advertised and held on 19th July at the CatStrand in New Galloway and attended by 22 people where the Steering Group and GFT were able to present draft findings and recommendations from the report. Attendees included members of all interested groups present at the earlier open events in November, an established coarse fish biologist and author and members of the general public. 3.2 Loch Ken angling record GFT received 68 Loch Ken Angling Records (Annex 1) completed by 46 different anglers (11 anglers being repeat visitors to the loch). Match organisers were quickly identified as being pivotal to higher return rates of the record and many of the records came via this means (78% of anglers who participated in the voluntary questionnaire were match attendees). Ticket outlets produced very few completed angling records during the project. Nine records came directly to GFT via email. This line of communication proved useful to a few key anglers engaged in the project from the start. Completed records were returned during eight of the nine months that the survey was in operation (October 2016 to June 2017). During the months of October, November, March, April, May and June – numbers of completed records received was as few as two and at most nine. December and January provided the best returns of 18 and 15 records – with match anglers making the greatest contribution during these months. Eleven records did not include a fishing visit date and so could not be accountable to any month. The Angling Record surveys responses are summarised below. 8 3.2.1 Angler profiles Of the Angling Records completed, 43 (63%) of anglers gave an indication of where they were fishing the loch by circling on the map provided. 39 bankside and four boat locations where a grid reference could be established from the maps are shown in Annex 5. Anglers covered an area on the banks along the upper West side of the Loch and down the middle to lower East side of the loch from Glenlaggan to Crossmichael. All anglers who completed the survey gave their name. 11 anglers were repeat visitors to the loch of between one and five times. The age of anglers were; 1 (2%) were <18, 1 (2%) were 18-24, 3 (7%) were 25-34, 5 (11%) were 35-44, 16 (35%) were 45-54, 14 (30%) were 55-64 and 4 (9%) were >65 years old and 4% did not provide an age. A total of 36 (78%) respondents provided a home address with 33 (71%) providing a telephone number and 24 (52%) an email address. Where an address was not provided, a general home location was given with only one angler refusing to provide any such detail. Most anglers (28 (61%)) were found to come from northern or central England, eight (17%) from Dumfries and Galloway, five (11%) from central Scotland and two (4%) from both Ayrshire and Ireland. The duration that each angler spent fishing the loch was recorded as: < half a day, half a day or full day. Of the 68 fishing visits recorded; 46 (68%) of anglers reported they spent the day fishing, 17 (25%) a half day and only one (1%) for less than a half day on the loch. Four anglers did not fill in their fishing trip duration. When asked if anglers had a fishing permit, 37 (54%) anglers said ‘yes’, which, after accounting for repeat visiting anglers, came to 25 anglers in total from the 46 who completed a survey. Permit issuers were noted as Glenlaggan Marina (7 permits), Match organisers (27 permits), NGAA tickets (5 permits including one member) and “the gentleman at Shirmers” (one permit). 17 (25%) anglers said ‘no’ and 14 anglers declined to comment. From the 68 angler surveys completed; 50 anglers fished from the bankside and 12 from boats. Six anglers did not specify this detail. Anglers were given a choice of target fish species. All 46 anglers responded to this question and answers fell into two groups. Of those fishing at matches (36 anglers), 31 anglers targeted bream, roach, perch and dace, three anglers – bream only and two anglers did not respond. From the non-match anglers (10 anglers), most targeted larger and predatory fish with five anglers targeting pike only, two anglers perch only, two anglers pike and perch and the one angler pike, perch and bream. From the 68 fishing events detailed, 27 anglers (40%) fished a single rod; 3 (2%) fished two rods and 7 (10%) fished three rods. The remaining 48% of anglers made no comment on this section. Anglers were asked whether they used methods to avoid contact with signal crayfish. A total of 19 records (representing 13 different anglers) said ‘yes’, and 42 records said ‘no’. Methods adopted for avoiding signal crayfish included the use of float, trolling or paternoster, floating maggots, pop-ups, lure fishing and avoiding baits that attract signal crayfish. Seven anglers left no response in this section. 3.2.2 Biosecurity Anglers were asked to comment on levels of biosecurity awareness and their use of biosecurity measures. 9 When asked ‘Do you undertake any biosecurity measures, actions or precautions’ an answer was provided by 42 respondents; 24 (35%) anglers answered ‘yes’ and 18 (26%) answered ‘no’. A total of 26 (39%) records, did not respond to this question. The 24 positive responses to this question were provided by 13 (28%) individuals (many of which were repeat visitors). From these responses angler suggestions of biosecurity measures to be undertaken included cleaning and checking boats and equipment after usage on the loch and visual checks of tackle and drying with a dehumidifier. Five anglers left nets to dry in sunlight after use, three anglers only used their equipment on Loch Ken and one angler applied a ‘check, clean, dry’ policy. A final question was asked: ‘Would you use disinfection stations if these were available next to the loch with clear instructions for use?’ 25 (54%) of the 46 anglers responded ‘yes’ and the remainder left no comment. 3.2.3 Catch returns From the 68 individual records received, 65 (96%) contained catches. Catches could be displayed by two means; fish species mix as a total bag weight or as individual fish species by length and/or weight. Table 1 and Table 2 show the species mix and bag weights or individual fish length/weight of fish returned per angler event. Table 1: Details of individual fish species recorded within the Loch Ken Angling Record Record No. 1 2 3 4 32 33* 36 44* Fish Date Species 03/11/2016 Pike Pike 12/11/2016 Pike Pike Pike Pike 22/10/2016 Pike Bream Perch 23/10/2016 Pike Pike Bream Roach 17/01/2017 Perch Dace Pike Pike 22/01/2017 Pike 27/01/2017 Pike Pike Pike Pike Pike Pike 30/01/2017 Roach Length (cm) Weight (lb/oz) 4lb 3lb 22.2lb 19.8lb 2lb 2lb 11lb 8oz <3lb 8oz 2lb 8oz 12lb 8oz 18lb 8oz <2lb <4oz 1lb 6oz 4oz 3lb 8oz 6lb 8oz 19lb 08oz 6lb 2oz 4lb 8oz 5lb 8oz 3lb 8lb 2oz 8lb 4oz 32 21 62 76 104 66 59 63 54 70 76 16 10 Comments Fish captured 2 weeks previously Lean Skinny 46 Pike Pike Pike Pike Pike 20/06/2017 Perch Perch Perch Perch Perch Bream 47 21/06/2017 Perch Perch Perch Perch 48 21/05/2017 Perch Perch Perch Perch Perch Perch Perch 49 50 20/05/2017 Perch Perch Perch Perch Bream 17/05/2017 Pike 61 64 59 59 50 5lb 8oz 5lb 10oz 5lb 4lb 2oz 4lb 2.09 2.04 2.02 5 @ 1lb-1.10 9 @ 4-12oz 5 @ 1.5lb 3.02 2.06 2.02 4 @ 1lb1.12 9 @ 4-12oz 2.12 2.06 2.02 4 @ 1lb 1.12 8 @ 4-12oz 5lb 2 @ 1.5lb 2.08 2.04 4 @ 1.00 1.12 10 @ 4-12oz 2 @ 1lb 2lb Perch 2.08 Perch 2.02 3 @ 1lb 1.08 10 @ 4 12oz 1.08 11 @ 4oz 12oz 1lb 8oz 1lb 4oz 3lb 2lb Perch 51 52* 55* Perch 17/04/2017 Perch Perch 21/05/2017 Perch Bream 14/04/2017 Bream Bream 11 Caught at mouth of River Ken As above As above As above As above As above Caught at mouth of River Ken As above As above As above Caught at mouth of Blackwater of Dee As above As above As above As above As above As above Caught at North end of loch As above As above As above As above Spawned out. Caught just North of Glenlaggan viaduct. Spawned out. Caught at north end of loch. Most spawned out. Location as above. Caught near Glenlaggan viaduct and north end of loch. Appeared to be spawn-filled. Captures in 18-25ft of water at north end of loch. 57* 58* 59* 60* 61* 62* 63* 66 67 68 14/04/2017 Bream Roach Perch Dace Pike 14/04/2017 Dace Perch Roach 15/04/2017 Bream Dace 14/04/2017 Roach Dace Perch 14/04/2017 Roach Dace Perch Ruffe 40 14/04/2017 Roach Bream Perch Pike 14/04/2017 Perch Roach Dace 20 4-8 6 5-8 60 8oz 1-3oz 1oz 1-2oz 3.5lb 2oz 2oz 2-3oz 4-15oz 1oz 5-8oz 2-0oz 10oz 1-4oz 1-4oz 1oz <1oz 10-30 5 5-15 5-15 5-15 6-15 6-12 5 3 Some rough, ready to spawn. Small roach 8oz 2 @ 4oz 2-3 2-3 2 2-3oz 2-3oz 2oz Several jacks also. Females 29/03/2017 Pike 13lb spawned out. 13/03/2017 Pike 57 6.5lb Good condition 18/03/2017 Pike 88 14lb Heavily gravid Pike 60 6.5lb Skinny Pike 55 5lb Scarred (half tail) Pike 48 5lb Record No.- underlined represent match data. Record No.* - data can also be found as total bag weight within Table 2 Table 2: Details of total bag weight by fish species mix recorded within the Loch Ken Angling Record Record No. 7 8 9 10 11 12 Date 03/12/2016 03/12/2016 03/12/2016 03/12/2016 03/12/2016 04/12/2016 Species Mix or Match tally 2 Bream, 10 Ruffe, (2 SC˜) 3 Bream, 1 Roach, (3 SC˜) 10 Bream, 1 Ruffe, (6 SC˜) Bream, Dace, Perch, Ruffe 9 Bream, 2 Roach 4 Bream, (1 SC˜) 12 Bag weight (lb/oz) 1lb 15oz 7lb 5lb 5lb 12oz 3lb 10oz 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 03/12/2016 03/12/2016 03/12/2016 03/12/2016 03/12/2016 03/12/2016 03/12/2016 03/12/2016 04/12/2016 03/12/2016 03/12/2016 03/12/2016 03/12/2016 04/12/2016 04/12/2016 04/12/2016 03/12/2016 08/01/2017 31 33* 15/01/2017 15 Bream, 2 Roach, 1 Perch & Ruffe 22/01/2017 Pike Perch 22/01/2017 5 Bream, 1 Roach, (8 SC˜) 22/01/2017 11 Bream, Roach, Perch, 9 Dace, (6 SC˜) 27/01/2017 6 Pike 29/01/2017 1 Bream, 11 Roach, 20 Dace, (15 SC˜) 29/01/2017 11 Bream, 1 Roach, (18 SC˜) 29/01/2017 9 Bream, 2 Roach, 1 Perch, (2 SC˜) 29/01/2017 6 Bream, 1 Roach, 1 Perch, (11 SC˜) 29/01/2017 11 Bream,2 Roach, 3 Perch, (2 SC˜) 29/01/2017 5 Bream, 1 Roach, 1 Perch, (27 SC˜) 29/01/2017 1 Bream, (2 SC˜) 30/01/2017 Pike Pike Perch Bream Roach Ruffe 21/05/2017 Perch 20/06/2017 Perch 14/04/2017 Bream, roach, perch 15/04/2017 Bream, roach, perch 16/04/2017 Bream, roach, perch 14/04/2017 Bream, roach, perch 15/04/2017 Bream, roach, perch 16/04/2017 Bream, roach, perch 34 35 36* 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44* 45 52* 53 54 55* 2 Bream, 2 Roach, 2 Perch, (5 SC˜) Bream, (3 SC˜) 5 Bream, 1 Roach, 1 Perch, (14 SC˜) 20 Bream, 1 Perch, (3 SC˜) 6 Bream, 3 Perch, (3 SC˜) 9 Bream, 2 Roach, (6 SC˜) 5 Bream, 2 Roach, 3 Dace, (1 SC˜) 9 Bream, 1 Roach, 1 Perch 1 Bream, 2 Hybrids, (3 SC˜) 12 Bream, (1 SC˜) 2 Bream, 14 Roach, (4 SC˜) 3 Bream, 1 Perch, (3 SC˜) 1 Ruffe 1 Bream, 1 Roach, (6 SC˜) 4 Bream, (1 SC˜) 5 Bream, 1 Roach, (1 SC˜) 30 Roach, 3 Perch 6 Roach, 2 Perch, 16 Dace & Ruffe 13 2lb 8oz 1lb 2oz 2lb 14oz 18lb 15lb 2oz 6lb 4oz 6lb 1lb 2oz 6lb 14 1lb 13oz 1oz 1lb 14oz 2lb 2oz 2lb 2lb 5lb 11lb 10oz 30lb 6lb 4lb 14oz 9lb 2oz 35lb 4oz 3lb 8oz 11lb 6lb 4oz 3lb 8oz 8lb 8oz 3lb 8oz 1lb 4oz 27lb 8oz 26lb 7oz 1lb 4oz 1lb 6oz 1lb 2oz 6lb 10lb 2lb 13oz 0lb 8oz 4lb 4lb 6oz 0lb 4oz 10lb 8oz 56 14/04/2017 Bream, roach, perch 9lb 2oz 57* 14/04/2017 1 Bream, 25 Roach, 1 Perch, 8 Dace 3lb 2oz 58* 14/04/2017 9 Roach, 4 Perch, 1 Dace 1lb 4oz 59* 15/04/2017 12 Bream, 1 Dace 7lb 9oz 60* 14/04/2017 40 Roach, 3 Perch, 20 Dace 8lb 2oz 61* 14/04/2017 60 Roach, 1 Perch, 10 Dace, 1 Ruffe, (4 SC˜) 8lb 4oz 62* 14/04/2017 1 Bream, 40 Roach, 2 Perch, 5 Dace,10 Pike, (20 SC˜) 4lb 10oz 63* 14/04/2017 1 Bream, 20 Roach, 6 Perch, 10 Dace 4lb 6oz 64* 14/04/2017 16 Bream, (50 SC˜) 9lb 6oz 65* 14/04/2017 80 Roach, 10 Perch, 1 Dace 6lb 8oz Record No.- underlined represent match data. Record No.* - data can also be found as individual fish species within Table 1 ˜signal crayfish recorded for information and as it indicates interaction with angling activities 3.3 Loch Ken creel record The Loch Ken creel survey (Annex 2) was completed on 110 occasions by 105 different anglers (two anglers were repeat visitors) across 8.5 weekend days and 9.5 week days between the months of October 2016 and June 2017. Participation in these surveys by anglers was not compulsory and respondents were able to decline to provide information to any section(s) of the survey they did not wish to answer. Graph 1 gives a breakdown of number of anglers recorded on each visit. At most, 11 anglers were interviewed in one day (28/10/2016 – a Friday) and at least, zero anglers were interviewed (08/06/2017 – a Thursday). In general, angler presence and numbers were found to be similar during week and weekend days (weekends accounted for 47% of survey time and produced 50 records, whilst week days accounted for 53% of survey time and produced 60 records). 08/06/2017 04/06/2017* 29/05/2017 17/05/2017 13/05/2017* 30/04/2017* 12/04/2017 08/04/2017* 16/03/2017** 03/03/2017 26/02/2017** 10/12/2016* 24/11/2016 03/12/2016* 19/11/2016* 06/11/2016* 02/11/2016 28/10/2016 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 25/10/2016 Number of anglers Creel Survey: Number of anglers interviewed by date Week Day, Weekend* or Half Day** Graph 1: Number of anglers interviewed using the Creel Survey during the study period The survey responses are summarised below. 14 3.3.1 Angler profiles The locations where surveys were conducted are shown in Annex 6. The majority of anglers were located on the banks along the upper West side of the Loch and down the middle to lower East side of the loch from Glenlaggan to Crossmichael. Whilst the bankside anglers could be interviewed throughout the day, boat anglers were much harder to locate and meet. In total, 98 anglers were interviewed on the bankside and 12 anglers when they returned with their boat to the bankside. 102 (97%) of 105 anglers interviewed were male whilst three (3%) were female. Each angler gave an indication of their age. 2 (2%), were <18, nine (9%), were 18-24, 22 (21%), were 2534, 19 (18%), were 35-44, 21 (20%), were 45-54, 18 (17%), were 55-64 and 14 (13%), were >65 years old. A small number of anglers 5 (<5%) were prepared to provide a home address. Due to the high proportion of non-paying, and potentially non-permitted, anglers involved in the interview, it is possible that anglers did not want to be contacted or identified beyond the interview process and were happier to share a council area or city in which they resided rather than a home address. As a result, most anglers (61 (58%)) were found to come from England, 14 (13%) from Dumfries and Galloway, 12 (11%) from the Central Belt of Scotland, 10 (10%) from Ayrshire, two (2%) from North Scotland, two (2%) from the Borders and one (1%) from Wales. Three anglers (3%) would not provide their residency. This corresponded to a distance travelled to reach Loch Ken with 4 (4%) anglers travelling 010 miles, 8 (8%) anglers travelling 10-30 miles, 6 (6%) of 105 anglers travelling 30-50 miles and 87 (83%) anglers making a journey of >50 miles to reach the loch. 32 (30%) anglers visited the loch on a day trip basis with 76 (70%) anglers staying overnight. Of the anglers making an overnight stay that responded when questioned about the length of their stay (out of 73 responses); 53 (73%) stayed for more than two nights, 12 (16%) stayed for two nights and 8 (11%) stayed for one night. 76 anglers gave a response to where they were staying; 28 (37%) anglers stayed in a campsite, 24 (32%) wild camped by the loch side, 12 (16%) stayed in self-catering accommodation, 6 (8%) stayed in a hotel, 4 (5%) of in B&B accommodation, 1 (1%) on their boat and 1 (1%) with friends. When asked if anglers would be happy leaving a contact detail; 12 out of 105 anglers (11%) obliged with a telephone number and 17 out of 105 anglers (16%) gave an email address. Anglers were able to confirm their target fish species. A total of 102 (97%) of 105 anglers responded and answers ranged from a single fish species to five. 58 (57%) of respondents confirmed a single species target with pike (55 anglers (95%), trout (two anglers (3%) and bream (one angler, <2%) the target species. 18 (17%) of respondents confirmed two target species with perch most commonly targeted alongside pike (8 (8%) anglers), bream (1 (1%) angler) and roach (3 (3%) anglers). Bream and roach were targeted by 5 anglers and perch and trout by a single angler (1%). 12 (12%) of respondents confirmed three target species with; bream, roach and perch the most common combination (9 (9%) anglers). 10 (10%) of respondents confirmed four target species; perch, roach, bream and pike were the most frequently selected fish species. 15 And finally, 4 (4%) of respondents confirmed 5 target species; pike, bream, roach and perch were selected in equal measure ahead of trout and dace. Of the 105 anglers, 86 (82%) had visited Loch Ken previously and 19 (18%) reported this as their first visit to the fishery. Of those 86 anglers that were repeat visitors, when asked to estimate the number of annual visits each had made to Loch Ken, 78 anglers responded and over half (42 (54%)) would make 1-5 visits annually, 14 (18%) anglers would make 5-10 visits annually, 6 (8%) anglers would make 10-15 visits annually, 3 (4%) would make 15-20 visits annually and 13 (17%) would make upwards of 20 visits including three anglers that estimated visiting Loch Ken 50-100 times annually. Considering specifically their fishing trips to Loch Ken, anglers were asked to rate their fishing experience on a scale of 1-5 (1 being least satisfied and 5 being most satisfied). The large majority of anglers were either very satisfied (56 (56%) of 101 anglers), or satisfied (35 (35%) of 101 anglers). Seven (7%) anglers remained neutral in their evaluation of their fishing experience and three (3%) bordered into un-satisfied. Four (4%) anglers did not comment. Anglers were asked to provide positive and negative feedback to support their angling satisfaction score. Almost all (104 (99%) of 105) anglers answered this question. Positive feedback was received from 93 (89%) anglers and included comments on the wildlife, nice scenery, peacefulness, good campsites and good fishing opportunities for big fish. Other comments included the clean and tidy location, friendliness of locals and good opportunity for a variety of fishing methods and mixed species catch. Negative feedback was received from 33 (31%) anglers and included comments on signal crayfish by 15 (14%) of all respondents whilst other issues raised included concerns on the need for overall water management needing reviewed, access being difficult especially for the elderly, poor fishing, some angling groups killing too many fish and litter. A single angler referenced poor toilet facilities, hotels and too many children as negatively impacting on their experience of the loch. A record of the date and time that each angler was interviewed was made, with duration of the fishing trip being recorded as < half a day, half a day or full day. Of the 107 anglers who provided an answer; 72 (67%) anglers spent the day fishing, 30 (28%) - a half day and 5 (5%), less than a half day fishing upon the loch. When asked if anglers had a fishing permit, 54 (50%) of 107 anglers said ‘yes’, including two anglers from NGAA, six anglers with boat licences, four with Loch Ken Holiday Park permits and two who had paid a farmer (though one gave no tickets). 53 (50%) anglers said ‘no’ and three (3%) anglers declined to comment. From the 110 angler surveys completed; 99 (90%) anglers fished from the bankside and 11 (10%) from boats – two (2%) of which had no fishing permit. 3.3.2 Creel specific returns From the 110 interviews completed, fish were only available to process on the bankside from two anglers, as a consequence of anglers immediately returning most fish as soon as they had been unhooked. However, many more anglers were able to provide an estimation of the number of fish species caught and their weights. Table 3 shows the species and weights of fish returned per angler event. 16 Table 3: Details of fish species recorded during Loch Ken creel survey Date Location 25/10/2016 Bankside 28/10/2016 Bankside 28/10/2016 Bankside 28/10/2016 Bankside 25/10/2016 Bankside 26/10/2016 Bankside 25/10/2016 Boat 25/10/2016 Boat 25/10/2016 Boat 25/10/2016 Boat 25/10/2016 Bankside 25/10/2016 Bankside 25/10/2016 Bankside 28/10/2016 Bankside 02/11/2016 Boat 02/11/2016 Boat 02/11/2016 Bankside 06/11/2016 Bankside 06/11/2016 Bankside 06/11/2016 Bankside 06/11/2016 Bankside 19/11/2016 Bankside 10/12/2016 Boat 10/12/2016 Bankside 24/11/2016 Bankside Grid reference 270812 569229 270812 569229 270812 569229 270812 569229 268761 570054 270812 569229 265768 573458 265768 573458 265768 573458 265768 573458 268761 570054 268761 570054 268761 570054 263898 575039 265284 572853 283284 572858 272641 566261 271092 569085 264249 574560 264249 574560 264249 574560 263897 575034 271428 568214 268052 571270 264717 574008 Fish caught 17 Weight(lb/oz) Processed and/or length by GFT (cm) (Y/N) Dace 4oz/20 cm Y Roach 39g/14cm Y Roach 51g/15cm Y Perch 34g/13.5cm Y Dace <1oz/8cm Y Pike 3-4lb N Pike 6-7lb N Pike 6-7lb N Pike 5-6lb N Pike 5-6lb N Dace 1oz N Dace 1oz N Dace 1oz N Pike 3lb N Perch 2lb N Pike 6lb N Pike 10lb N Pike 5-6lb N Pike 8lb N Pike 7lb N Pike 4lb N Pike 3.5lb N Pike 3lb N 2 roach 2oz N Pike 8-10lb N 263875 16/03/2017 Bankside 574999 263883 08/04/2017 Bankside 575056 268731 08/04/2017 Bankside 570156 268731 Bankside 570156 264947 08/04/2017 Bankside 573577 264947 Bankside 573577 264947 Bankside 573577 264947 Bankside 573577 264947 Bankside 573577 264947 12/04/2017 Bankside 573577 264947 Bankside 573577 264947 Bankside 573577 263883 12/04/2017 Bankside 575056 268194 30/04/2017 Bankside 570942 268194 Bankside 570942 268600 30/04/2017 Bankside 570253 268194 30/04/2017 Bankside 570942 268194 Bankside 570942 268145 30/04/2017 Bankside 570986 268145 Bankside 570986 268634 17/05/2017 Bankside 570148 268581 17/05/2017 Bankside 570280 268680 17/05/2017 Bankside 570197 268035 17/05/2017 Bankside 571274 268573 17/05/2017 Bankside 570277 268010 17/05/2017 Bankside 571310 268010 Bankside 571310 18 Pike 14lb N Pike 4lb N Pike 3.5lb N Pike 7lb N Bream 2.5lb N Roach n/a N Perch n/a N Dace n/a N Ruffe n/a N Bream Around 5lb N Roach n/a N Perch n/a N Pike 7lb 2oz N Roach 1.5lb N Ruffe n/a N Pike n/a N Dace 8-10lb N Roach 8-10lb N Roach 6oz N Skinner n/a N Roach n/a N Roach n/a N Pike 16lb N Perch n/a N Perch 3/4lb N Perch 2-3lb N Roach 2-3lb N 264944 17/05/2017 Bankside 573602 264944 Bankside 573602 268212 04/06/2017 Bankside 570915 268212 Bankside 570915 268070 04/06/2017 Bankside 571144 268070 Bankside 571144 268094 04/06/2017 Bankside 571112 268094 Bankside 571112 Bankside 268610 28/10/2016 and Boat 570237 268761 25/10/2016 Bankside 570054 268761 25/10/2016 Bankside 570054 Pike 10lb N Pike 14lb N Roach n/a N Bream n/a N Roach 2oz N Perch 4oz N Roach 4oz N Perch 4oz N Pike 8lb N Roach 2oz/12.5cm N Dace 1.5oz/12cm N 3.3.3 Biosecurity As part of the creel survey, anglers were asked to comment on biosecurity and their use of biosecurity measures. This was felt to be an important feature of angler behaviour given the heightened protocols that should be adopted due to the presence of signal crayfish within the loch and the impact signal crayfish is reported to have had on angler success and perception of Loch Ken. Of the 105 anglers surveyed, 93 (89%) were aware of invasive non-native species (INNS), with 92 (88%) anglers referring to signal crayfish presence in Loch Ken. In addition to crayfish, one angler noted dace, bream and Japanese knotweed as INNS and the final angler singled out fish ‘hybrids’ as notable INNS within the loch. When asked if anglers had come across any evidence of INNS during their current fishing trip, 25 said they had – all of which related to signal crayfish. When asked if signal crayfish had affected their current fishing experience; 64 (58%) of 110 anglers said ‘no’ and 38 (34%) of 110 anglers said ‘yes’. Eight anglers did not comment. When asked if anglers were using a particular fishing method to avoid crayfish; 68 (64%) of 105 said ‘yes’ and 33 (31%) of 105 said ‘no’. Of those that said ‘yes’, 61 anglers provided a range of techniques including the use of pop-up dead baits (technique used by >63% of respondents), float fishing (used by 18% of respondents), lure fishing (used by 8% of respondents). A few anglers also used trolling, spinning, fly fishing, rapid fishing as techniques to evade crayfish. One angler described feeding signal crayfish and then fishing outside the feeding area. Questions were also set in the creel survey in relation to the application and awareness of biosecurity measures and issues. 68 (65%) of 105 anglers said they did perform some sort of biosecurity checks on their fishing tackle and equipment whilst 33 (31%) recorded that they did not. Four (6%) anglers refused to comment. For anglers that did carry out biosecurity checks, they were asked ‘how often’. 62 (91% of those practicing biosecurity measures) anglers responded with ‘always’, four (6%) anglers undertook measures ‘sometimes’ and one angler (1%) answered ‘only if moving between waterbodies/catchments’. 19 For anglers who did not carry out biosecurity measures, they were given a series of options as to why they did not. From the prescribed answers, only 7 (19%) of 37 anglers chose to select an option whilst 9 anglers gave an alternative answer. From the prescribed answers, three anglers noted a lack of disinfecting facilities, two stated they did not know what to do, one stated they did not visit waters with INNS species and one reporting that undertaking biosecurity was inconvenient and they did not have time. From the nine alternative answers; six anglers noted that their equipment was only used on Loch Ken. ‘Equipment is always clean’, ‘only if they see crayfish’ and ‘I was not aware of biosecurity issues’ were the other answers provided. Concerning the ‘Check, Clean, Dry’ (CCD) campaign http://nonnativespecies.org/checkcleandry/, 78 of 105 anglers had not heard of the campaign and four anglers refused to comment (together 78% of those surveyed). Using four prescribed answers, anglers were asked which means should be adopted to raise awareness of biosecurity on Loch Ken. 94 (90%) anglers responded and selected between one and four of the options offered. ‘Erect information panels’ was selected by 84 (>89%) anglers, ‘provide basic information on permits’ was selected by 58 (>61%) anglers, ‘distribute leaflets’ by 14 (14%) anglers and ‘run events for loch users to provide information’ by four (4%) anglers. Two anglers provided their own ideas which were to inform loch users via angling forums. Similarly, in addition to the prescribed answers, five anglers suggested using social media (Facebook), radio stations, Trout and Salmon magazine and tackle shops to disseminate information. Two anglers suggested including information in the Loch Ken Holiday Park information packs. When asked if anglers would use disinfecting stations at Loch Ken if they were made available; 94 (89%) anglers responded positively and 7 (6%) responded negatively. Four anglers gave no response. When asked ‘where would you suggest disinfectant stations be positioned to encourage usage’, 98 (93%) of anglers responded by providing at least one of the three prescribed answers. 92 (93%) anglers favoured the positioning of disinfectant stations ‘on banksides, within 100 m of popular fishing locations, 10 (10%) anglers selected ‘in villages, e.g. New Galloway or at entry points to the loch e.g. marina’ and only four (4%) anglers selected ‘at ticket outlets’. Finally, the 105 anglers were asked to answer the question ‘Are there any ways Loch Ken fishery and fishing experience could be improved’ using a series of prescribed answers which they could also provide comments on. 90 (85%) anglers selected between one and four of the prescribed answers. For those anglers who provided only a single response: 30 (55%) stated ‘No, leave water/fishery as it is’, 14 (25%) with ‘Yes – make a crayfish control plan’, 8 (15%) with ‘Yes – undertake bankside management’ and 3 (5%) with ‘Yes, construct a fishery management plan’. 10% of anglers responded with the option of ‘Yes – all of the above suggestions’. Of those that responded with multiple answers, collectively ‘No – leave the fishery as it is’ was selected by 35%, ‘Yes – make a crayfish plan’ by 35%, ‘Yes – undertake bankside management’ by 27%, ‘Yes – construct a fishery management plan’ by 20%, ‘Yes – run a hatchery programme’ by 13% and ‘Yes – carry out predator control’ by 4%. In addition, 54 (>51%) of the 105 anglers wished to comment further and provide additional management suggestions. Suggestions made were: 13 anglers (24% of respondents) who considered signal crayfish control/eradication as being important for improving fish numbers in the loch (one angler went as far as suggesting the introduction of an invasive species like Wels catfish could help control the crayfish population); 10 (19%) anglers wanted to see better access which related to 20 improving parking facilities, more swims and launch areas for boats and increasing boat hire; nine (17%) anglers considered improving bin facilities a priority and tackling litter created by wild campers. Managing poaching was seen by six anglers (11%) as a problem, particularly concerning the killing of coarse fish by anglers originally from outside the UK. General policing of the loch was raised by some anglers who felt there was a need for better information on permits and signage surrounding the loch. Concerning predatory species, two anglers (4%) felt there was a need to prohibit the killing of pike. Better flow management was mentioned by three (6%) anglers; increasing awareness of other loch users, by two anglers (including the introduction of speed restrictions for boat users near Loch Ken Holiday Park), more camping spaces by three anglers, better toilet facilities by one angler and a request for less competitions on the loch by another. Three anglers (6%) said to leave the loch as natural as possible, with one (2%) reasoning that managing banksides only increased littering. 3.4 Seine netting 3.4.1 Netting undertaken Three days of netting were undertaken, each within the bay near Mains of Duchrae on the West side of the loch. On each occasion, fish caught were processed for length and weight and a scale sample was taken where possible. As a measure of fish health; the condition factor (K) was calculated for all fish captured during each netting event. 3.4.1.1 Netting on 29 September 2016 On the 29 September 2016, netting was undertaken six times in the vicinity of Mains of Duchrae (Table 4). Table 4: Details of the netting undertaken near Mains of Duchrae on 29 September 2016 Location Grid Ref Netting attempt Successful Successful Successful Successful Water depth (m) 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.9 Water temperature (oC) 14.0 14.0 13.9 13.9 Inner Bay Inner Bay Inner Bay Side Bay 270437 568776 270470 568776 270491 568778 270541 568758 Side Bay 270584 568778 Inner Bay 270419 568771 Total netted fish Successful Successful 1.2 0.8 14.5 14.4 Fish caught 4 Roach, 3 Perch 5 Roach, 2 Perch 2 Dace 2 Dace, 1 Roach, 1 Perch 3 Dace, 1 Roach 10 Roach, 1 Pike 35 (1 Pike, 6 Perch, 7 Dace, 21 Roach) Weather conditions on the day of netting were mostly cloudy with a south westerly wind. The inner bay was netted four times and the net was successfully set and landed each time. Water depths, slope of the bed and substrate type (largely silt) were all suitable and no obstructions caused any problems. A total of 27 fish were caught (19 roach (Rutilus rutilus), five perch (Perca fluviatilis), two dace (Leuciscus leuciscus) and a pike (Esox lucius)). The edge of the bay was netted twice. Rain fell during the netting of site 5 within this side of the bay. Some snagging experienced during the landing of the net on this side of the bay, may have led to the escapement of some fish. A total of eight fish were caught (five dace, two roach and a perch). Three signal crayfish were also captured. 21 Figure 1: A roach being weighed during netting on 29/09/16 3.4.1.2 Netting on 4 October 2016 On the 4 October 2016, netting was undertaken seven times in the vicinity of Mains of Duchrae (Table 5). Table 5: Details of the netting undertaken near Mains of Duchrae on 4 October 2016 Location Inner Bay Grid Ref 270473 568760 Inner Bay 270482 568775 Inner Bay 270444 568779 Side Bay 270594 568787 Side Bay 270610 568796 Inner Bay 270422 568771 Inner Bay 270446 568778 Total netted fish Netting attempt Successful Water depth (m) 1.1 Water temperature (oC) 13.1 Fish caught Successful 1.2 13.1 4 Dace, 2 Perch, 2 Pike None Successful 0.8 13.9 1 Perch Successful 1.4 13.2 1 Roach, 1 Pike Successful 1.5 13.0 1 Dace Successful 0.5 14.6 Successful 0.5 13.3 11 Roach, 1 Perch, 1 Pike 9 Roach, 4 Perch, 1 Dace 39 (4 Pike, 8 Perch, 6 Dace, 21 Roach) Weather conditions on the day of netting were dry, overcast with a north-east wind. The inner bay was netted five times and the net was successfully set and landed each time. Water depths, slope of the bed and substrate type were all suitable and no obstructions caused any problems. A total of 36 fish were caught (20 roach (Rutilus rutilus), eight perch (Perca fluviatilis), five dace (Leuciscus leuciscus) and three pike (Esox lucius)). 22 The edge of the bay was netted twice. Some difficulties with dragging in the net (created by a silt shelf and some rocks) meant that the net had to be lifted and this is the likely reason that only three fish were caught (one roach, one pike and a dace). Ten signal crayfish were also captured, all but one of which were captured during the two nettings on the side bay. Figure 2: A perch caught during the netting on 04/10/16 3.4.1.3 Netting on 20 June 2017 On the 20 June 2017, netting was undertaken six times in the vicinity of Mains of Duchrae (Table 6). Table 6: Details of the netting undertaken near Mains of Duchrae on 20 June 2017 Location Grid Ref Inner Bay Netting attempt 270465 568778 Water depth (m) Successful 1.1 Water temperature (oC) 20.7 Inner Bay 270438 568780 Successful 0.8 21.3 Inner Bay Inner Bay Side Bay 270418 568772 270487 568776 270605 568798 Successful 0.8 Successful 1.2 Successful 1.6 23.4 24.2 20.5 Side Bay 270544 568760 Successful 1.3 23.4 Total netted fish Fish caught 30 Dace, 2 Roach, 1 Ruffe, 1 Perch 8 Dace, 5 Roach, 2 Ruffe, 1 Bream 9 Dace 2 Roach, 3 Ruffe 52 Roach, 1 Pike, 1 Bream, 1 Ruffe 46 Roach, 4 Ruffe, 2 Perch, 2 Dace, 1 Pike 174 (107 Roach, 49 Dace, 11 Ruffe, 3 Perch, 2 Pike, 2 Bream) Weather conditions on the day of netting were hot with bright sunshine, clear skies and a slight East/North-East breeze. The inner bay was netted four times and the net was successfully set and landed each time. Water depths, slope of the bed and substrate type were all suitable and no obstructions caused any problems. Landing the net within site 3 which was positioned 23 most westerly in the bay, produced most silt. A total of 64 fish were caught (nine roach (Rutilus rutilus), one perch (Perca fluviatilis), 47 dace (Leuciscus leuciscus), six ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernua) and one bream (Abramis brama)). Figure 3: Landing the net within the inner bay on 20/06/17 The edge of the bay was netted twice. Some difficulties with snagging (created by a silt shelf and some rocks) meant that the net had to be lifted to release drag (Figure 4). Despite the potential loss of fish on this occasion, 110 fish were caught between the two nettings (98 roach, five ruffe, two perch, two dace and one pike). 22 signal crayfish were also captured distributed equally between the two bays netted. Figure 4: Landing the net within the side bay on 20/06/17 24 Figure 5: A pike caught during the netting on 20/06/17 3.4.2 Fish species sampled In total, 248 fish were sampled during the three seine netting activities and six coarse fish species were identified. Graph 2 shows species composition across the three nettings. 160 140 Number of fish 120 100 Netting 3 80 Netting 2 60 Netting 1 40 20 0 Roach Dace Perch Pike Bream Ruffe Graph 2: Numbers of fish caught by species mix and netting event Of the 248 fish netted; 35 fish (14%) were captured during Netting 1 on 29/09/16, 39 fish (16%) were captured during the second netting on 04/10/16 and 174 (70%) were captured in the final netting on 20/06/17. Regarding species mix; roach accounted for 60% of the total catch recorded across the three nettings, dace – 25%, perch – 7%, ruffe – 4%, pike – 3% and bream – 1%. 3.4.3 Condition factor All fish captured during each seine netting event were sampled for length and weight. These measurements were used to calculate the condition factor or health of each individual fish as a basis for comparison between species and within species netted at different times of year. 25 Generally, fish that are heavier than the standard weight for their length are considered healthier, having more energy reserves for normal activities, growth and reproduction. Whilst this is a useful metric and indicator if fish health it should be noted that it can be highly variable for example across seasons and dependent on feeding habits of the species being assessed. The standard Fulton Condition Factor formula was used on this occasion. This formula assumes that the standard weight of a fish is proportional to the cube of its length: K = 100(Weight/Length)3 where weight is the whole body weight of the fish in grams and length is the fork length of the fish in centimetres. The factor 100 is used to bring K close to a value of one. Fish with a condition factor of greater than one are considered to be in better condition than those fish with condition factors less than one. Condition factors for individual fish species were calculated and are shown in the graphs below, with separate graphs representing each fish species sampled per netting event. 3.4.3.1 Condition factor: Roach In total, 149 roach were sampled during the three seine netting events, (21 during nettings 1 and 2 and 107 during netting 3). The condition factor of each individual fish was calculated and can be seen plotted in Graphs 3, 4 and 5 below. Seine Netting 1 - Roach: Condition factor (K) -vLength Condition factor (K) 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 3: Condition factor of roach captured during seine netting on 29/09/2016 From the 21 roach sampled during the seine netting at the end of September 2016; only one (amongst the very smallest roach sampled) produced a condition factor of <1. 26 Condition factor (K) Seine Netting 2 - Roach: Condition factor (K) -vLength 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 4: Condition factor of roach captured during seine netting on 04/10/2016 From the 21 roach sampled during the seine netting at the beginning of October 2016; all were found to display condition factors greater than K=1.2. Condition factor (K) Seine Netting 3 - Roach: Condition factor -v- Length 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 5: Condition factor of roach captured during seine netting on 20/06/2017 From the 107 roach sampled during the seine netting on 20 June 2017; all were found to display condition factors greater than K=1.2. 3.4.3.2 Condition factor: Dace In total, 62 dace were sampled during the three seine netting events, (seven during netting 1, six in netting 2 and 49 in netting 3). The condition factor of each individual fish was calculated and can be seen plotted in Graphs 6, 7 and 8 below. 27 Seine Netting 1 - Dace: Condition factor (K) -vLength Condition factor (K) 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 6: Condition factor of dace captured during seine netting on 29/09/2016 From the seven dace sampled during seine netting on 29/09/16, none displayed a condition factor of <1. Seine Netting 2 - Dace: Condition factor -v- Length 1.4 Condition factor (K) 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 7: Condition factor of dace captured during seine netting on 04/10/2016 From the six dace sampled during seine netting on 04/10/16, one was measured as having a condition factor <1 and 5 fish had a condition factor >1 (maximum k=1.25). Two recorded K less than 1.2 and the further three fish produced a condition factor close to 1.2. 28 Seine Netting 3 - Dace: Condition factor (K) -vLength Condition factor (K) 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 8: Condition factor of dace captured during seine netting on 20/06/2017 From the 49 dace sampled during seine netting on 20/06/2017, none were recorded as having a condition factor <1. 3.4.3.3 Condition factor: Perch In total, 17 perch were sampled during the three seine netting events, (six during netting 1, eight in netting 2 and three in netting 3). The condition factor of each fish was calculated and can be seen plotted in Graphs 9, 10 and 11 below. Seine Netting 1 - Perch: Condition factor (K) -vLength Condition factor (K) 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 4.6 5.8 6.1 6.4 9.8 11.4 Fork length (cm) Graph 9: Condition factor of perch captured during seine netting on 29/09/2016 From the six perch sampled during seine netting on 29/06/2016, only one was recorded as having a condition factor below 1. Within this small sample, the highest condition factor was K=1.27. 29 Seine Netting 2 - Perch: Condition factor (K) -vLength Condition factor (K) 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 10: Condition factor of perch captured during seine netting on 04/10/2016 From the eight perch sampled during seine netting on 04/10/2016, one was recorded as having a condition factor below 1. Within this small sample, condition factor peaked at K=1.27. Seine Netting 3 - Perch: Condition factor (K) -vLength Condition factor (K) 1.5 1.45 1.4 1.35 1.3 1.25 Fork length (cm) Graph 11: Condition factor of perch captured during seine netting on 20/06/2017 From the three perch sampled during seine netting on 20/06/2017, each was calculated as having a condition factor >1, with the highest at 1.46. 3.4.3.4 Condition factor: Ruffe In total, 11 ruffe were sampled during the three seine netting events – all during the final netting on 20/06/2017. The condition factor of each individual fish was calculated and can be seen plotted in Graph 12 below. 30 Condition factor (K) Seine Netting 3 - Ruffe: Condition factor (K) -vLength 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 8 8.2 8.4 8.4 8.5 8.7 8.7 8.9 9 9 9.7 Fork length (cm) Graph 12: Condition factor of ruffe captured during seine netting on 20/06/2017 From the 11 ruffe sampled during seine netting on 20/06/2017, all were calculated as having a condition factor >1, with the highest at K=1.82. 3.4.3.5 Condition factor: Pike In total, six pike were sampled during the three seine netting events. The condition factor of each individual fish was calculated and can be seen plotted in Graph 13 below. Condition factor (K) Seine Netting 1,2 & 3 - Pike: Condition factor (K) -v- Length 0.74 0.72 0.7 0.68 0.66 0.64 0.62 0.6 0.58 0.56 17.5 17.7 17.8 21.3 21.4 34 Fork length (cm) Graph 13: Condition factor of pike captured during seine netting on 29/09/2016 (yellow marker), 04/10/2016 (blue markers) and 20/06/2017 (red marker) From the six pike sampled, all were found to have condition factors below 1 with the healthiest individual (and largest individual – measuring 34 cm) recording the best condition of K=0.72. This fish was the only pike sampled for length and weight during the third netting event on 20/06/2017. 31 3.4.3.6 Condition factor: Bream In total, two bream were sampled during the three seine netting events – both during the final netting on 20/06/2017. The condition factor of each individual fish was calculated and can be seen plotted in Graph 14 below. Seine Netting 3 - Bream: Condition factor (K) -vLength Condition factor (K) 1.72 1.715 1.71 1.705 1.7 1.695 1.69 1.685 1.68 Fork length (cm) Graph 14: Condition factor of bream captured during seine netting on 20/06/2017 From the two bream sampled during seine netting on the 20/06/2017, both fish displayed K >1 with the juvenile fish peaking at K=1.71. 3.5 Angling matches 3.5.1 Angling matches attended After discussion with coarse angling match organisers from NGAA, DAC and through the Facebook Loch Ken Match Banter page; GFT attended a series of matches in order to gather detailed coarse fish data. Of the matches available, two or three day matches, likely to be attended by the greatest number of anglers, were chosen in preference to smaller one day matches in order to maximise the number of fish caught and available for sampling in each match day. There are two main areas on Loch Ken where matches are held; on the upper West Bank NGAA water and on the East Bank at Glenlaggan. These locations and the given section names can be seen in Map 2 below. 32 Map 2: Location map of sections fished during Loch Ken matches 3.5.1.1 Match attended on 3 December 2016 Beginning at 08:00, two GFT staff attended this match, meeting anglers at the Lochinvar Hotel in Dalry where they introduced themselves and the project to match officials and competitors, and discussed what fish data they hoped to attain at the close of the match. Once entry was complete and peg numbers drawn, anglers took up their fishing stations on the East (Glenlaggan) and West (NGAA bank) side of the loch. Beginning on the West side of the loch, GFT walked each of the match sections, to familiarise themselves with the match layout and record section names and grid references at peg numbers at each section extent (see Annex 4). 36 anglers fished the competition between 10:30 and 15:30 (see Figure 6 showing angler ready to start match). 33 Figure 6: A match angler positioned at their peg Beginning at 14:00, working in pairs along the East and West bank; four GFT staff distributed keep nets at each of section fished in the competition, without disturbing the anglers as they fished. At 15:30, at the match closed and in place to begin weigh-in; GFT shadowed the anglers as they transferred their day’s catch from a keep net into a weigh bag hooked onto a tripod with scales (Figure 7). Once the total bag weight had been recorded for each angler, GFT transferred all fish within the weigh bag into their own keep nets and secured these at each match section. Figure 7: Competition anglers transferring their day’s catch into the weigh bag Having completed the weigh-in in each section GFT were able to process and sample the catch. On this occasion, limited by light availability and having limited knowledge on how the fish would respond to handling, it was decided that fish would be sampled for species and 34 length to limit handling time and stress on the fish. Sampling and processing was completed within two hours of commencement. In total, 302 coarse fish were processed for length: 172 bream, 55 roach, 15 perch, 15 dace and 45 ruffe. Bream lengths, which made up the majority of fish captured during match 1 (57% of total), were plotted on a histogram (Graph 15) to both help identify bream age structure within Loch Ken and to direct sampling for weight and scales at future matches (see Annex 3 – Match Sampling Strategy). The same was done for roach, perch, dace and ruffe (Graph 16). Length samples ranged by species as follows - bream 17-40 cm; roach 9-20 cm; perch 9 -16 cm; dace 11-21 cm and ruffe 6-11 cm. Following match 1 a sampling strategy for future matches was developed to maximise the data collected but recognising the resource and time constraints of sampling at each match (see Annex 3). Number of fish Match 1: Number of Bream -v- Length of Bream 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Fork length (mm) Bream Graph 15: Length histogram of bream sampled during match 1 35 16 Number of fish 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Fork length (mm) Roach Perch Dace Ruffe Graph 16: Length histogram of roach, perch, dace and ruffe during match 1 3.5.1.2 Match attended on 31 March 2017 On the 31st March, GFT attended their second match on Loch Ken when 28 anglers competed. Details of sections fished and corresponding peg grid references can be found in Annex 4. Despite having fewer angler entries than match 1, a total of 827 fish were available for sampling from 18:30. GFT completed processing this sample by 21:00. In total, 604 length measurements were taken from 224 bream, 187 roach, 38 perch, 105 dace and 50 ruffe. In addition, weights were obtained from 150 of these fish (55 bream, 35 roach, 26 dace, 17 perch and 17 ruffe) to help compile weight to length conversion charts. To begin understanding age structure of coarse fish in Loch Ken, scale samples were taken from 64 fish (31 bream, 14 roach, 10 dace and 9 perch). Scale samples were not taken from ruffe (see Annex 4). A further 223 fish had species recorded bringing the total number of fish handled during match 2 to 827. Graph 17 shows the distribution of fish available for processing from match 2, with those shown in blue all fish where species length and a proportion of weight was recorded and scale samples taken. The proportion of the sample where a species count only was made is shown in orange. Length samples ranged by species as follows - bream 11-44 cm (Graph 18); roach 8-20 cm (Graph 19); perch 9 -33 cm; dace 10-21 cm and ruffe 7-11 cm (Graph 20). 36 Match 2: Total catch 350 Number of fish 300 250 200 Count taken 150 Length taken 100 50 0 Bream Roach Perch Dace Ruffe Fish species Graph 17: Total fish captured in match 2 shown as number of fish where length (and a proportion of weight and scale) sampling was completed and numbers of fish where only a count of individuals was taken Match 2: Number of bream -v- Length of bream Number of fish 25 20 15 10 5 0 Fork length (mm) Bream Graph 18: Length histogram of bream sampled during match 2 37 Match 2: Number of roach -v- length of roach Number of fish 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Fork length (mm) Roach Graph 19: Length histogram of roach sampled during match 2 Match 2: Number of fish -v- length of fish Number of fish 20 15 10 5 0 Fork length (mm) Perch Dace Ruffe Graph 20: Length histogram of perch, dace and ruffe sampled during match 2 3.5.1.3 Match attended on 14 April 2017 On the 14th April, GFT attended a third match on Loch Ken. This match was part of a three day match, known as the Easter Festival and 45 anglers competed. Details of sections fished and corresponding peg grid references can be found in Annex 4. Of the matches attended, this provided the most fish for sampling (1489) from 18:30. GFT completed processing on the East bank by 21:30 and West Bank by 22:30. In total, 414 length measurements were taken from 79 bream, 202 roach, 71 perch, 46 dace and 16 ruffe. In addition, weights were obtained from 123 of these fish (33 bream, 34 roach, 15 dace, 37 perch and 4 ruffe) to help compile weight to length conversion charts. 38 To help understand age structure of coarse fish in Loch Ken, scale samples were taken from 85 fish (26 bream, 17 roach, 14 dace and 28 perch). Scale samples were not taken from ruffe (see Annex 4). A further 1075 fish had just species recorded bringing the total number of fish handled during match 3 to 1489. Graph 21 shows the distribution of fish available for processing from match 3, with those shown in blue all fish that were processed for lengths (including individuals where weights and scale samples were taken) and the proportion of fish shown in orange, where only a count was taken. Length samples ranged by species as follows – bream 14-32cm (Graph 22); roach 8-23cm (Graph 23); perch 9-28cm; dace 10-22cm; ruff 6-11 cm (Graph 24). Number of fish Match 3: Total catch 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Count taken Length taken Bream Roach Perch Dace Ruffe Fish species Graph 21: Total fish captured in match 3 shown as number of fish where length (and a proportion of weight and scale) sampling was completed and numbers of fish where only a count of individuals was taken 39 Match 3: Number of bream -v- Length of bream 8 7 Bream Number of fish 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Fork length (mm) Graph 22: Length histogram of bream sampled during match 3 Match 3: Number of roach -v- length of roach Number of fish 25 20 Roach 15 10 5 0 Fork length (mm) Graph 23: Length histogram of roach sampled during match 2 40 Match 3: Number of fish -v- Length of fish Number of fish 12 10 Perch 8 Dace Ruffe 6 4 2 0 Fork length (mm) Graph 24: Length histogram of perch, dace and ruffe sampled during match 2 3.5.2 Further analysis of match data 3.5.2.1 Overall Species Composition The total count of each fish species caught during the three matches is shown in Graph 25. The total count over the three matches was 2618 fish. Within this figure, bream accounted for 532 fish (475 sampled and 57 counted, >20% of total)); roach, 1370 fish (444 sampled and 926 counted, >52% of total)); perch, 205 fish (124 sampled and 81 counted, <8% of total)); dace, 314 fish (166 sampled and 148 counted, 12% of total); and ruffe, 197 fish (111 sampled and 86 counted, >7% of total) (see Graph 25). Total catch over 3 matches 1400 Number of fish 1200 1000 800 Count taken 600 Length taken 400 200 0 Bream Roach Perch Dace Ruffe Fish species Graph 25: Total fish caught across the three matches displayed as individual species 41 3.5.2.2 Length to weight conversion charts For each fish species, length to weight conversion charts were generated using data collected during matches 2 and 3 (Graph 26 to Graph 30). Bream Length/Weight Relationship 1600 1400 Fish weight (g) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Fork length (cm) Graph 26: Length to weight conversion chart for bream Roach Length/Weight Relationship 300 Fish weight (g) 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 Fork length (cm) Graph 27: Length to weight conversion chart for roach 42 25 Perch Length/Weight Relationship 500 450 Fish weight (g) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Fish length (cm) Graph 28: Length to weight conversion chart for perch Dace Length/Weight Relationship 250 Fish weight (g) 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 Fork length (cm) Graph 29: Length to weight conversion chart for dace 43 25 Ruffe Length/Weight Relationship 30 Fish weight (g) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Fork length (cm) Graph 30: Length to weight conversion chart for ruffe 3.5.2.3 Fulton’s Condition Factor Length and weight data from each fish species was then used to calculate to ‘Fulton’s Condition Factor’ in a similar fashion to the seine netting data (see section 3.4). Individual fish species graphs of conversion factor can be seen in Graph 31 – Graph 40. A line of best fit has been plotted across the range of fish lengths recorded. Condition factors for data gathered during match 2 and match 3 were kept separately to account for changes in body mass resulting from spawning activity completed by many species (in particular the perch) between the two matches. Match 2 - Bream: Condition factor (K) -v- Length 3 Condiion factor (K) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 31: Condition factor of bream sampled during match 2 44 Condition factor (K) Match 3 - Bream: Condition factor (k) -v- Length 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 32: Condition factor of bream sampled during match and 3 Condition factor of bream was found to be >1 in all fish sampled during match 2. In only three fish sampled during match 3 did condition factor fall to <1. Match 2 - Roach: Condition factor (K) -v- Length 4.5 Condition factor (K) 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 33: Condition factor of roach sampled during match 2 45 Match 3 - Roach: Condition factor (K) -v- Length 3.5 Condition factor (K) 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 34: Condition factor of roach sampled during match 3 Match 2 - Perch: Condition factor (K) -v- Length Condition factor (K) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 35: Condition factor of perch sampled during match 2 46 Condition factor (K) Match 3 - Perch: Condition factor (K) -v- Length 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 36: Condition factor of perch sampled during match 3 Match 2 - Dace: Condition factor (K) -v- Length 4 Condition factor (K) 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 37: Condition factor of dace sampled during match 2 47 Match 3 - Dace: Condition factor (K) -v- Length 3.5 Condition factor (K) 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 38: Condition factor of dace sampled during match 3 Match 2 - Ruffe: Condition factor (K) -v- Length Condition factor (K) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 39: Condition factor of ruffe sampled during match 2 48 Condition factor (K) Match 3 - Ruffe: Condition factor (K) -v- Length 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Fork length (cm) Graph 40: Condition factor of ruffe sampled during match 3 3.5.2.4 Fish Scale Analysis To assess the age structure of the coarse fish communities of Loch Ken, scale samples were collected primarily during fish sampling at matches 2 and 3. Having selected scale samples that best represented the variation in individual fish species sizes sampled 13 bream, 8 roach, 14 perch, 8 dace, and 9 pike scale samples were examined by the Environment Agency (EA) (as they have significant experience in coarse fish scale analysis). Graphs 41 – 45 show how fish growth changes with age in five coarse fish species commonly caught on Loch Ken. Bream: Length -v- Age 450 Fish Length (mm) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 3+ 3+ 5+ 5 6 8+ 9+ 10 8 9+ 13+ 12 9+ Fish Age (years) Graph 41: How growth changes with age in common bream found within Loch Ken 49 Common bream scale analysis found fish ages between 3+ and 13+ years relating to fish lengths ranging from 146 - 400 mm. Roach: Length -v- Age 250 Fish Length (mm) 200 150 100 50 0 1+ 2+ 6 5+ 7+ 9+ 13+ 9+ Fish Age (years) Graph 42: How growth changes with age in roach found within Loch Ken Scale samples analysed from roach were found to be from fish between the ages of 1+ and 13+ years relating to fish lengths ranging from 87 - 225 mm. Perch: Length -v- Age 400 Fish Length (mm) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2+ 2 3 3 5 4+ 4+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5 7 7 Fish Age (years) Graph 43: How growth changes with age in perch found within Loch Ken Scale samples analysed from perch were found to be from fish between the ages of 2+ and 7 years of age, taken from fish which ranging in length from 92 - 340 mm. 50 Dace: Length -v- Age 250 Fish Length (mm) 200 150 100 50 0 2 1+ 4 4+ 4 4+ 5 6+ Fish Age (years) Graph 44: How growth changes with age in dace found within Loch Ken Scale samples analysed from dace were found to be from fish between the ages of 1+ and 6+ years of age, taken from fish ranging in length from 80 - 215 mm. Pike: Length -v- Age 1000 900 Fish Length (mm) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2 2 6+ 6+ 7+ 9+ 9+ 7+ 11+ Fish Age (years) Graph 45: How growth changes with age in pike found within Loch Ken Scale samples analysed from pike were found to be from fish between the ages of 2 and 11+ years of age, taken from fish which ranging in length from 178 mm - 880 mm. 3.5.3 Bag weights of coarse fish captured during matches on Loch Ken Coarse fish data collected during Loch Ken angling matches can be extremely useful for year to year comparison in general coarse fish species biomass within the fishery. However, historically this data has been limited to total bag weight of fish captured with no record taken of individual fish species composition within each bag. 51 The following section reviews bag weights sampled during Loch Ken matches attended within this study and best bag weights recorded over the last year at most matches recorded on Loch Ken through the Facebook page ‘Loch Ken Match Banter’. 3.5.3.1 Data from attended matches For future comparison with current data, the total bag weights of fish caught at each peg during the three matches attended in this study are shown in Table 7 below. Table 7: Bag weights of coarse fish captured upon individual Loch Ken angling pegs during the three matches attended in this study Section Name West Bank Twin Bridges Peg # Match 1 Bag Weight (lb/oz) Peg # Match 2 14 15 16 17 2lb 14oz 0lb 3oz 0lb 6oz 4lb 12oz N/A Robins 18 3lb 4oz 1 19 1lb 2oz 2 20 21 22 7lb 1lb 2oz 2lb 15oz 3 4 23 24 6lb 4oz 1lb 14oz 5 6 25 26 27 7lb 12oz 2lb 2oz 3lb 2oz 7 8 9 28 18lb 10 29 15lb 2oz 11 30 31 14lb 8oz 2lb 8oz 12 13 32 33 34 35 36 8lb 0lb 8oz 16lb 14oz 0lb 4oz 1lb 9oz 14 N/A 13 2lb N/A Birches Boulders Shaley Bank East Bank Deeps 52 Bag Weight (lb/oz) 0lb 1oz 2lb 12oz 14lb 12oz 2lb 6oz 9lb 02oz 2lb 6oz 6lb 10oz 3lb 8oz 3lb 6oz 3lb 14oz 10lb 04oz 5lb 10oz N/A 4lb 04oz Peg # Match 3 Bag Weight (lb/oz) B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 1lb 10oz 6lb 4oz 9lb 6oz 4lb 6oz 5lb 14oz 2lb 6oz B12 2lb 12oz B13 B14 B15 2lb 12oz 2lb 6oz 4lb 2oz C1 C2 9lb 4oz 8lb C3 C4 C5 9oz 4lb 12oz 3lb 6oz C6 4lb 10oz C7 2lb 14oz C8 C9 1lb 10oz 10oz C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 4lb 10oz 2lb 10oz 8lb 1lb 4oz 4lb 8oz 1lb 4oz B5 1lb 8oz 12 11 10 9 0lb 2oz 2lb 0lb 1oz 9lb 12oz Big Point 8 7 6 5 5lb 6lb 14oz 1lb 15oz 3lb 10oz 14 13 12 11 Little Point 4 6lb 10 3 2lb 12oz 9 2 1 3lb 6oz 5lb 8oz 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Shallows N/A 9lb 10oz 7lb N/A N/A 11lb 11lb 12oz 19lb 2oz 18lb 18lb 8lb 2oz 9lb 2oz 5lb 4oz 7lb 7lb 14oz 1 B4 B3 B2 B1 4lb 6oz 2lb 12oz 1lb 10oz 9oz A15 A14 A13 A12 A11 A10 4lb 12oz 5lb 14oz 1lb 10oz 6lb 8oz 5lb 3lb 4oz A9 8lb 4oz A8 A7 A6 A5 A4 A3 A2 5lb 6oz 1lb 12oz 6lb 8oz 1lb 14oz 7lb 2oz 8lb 4oz 4lb 8oz A1 8lb 2oz The best bag recorded at match 1 (04/12/2016) weighed 18lb and came from Boulders section on the West Bank. During match 2 on day 1 (31/03/2017) the best bag was recorded at Little Point weighing 19 lb 2 oz. At the third match attended (14/04/2017), the best bag weighed 9 lb 6 oz and was recorded at Twin Bridges on the West Bank. It was felt by anglers fishing match 3 that many fish were spawning (and therefore unattainable) and this was evident in the amount of gravid and spawned fish sampled. Disturbance by pike was also noted by anglers as problematic to coarse fish returns during this match. 3.5.3.2 Loch Ken Match Calendar To provide further context and information over a year’s worth of basic details on most Loch Ken matches was gathered from the ‘Loch Ken Match Banter’ Facebook page. Details including date and duration of match, angler attendance and weight of best bag by section name were regularly recorded. These details are shown in Table 8 below. Table 8: Basic details of most Loch Ken Matches held between the 12/03/2016 and 23/04/2017 Date No. anglers 12/03/2016 18/03/2016 25/03/2016 Duration Match Name (Days) 2 Loch Ken Open 3 3 Easter Festival 19-25 27 46 Match Best Bag (lb/oz) 38lb 04oz 37lb 8oz 34lb 8oz 28/05/2016 3 18-27 31lbs 53 Section Name Robins Robins Robins Twin Bridges 17/07/2016 23/07/2016 05/08/2016 27/08/2016 21/09/2016 24/09/2016 08/10/2016 09/10/2016 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 15/10/2016 30/10/2016 06/11/2016 20/11/2016 2 1 1 1 03/12/2016 18/12/2016 28/12/2016 15/01/2017 22/01/2017 29/01/2017 12/02/2017 18/02/2017 04/03/2017 12/03/2017 19/03/2017 26/03/2017 31/03/2017 09/04/2017 14/04/2017 23/04/2017 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 Loch Ken Sweep LK Mini Festival August Bank Holiday Silverfest Loch Ken Sweep SFCA Loch Ken Sweep Loch Ken Sweep Loch Ken Sweep Christmas Fishing Festival Loch Ken Sweep Loch Ken Sweep Loch Ken Sweep Loch Ken Sweep Loch Ken Sweep Loch Ken Sweep Loch Ken Ashes Loch Ken Sweep Loch Ken Sweep Loch Ken Sweep Loch Ken Sweep Easter Festival SFCA 7 32 11 38 30 17lbs 4oz 75lb 85lb 12oz 46lb 2oz 40lb 5oz Boulders 7 21 24lb 4oz 34lb 4oz Robins Twin Bridges 21lb 4oz Boulders 20lb 8oz 40lb 2oz 33lb 8oz Big Point Robins Little Point 9lb 15lb 4oz 19lb 2oz Boulders Little Point Little Point 19lb 04oz 9lb 10oz Little Point Little Point 30 6 Birches Robins Robins 10 36 6 or 7 6 or 7 7 7 7 7 38 42 6 5 3 28 3 45 8 From the information available, it can be seen that between the two Easter festivals hosted on Loch Ken (2016 and 2017), 28 further matches have been held on the loch. These include twelve 2 or 3-day matches and sixteen 1-day matches. The largest bag recorded (85 lb 12oz) was taken during a three-day match on 05/08/2016 at Birches (West Bank). Elsewhere, of the 20 best bag weights that could be identified bag weights of >20 lb accounted for 14 (70%) of 20 weights recorded. 3.6 Fish scale data In total, scales from 52 fish were aged covering a range of fish species and lengths. The scale reading was undertaken by the EA. For those sampled in winter (October - March), the fish were aged using the edge of the scale as the last complete year. For fish sampled during the summer growth season (April - Sept) the fish were aged using a plus (+) notation. The maximum ages for each species analysed were 13+ in common bream, 6+ in dace, 7 years in perch, 11+ in pike and 13+ in roach. Fish were sampled from a number of sites and sample sizes were low. There is significant variance in growth rates within specific age classes and mean growth data should be interpreted with care due to the limited number of fish within each age class. It should also be 54 noted that the growth standards used are calibrated for rivers in England where there is a greater volume of data and study to generate these standards than in Scotland. The age data for each fish species is graphed below against ‘species standards for Northern English rivers’ for roach and dace, and against ‘National growth standards’ for pike, bream and perch. Graph 46: Growth of common bream in Loch Ken compared to the standard growth of common bream in rivers (Hickley and Dexter, 1979) Common bream showed average growth until about six years old and then growth fell (percentage standard growth (PSG) of 87%) compared to standard growth data from across England (Graph 46). 55 Graph 47: Growth of roach in Loch Ken compared to the standard growth of roach in Northern rivers (National Fisheries Services unpublished data) The roach were found to have average growth rates (with a PSG of 91%) when compared to species standards from Northern English rivers (Graph 47). 56 Graph 48: Growth of perch in Loch Ken compared to the standard growth of perch in rivers (National Fisheries Services unpublished data) The perch from Loch Ken showed normal growth (with a PSG of 98%) up to 4 years old but then growth rates became ‘fast’ before becoming ‘very fast’ when aged 6 and 7, when compared to national growth standards (Graph 48). 57 Graph 49: Growth of dace in Loch Ken compared to the standard growth of dace in Northern rivers (National Fisheries Services unpublished data) The dace growth rates were found to be close to ‘average’ (with a PSG of 82%) when compared to species standards from Northern English rivers (Graph 49). 58 Graph 50: Growth of pike in Loch Ken compared to the standard growth of pike in rivers (Hickley & Sutton, 1984) Loch Ken pike growth rates (PSG of 68%) when compared to national growth standards from Northern English rivers were low especially for the younger age classes (Graph 50). 59 4. DISCUSSION 4.1 Public engagement Two public engagement events were held which were well attended by a range of stakeholders and angling interests. These meetings helped to launch the study and encouraged engagement in the project. A lot of useful information and opinions on a range of issues was collected. Subsequent to the events many of the attendees contacted GFT to provide further material which was of interest to the study. It was very clear that many attendees are interested to be involved in the management of the Loch Ken fishery. Many of the anglers reported that over time the fishery has changed. Historically Loch Ken was renowned as a roach fishery but bream catches started to increase in the early 2000s and now dominate the overall catch during most angling matches. Ruffe and dace are two fish species which have become established in the loch in recent years. Dace now appear to be one of the most abundant fish within Loch Ken but were rarely reported in angler catches before 2010. Many of the fishers targeting perch consider that since signal crayfish became established within the loch that larger specimen perch are more abundant and have increased in size due to them predating on juvenile crayfish. It would be expected that the fish populations within the loch would change over time as many fish species are known to show natural fluctuations in their annual recruitment and from interactions between the various fish species due to limited resources such as food, spawning habitat or predation. The introduction of various fish species over the years, many which are not considered native to Scotland, and the establishment of a large signal crayfish population has changed the environment and composition of the overall fish population in the loch. Although these reported changes originate from the anecdotal records of anglers there is no reason to doubt their authenticity. Attendees of the events raised the need to improve access at existing angling areas. It was reported that many of the popular angling points are not suitable for infirm anglers. Scrub encroachment was also mentioned by anglers as limiting access at some locations although this is usually managed by angling interests themselves. 4.1.1 Fishery and fish protection, legal access and the right to fish The concerns and confusion regarding the policing of fisheries legislation across Loch Ken was also raised by a number of attendees. Many reported having seen activity they considered to be illegal including setting of signal crayfish traps, killing of pike and fishing without permits. This is an important issue for consideration as there is presently no clear lead organisation policing fisheries legislation across Loch Ken. The various organisations with a potential role to play in the policing of the Loch are detailed below: • • • • Dumfries and Galloway Council (Council Ranger) – in the last few years the Council has reduced the number of rangers they employ from four down to one. This has reduced the ranger presence at the loch. Policing of angling at Loch Ken has never been a responsibility of the ranger post but has been assumed by many to be so. DDSFB – their bailiff undertakes some patrols and ticket checking around Loch Ken but the powers of the bailiff, and funding for the post, are related and limited by legislation to salmon and sea trout. NGAA – the club has a trained up member to police their waters which include Loch Ken. Police Scotland – have a role to enforce the law. 60 While it is clearly understood that angling from the shore requires permission, usually addressed by purchasing a permit, there is widespread confusion regarding angling on Loch Ken while afloat on a boat or kayak. It appears that few of these anglers are buying a permit. To police the Loch Ken fishery effectively it is essential that all relevant parties understand the legal situation with regard to angling on Loch Ken. Legal advice was sought from Robert Younger, Solicitor at Fish Legal Scotland who confirmed the following: • As Loch Ken is part of the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee which flows into the Solway Firth it is covered by s26 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003. • Under s26(1) of the Salmon Act 2003 anyone fishing without legal right, or without permission of a person having such a right takes or fishes for any fish other than salmon in any stream or other watercourses running into the Solway shall be guilty of an offence. • Fishery owners around Loch Ken have the right to fish from their banks and also enjoy a 'common fishing right' with other owners over the whole of Loch Ken to be exercised by boat. • Thus anyone fishing by boat or kayak on Loch Ken will be in breach of s26(1) unless they can show that they had permission from any riparian owner. This interpretation confirms that anyone fishing Loch Ken, either from the bank or on the loch from a boat or kayak, must be able to show they have permission to fish otherwise they are committing a criminal offense. This permission does not have to be in writing. Another important misunderstanding highlighted at the events was that the killing of pike by anglers is illegal. It is not a criminal offence in Scotland to kill coarse fish. However, the owners of fishing can set conditions on their ‘permission to fish’ which if not followed would be a breach of their permission to fish. 4.2 Loch Ken angling record The data collected from this source was useful but the actual number of returned forms in relation to the number of forms distributed was disappointing. It is also important to note that 78% of the forms came from anglers fishing Loch Ken during matches and very few were from boat anglers. Some key findings regarding the anglers who completed the records were: • 65% of anglers were aged between 45 – 64 years old. • Only 17% of the anglers were from Dumfries and Galloway Region. • Most anglers (61%) were from England. • 25% of the anglers said they did not have a permit to fish. • About a third of the anglers reported using fishing techniques to avoid contact with signal crayfish. The records also provided important information on the issue of biosecurity and showed anglers do have an understanding of measures they should be undertaking and 54% of respondents said they would use disinfectant equipment if it was available at Loch Ken. Despite this awareness and the presence of signal crayfish in the loch only just over a third of anglers (35%) reported actually and actively undertaking biosecurity actions at present. These included a range of recognised measures including checking / cleaning boats and equipment, 61 visual checks of equipment, only using certain equipment on Loch Ken and drying out equipment after use. The angling catch information was useful but as many weights and sizes were estimated it was limited how much interpretation of the data could be undertaken. It did help to further the understanding of the level of angling success on the Loch and how many anglers landed signal crayfish. In the ‘total bag’ records it suggested that out of the 55 records submitted, 30 caught signal crayfish and 25 did not. The highest number of crayfish caught by an angler in a day was reported as being 50 individuals. 4.3 Loch Ken creel record The Loch Ken creel surveys were useful in providing a profile of the anglers using Loch Ken who are not involved with angling matches. This differs from the angling records which came mostly from match anglers. Numbers of anglers on the loch varied considerably with few fishing during periods of poor weather, ice on the loch or when the fish were likely to be spawning. Again the participants were mostly anglers fishing from the shore of the Loch and boat anglers were poorly represented. Interestingly a wider age range of anglers was noted when compared to the data collected using the angling records. In particular more young anglers were recorded (<25 years old). Again only low numbers (13%) of the anglers lived in Dumfries and Galloway, with the majority from England (58%). These visiting anglers are important to the local economy with 70% staying at least one night locally. The majority of anglers (73%) stayed for more than two nights. Approximately 66% of these anglers had to pay for their accommodation with the remainder wild camping, sleeping on a boat or staying with friends. Anglers seemed positive about their angling experience on Loch Ken with 91% of anglers being satisfied or very satisfied with their angling experience. Most of the anglers (82%) had fished previously on Loch Ken. When asked for comments on any negative feedback experienced during their angling trip the answers included the need to review the overall management of the water, limited access for elderly anglers, poor fishing, litter and the killing of fish. Some pike fishermen also raised concerns that increased angling activity could be detrimental to the pike fishery. Only 50% of anglers said they had a fishing permit to fish on Loch Ken. Very little fish data was collected by GFT staff during these surveys as few anglers retained their fish in keep nets after capturing them. Pike anglers were found to keep accurate weights of their catches and this data was useful for the study. Actual sampling of pike and large perch was not very successful in the overall study as anglers do not typically retain these fish in keep nets or collect any data on the fish apart from weight. To understand the growth rates and health of these fish it would have been useful to have collected more scale samples from them. Throughout the current study anglers have regularly raised concerns that there is limited policing or fishery protection undertaken on the loch and that certain fish species are being killed and removed by a minority of anglers for consumption, particularly pike. Pike are the apex predator in Loch Ken and an intentional cull of significant scale, especially if it targeted large pike, would be expected to impact negatively on the overall pike fishery. It is recognised that historically the DDSFB has itself undertaken a pike cull on the loch and this may, to some degree, influence the thinking of some that the pike is less valuable to the loch. With regard to biosecurity, 89% of anglers were aware of INNS particularly signal crayfish. 58% said that signal crayfish had affected their ‘fishing experience’ on the loch. Many anglers (64%) deployed fishing techniques to help avoid signal crayfish. 65% of anglers do undertake 62 biosecurity measures on their fishing tackle. It was difficult to get an explanation from the anglers who did not undertake any biosecurity and answers given included lack of disinfectant facilities, inconvenient and not knowing what to do. It was disappointing to note that only 22% of anglers stated they had heard of the ‘Check Clean Dry’ campaign. When asked what measures would encourage them to undertake biosecurity there was a strong preference for providing information on permits and signage and little support for running events or the production of a leaflet. There was strong support for providing disinfection stations at Loch Ken with 89% of anglers saying they would use them if provided. With regard to the positioning of any disinfection stations, there was strong support for them to be close to Loch by the main angling areas. As part of the creel surveys anglers were asked how to improve the fishing / fishery experience on the loch and the most popular suggestions were associated with signal crayfish (control or make a crayfish plan), improving access for anglers, undertake bankside management, construct a fishery plan and dealing with litter. Many anglers replied to say they did not think any improvements were required and were happy with the fishery as it was. 4.4 Seine netting The seine netting was undertaken with the particular focus of catching juvenile fish living in the shallow weedy waters near Mains of Duchrae. There are still lessons being learnt regarding the netting and catches have not been as high as previous envisaged. Between the initial trial work in 2016 and 2017 there appears to have been some changes at the netting site with some snags (woody debris) washed into the bay and greater levels of silt present. It can be seen that catches improved as the snags were removed and the areas to avoid netting were better identified. One of the main benefits of the netting is to remove the potential that angling may bias the fish sampled during the data collection in the rest of the project. There is also the potential that other fish species may be present in the loch that are not susceptible to angling but could be an important component of the overall fish populations in the loch. The netting to date has caught the same fish species which have been sampled through the angling methods. This gives confidence that the angling records, creel records and match catches are representative of the fish populations in Loch Ken. The fish sampled through the netting cannot be used to calculate the numbers of fish present within the loch. If similar netting locations and effort (including season of netting) were used annually then the catch could be used to indicate general annual trends in fish populations present. As each fish was accurately sampled for weight and length then the health of these juvenile fish can be assessed by calculating their condition factor. There are many variables that can affect growth rates in different waters. Low growth rate can be an entirely natural phenomenon of for example, nutrient poor, high altitude or northerly waters and is not necessary a concern. It is important to compare sampled growth rates with an appropriate model or comparator rate. As there is limited or no availability of growth rates calculated specifically for or from Scottish coarse fish populations’ annual comparisons from within the loch or against English growth rates may be all that is currently possible. However, it will be useful in the future to be able to monitor the health of the fish population by comparing annual condition factors over the years if the netting was to be continued. In isolation the condition factor data from 2017 tell you very little about the health of the Loch Ken fish stocks as there is no historic or Scottish baseline data to compare it to. 63 4.5 Angling matches The collection of fish data from the catches at angling matches has been very successful with 2618 fish sampled from three matches. Species identification of all the fish and the sampling of weights and lengths from a sub-sample was completed. Scale samples were also collected to represent a range of sizes across each of the fish species. This data has identified which key fish species are important for the angling matches. In terms of numbers, roach were the most abundant fish caught, followed by bream, then dace, followed by perch and finally ruffe. It is not possible to calculate the overall size of the fish populations from the data collected but the information does provide an important baseline to compare future data to if the sampling was to continue. The condition factor of these fish can be calculated but as mentioned in Section 4.4, it would only be if the data collection was to continue that trends in fish growth and health could be considered. Working closely with the match organisers and consulting with match participants also provided additional useful information regarding how Loch Ken is considered as a location for angling matches. In recent years the ongoing reporting of good fish catches by anglers has helped to encourage anglers back to the fishery following negative publicity about signal crayfish in the angling press. Currently Loch Ken is the most popular venue for angling matches in Scotland (Mark Trueman, personal communication) - believed to be due to affordable ticket costs, consistently good and reliable catches, quality and affordability of accommodation, active match organisers, positive publicity and promotion of the events and their fish catches and proximity to England where most match anglers are travelling from. It was reported that English match anglers are favouring ‘wild fish’ angling venues over stocked fisheries, making Loch Ken more popular as a location able to offer this experience when compared with many English waters. On the west bank of Loch Ken the water managed by NGAA is popular for fishing by club members, day tickets and match anglers. Car parking facilities are available close to the water at eight parking locations but access to the loch from the car parking is difficult for the infirm. Anglers have confirmed that access difficulties limits angler participation at angling matches. While it is known that 20+ angling matches are held annually on the Loch (most are run over at least two days and can be attended by up to 30 – 40 anglers), additional new matches have been trialled during winter 2016 and spring 2017. These new matches appear to have been successful and well attended. Match organisers report there is a need to increase angling capacity to meet angling demand – in many matches anglers are turned away as there is not enough suitable angling pegs. If further expansion of matches is to take place then it is important to consider that different areas of the loch may need to be fished due to seasonal fish movements. Over 85% of the anglers attending matches come from out with Dumfries and Galloway, including significant numbers from England. Typically each match angler stays for a minimum of two nights in local accommodation and they estimate that each will spend £200 - £500 locally at every match attended. Therefore, there are likely to be significant and direct economic benefits to the area if capacity for additional match anglers could be provided. For example, if 15 new fishing pegs could be created and used for 10 matches per year this would provide an additional 150 match angler days. The potential local spend from these anglers would be £30,000 - £75,000 annually based upon an individual angler spend of £200-£500. New pegs could also be utilised by day anglers out with match days. 64 4.6 Fish scale data By collecting scales and lengths of individual fish from across the different species it was possible to graph the growth rates of each fish species. This is a useful data set to start to monitor the health of the Loch Ken fishery. It is possible to compare the fish growth rates in Loch Ken against other standard growth rates from across a range of waters. The comparable data is mostly available from England due to the greater levels of research and coarse fish data collection compared to Scotland. Again it is important to note that the information collected in this project is important baseline data which will give a greater understanding of future trends and changes in the Loch Ken fish populations if the surveys continue. Slow growth rates are not necessary a concern and can be due to a range of natural issues or complex relationships between species. It is fair to assume though that if a fish species has a slow growth rate compared to other waters then it is unlikely that those fish will attain a particularly large size for the species. No particular concerns were identified when considering the growth rates of the fish collected in 2017. Roach are targeted by many anglers particularly during matches where they appear to make up about half of the total fish caught and are an important element of the overall fishery. Examination of the condition factor of roach found them to be healthy and growth rates, when considered against EA bandings from England, are comparable until the fish are around five years old after which time growth rate is slower than those typically found in England. Similarly common bream are an important fish species for the overall fishery. They also showed average growth rates, when compared to English standards, until they reached six years old and then growth rates fell well below the average. It is not clear why this occurring. Loch Ken was known historically as a fishery for large pike with some very large specimen fish reported by anglers. The techniques used in the present study did not collect data from significant numbers of pike due to them not being targeted in matches and not being retained by individual anglers to allow sampling. The data from the sample available suggested relatively slow growth rates compared to those from England. However, as growth rates of many fish species in Scotland would be anticipated to be lower than England, typically due to lower water temperatures and nutrient levels, this is not unexpected. Loch Ken was and is one of the top venues in Scotland for large pike and holds abundant prey species to sustain this fishery. The dynamics of the perch population is interesting. Large perch are particularly targeted by many anglers on Loch Ken and the loch is recognised for specimen fish. Whilst growth rates of small perch are comparable with those from English waters when the fish reach over four years old their growth rates increase and are considered ‘fast’ to ‘very fast’ under the same comparison. There is some evidence that this may be due to them becoming large enough to exploit juvenile crayfish as a food source at this age and growing more rapidly from this dietary preference. The dace has more recently become established in Loch Ken and the population may not yet have stabilised within the overall ecology of the system. Growth rates, however, are similar or a little lower than that typically found in England throughout all ages of dace sampled. 4.7 Conclusions 4.7.1 Loch Ken continues to support both a healthy fish population and is a popular coarse fishery destination, particularly for visiting anglers who reside outside Dumfries and Galloway. This is despite the presence of a significant signal crayfish population and the negative publicity generated around this issue. It is recognised that the fishery has changed over time – for a number of reasons not just because of the presence of the crayfish. At times it is the limited 65 access to the loch which restricts the use of the fishery rather than any other factor. Therefor there would appear to be potential to increase access and angling opportunities on the loch and to better promote the fishery to anglers and, with these actions, to increase the economic benefits derived from anglers and angling to the surrounding area. 4.7.2 The fish populations appears to be coping with the pressures that signal crayfish are exerting upon them e.g. predation of eggs, competition for food and grazing of aquatic weeds (which can be important fish spawning and nursery areas for young fish). There is no indication, based on the limited data collected and collated, that any component of the fish community is unhealthy or under identifiable stress. No concerns were currently identified regarding recruitment of any of the fish species in Loch Ken. 4.7.3 The monitoring and sampling confirmed that the main species targeted by anglers are bream, roach, pike, perch and to a lesser extent dace and ruffe. The bream population makes up a significant portion of the overall catch of match anglers. While the bags of bream caught are highly rated by anglers during good fishing conditions the maximum sizes of bream are not particularly notable. Growth rates of bream in Loch Ken are below the average found in data collected from England but are still healthy. Loch Ken is highly rated as a perch fishery with large specimen perch regularly reported. 4.7.4 Most anglers are ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with the fishing on Loch Ken, although there are concerns over the management of the fishery. 4.7.5 Most anglers are aware of the need for biosecurity and the problems associated with invasive species. Many anglers do undertake some biosecurity measures when fishing on Loch Ken. There was strong support for providing further biosecurity facilities at Loch Ken and a willingness to use them if available. 4.7.6 It is important to note that these conclusions are based on data collected in this study alone (2016 and 2017), which has focussed on coarse fish and coarse angling, and on-going monitoring should be undertaken to assess and understand the situation in the future. Future monitoring should also recognise the presence of the important trout and salmon populations in the catchment whilst retaining a focus of monitoring of the coarse fish community within the loch 66 5. RECOMMENDATIONS Listed below are recommendations for projects which could be included in the Galloway Glens Partnership Project (Stage 2) application and / or delivered in the future as part of an overall management strategy for the Loch Ken Fishery. These project proposals have been developed from information provided following various consultations and discussions undertaken as part of the overall study including the public events, ‘creel survey’ questionnaires and meetings. 5.1 Monitoring of Loch Ken fish populations It is advised that a programme of surveys to monitor the fisheries resource within Loch Ken is undertaken over a further five year period based on the techniques used in this study. These surveys would provide information on the health of the overall fish population and help to understand annual fluctuations in fish recruitment and growth rates. It is important to ensure that any increased angling pressure which may result from the overall project is undertaken in a sustainable manner. There may be opportunities for education institutions to assist in the recommended monitoring work or undertake associated research (see section 5.6). It is recommended that the following surveys and activities are undertaken annually: • Catches from two angling matches, in March and September, should be surveyed following the protocol of the present study. These matches should provide up to 500 fish each for sampling. • Two seine nettings should be undertaken during the summer months, July and September. The protocol of the present study should be followed. This survey will target the juvenile life stages of fish. • 12 Creel surveys should be undertaken annually to target anglers fishing for pike and larger sized perch anglers. Keep nets should be made available to these anglers to retain fish until data can be collected. Most of the anglers which are targeting large perch do so from boats or kayaks. • There should be engagement with academic institutes to develop projects and studies suitable for undergraduate and postgraduate students on an ongoing basis. These studies could supplement ongoing monitoring work, undertake additional or more extensive analysis of this work, initiate new studies on, for example species interactions (including with signal crayfish) and do this on a cost effective basis whilst adding to the body of knowledge of the loch. 5.2 Governance, Management and Planning of the fishery It is clear that improved governance is required to ensure the long term sustainable development and marketing of the loch fishery and to address some of the minor disagreements that occur at times between the different angling interests. It is recommended that: • Formation of a Loch Ken Fisheries Management Group (LKFMG) - as a sub-group to the present Loch Ken Advisory Management Committee. The group would require a clear purpose and ability to protect and improve the fishery. It is important that ‘terms of reference’ are agreed and that administrative support is provided to facilitate meetings. Group membership would need to be diverse to represent the range of 67 angling stakeholders and interested parties. The group would become an important local consultative group and forum on issues such as planning or development associated with the loch. Regular events could be organised for the members of the group to increase their knowledge and understanding of the different angling interests and a range of fishery management issues such as fish sampling techniques and habitat enhancement. • Production of a 5 year Loch Ken Fishery Management Plan - to assist the LKFMG in their new role. This plan would provide background information, describe the fishery resource, identify limiting factors and set out potential solutions and achievable actions which could be undertaken. The plan would assist with the planning of resources and securing of funds. The LKFMG would be directly involved in the production of the plan so as to utilise their knowledge and expertise and to ensure their ‘buy in’ and support. The plan would require revision and updating on a 5 year cycle. Much of the information required for the plan will have been collected for the present Loch Ken study. It will be important that the plan production involves adequate consultation with all interested parties. 5.3 Fishery Protection, Access and Local Management Capacity Earlier in the report (section 4.1.1) the complexity of the fisheries protection and access legislation is explained which needs to be enforced effectively across Loch Ken. There is a need to develop a common understanding of the responsibilities, legalities and legislation to build capacity and improve the overall protection of the fishery. The proposed LKFMG (outlined in section 5.2) should play an important role in co-ordinating the required actions. It is recommended that: 5.4 • The writing of a general set of fishing rules for Loch Ken and organising sign up by all those involved in the issuing of permission to fish on the loch. It is important that these rules cover boat and kayak fishing due to the present confusion regarding their need to have permission to fish on the loch. • A wildlife crime event is organised annually for all interested parties. The event would be aimed at encouraging closer co-ordinated working, increasing knowledge, capacity building, protection of natural heritage, identifying shortcomings in the present enforcement arrangements and to clarify the various relevant wildlife and fisheries legislation. • Improve co-ordination between existing individuals and groups involved presently in fishery protection on the loch and clarity of their roles. The possible enhanced roles of volunteers in assisting in the protection of the fishery should be explored. Development: Promotion and increasing accessibility From the public engagement work and information collected from the loch users it is clear that improving accessibility would allow more anglers to fish and increase the angling experience that the loch offers. This can be achieved through a combination of actions and projects which are set out below. It is recommended that: 68 Initially, improved access at two existing angling areas for infirm anglers through the construction of ramps and steps is considered. Suitable locations were highlighted during the project along the West bank (at GR: NX 64584 74195 & GR: NX 65104 73390). These locations had available safe car parking, access at the loch edge, space and angling opportunities. Other suitable locations requiring improvement may be available at other fisheries around the loch. To progress this recommendation, there will need to be support from the relevant land owner and planning permission / detailed engineer designs will be required for gaining accurate costings. Creation of 10 – 20 new fishing pegs to allow the expansion of angling matches (both in number of attendees and number of matches). The exact locations for this work will need carefully consideration to address when there is a limitation in pegs. Three possible locations for new pegs were identified with match organisers which require further investigation: - Loch access along the road to Ringour and around Ged Point (west bank) - Loch edge accessed through Shirmers Wood (east bank) - Upstream of the Glenlochar Barrage (west bank) Creation of an ‘Angling Passport Scheme’ - it should be investigated whether there would be interest amongst owners of fishing rights around the loch to set up an ‘angling passport system’ to assist in selling angling tickets. These schemes cover a number of fisheries which are then marketed and promoted collectively through scheme literature and websites. In England there are eight main schemes and one in Scotland (Annan). These schemes appear to be popular with and informative for anglers, and have opened up many fisheries which otherwise may not have offered angling. These schemes also minimise administrative burdens and costs to fishery owners. For information on how passport schemes work on West Country Trust waters and on the River Annan see relevant website links in references. A Loch Ken passport system would require buy-in and support from enough owners of fishings and land owners to be viable and it is unclear at this stage, and without further discussion, whether this would be forthcoming or not. However, such a scheme could provide an effective way of providing additional angling opportunity around the loch to a common set of rules and standards whilst generating modest angling related revenues to fishery owners with limited ongoing input from these owners. Improved marketing using websites and social media – although individual fisheries around the loch are well publicised on the internet, it is recommended that Loch Ken as a high quality location for coarse angling, should be given greater prominence in future promotion of the area particularly through the wider Galloway Glens project. There may also be opportunities to utilise the local Fish Pal website (link provided in reference section) which could be used to provide on-line booking facilities for selling tickets around Loch Ken to the benefit of participating fisheries. Elsewhere, Fish Pal partners have used the booking system to generate income to support local management – this may be possible for the fisheries of Loch Ken. 5.5 Biosecurity Throughout this project it has been found that anglers fishing on Loch Ken were aware that INNS were harmful, particularly signal crayfish, but not many were actively undertaking biosecurity measures to minimise the risk of further introductions or transfer of species to the loch especially. Reciprocally, and equally important, there was little evidence of biosecurity measures being implemented to prevent the spread of crayfish to other waters from Loch Ken. Given the prominence of the crayfish issue on the loch and the impacts and disruption caused by this it is important that the loch is not inadvertently the source of new crayfish introductions by angler (or other water user) transfers. 69 There is currently little information regarding INNS or biosecurity available around Loch Ken or on angling permits. An effective and co-ordinated biosecurity programme is required for Loch Ken to provide improved information to Loch users and the necessary infrastructure / facilities to disinfect equipment. It is recommended that: • Standard wording should be produced for all angling tickets, boat registrations, etc which describes the harm of INNS in general, what to do with signal crayfish when caught and reinforces the need to practice effective biosecurity. • Improved signage around the loch to promote the Check-Clean-Dry national campaign, explain the legal situation regarding signal crayfish, and how to undertake effective biosecurity measures. Specific posters for Loch Ken should be produced for use in noticeboards currently located around the loch at the main car parking points where many anglers and other users access the loch. • Provision of two fixed disinfectant stations to encourage all anglers to disinfect their equipment before and after fishing on Loch Ken. Disinfectant stations are designed to make it easy for anglers to disinfect their equipment and clothing and contain suitable disinfectant and brushes within a plastic storage container. On-going maintenance is required to top up disinfectant, replace brushes, etc. A static disinfectant station could be fitted on each bank of the loch; one at the public boat slip way near the viaduct and the other at the recently constructed car parking near Ringour. These locations are near popular angling locations and are easily accessible. A mobile biosecurity station should also be purchased and made available to event organisers for angling matches and water based events. • A dedicated staff resource is required to support and organise the biosecurity work detailed above, including the promotion of bio-security issues for all loch users. 5.6 Education and Research Opportunities Loch Ken is well suited to offer a wide range of educational and research opportunities which would be of national interest. Of particularly interest would be work associated with the signal crayfish population and how it is interacting with the ecology of the loch. Loch Ken also offers a wonderful opportunity to study the various coarse fish species present. It is recommended that: • Discussions are held with school, higher and tertiary education institutions to explore possible opportunities to study Loch Ken and its ecology. Possible projects could suit a range of interests and levels, from primary and secondary school projects to undergraduate to postgraduate levels. 70 6. REFERENCES Cameron, S. 2010. Economic Value of Angling to the Glenkens Economy. Dumfries and Galloway Council Report. Fish Pal Galloway Rivers Web site (last accessed http://www.fishpal.com/Scotland/Galloway/index.asp?dom=Galloway 14/12/17) Galloway Fisheries Trust. 2016. Fish, fisheries and angler survey in Loch Ken, South West Scotland Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report. Maitland, P.S. 1996. The North American signal Crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus (Dana), established in the wild in Scotland. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 6, 107-110. Maitland, P.S., Sinclair, C. & Doughty, C.R. 2001. The status of Freshwater Crayfish in Scotland in the year 2000. Glasgow Naturalist, 23 (6), 26-32. Ribbens, J.C.H. & Graham, J.L. 2004. Strategy for the containment and possible eradication of American signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) in the River Dee catchment and Skyre Burn catchment, Dumfries and Galloway, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 014. (ROAME No. F02LK05). Ribbens, J.C.H. & Graham, J.L. 2009. Loch Ken (Kirkcudbrightshire Dee) American Signal Crayfish Trapping Project. Marine Scotland Commissioned Report. River Annan angling passport scheme (last accessed 14/12/17) www.riverannan.org/smallstreams-passport-scheme Rogers, D. & Brickland, J. (eds) 2000. Proceedings of the Crayfish Conference, Leeds, April 2000. Sinclair, C. & Ribbens, J. 1999. Survey of American Signal crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus, distribution in the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee, Dumfries & Galloway and, assessment of the use of electrofishing as an eradication technique for Crayfish populations. Scottish Natural Heritage. The Angling Trust; Your story survey www.anglingtrust.net/invasivesurvey matters: UK angling movement The Broads invasive species survey: http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0018/405342/Invasive_species_survey_report.pdf The Scottish Fisheries Coordination Centre (SFCC) Angling Diary: www.anglingdiary.org.uk/ West Country Angling http://westcountryangling.com/ Passport Scheme (last accessed 14/12/17) West Galloway Fisheries Trust, 1996. Fishery survey of the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee. Report for the River Dee District Salmon Fishery Board. 71 ANNEX 1: LOCH KEN ANGLING RECORD Loch Ken Fisheries Study: Angling Record Your details Name Address or residential town/region Phone No. Email Your fishing Date trip Duration Less than 1/2 day Permit all Time at start of fishing (00:00) Half Day Full Day Pike Bream Roach No Perch Trout Other that No. rods Angling method Catch Age Yes If 'yes' - please detail permit issuer Bankside Boat or circle within map overleaf Your fishing Location Grid ref Target Species (cross apply) insert text or cross (X) box that applies Key: Bait: Float Ledger/feeder Lure: Spinner Spoon Crankbait Fly Other Are you using a particular method to avoid signal crayfish? Yes No If 'Yes' - describe method? Did you catch anything? Species Pike No Trout Other Bream Yes Roach Perch Bag weights Species Total weight lb oz Estimate Yes No Individual fish Species Length (cm) Weight (lb/oz) Comments (distinguishing features) 72 Photo* (Y/N) Photo Biosecurity *If you would be happy to supply these via email, please include email contact above Do you undertake any biosecurity measures, actions or precautions? Yes No If 'Yes', what? Would you use disinfection stations if these were available next to the loch with clear instructions for use? Yes No Please return your completed Loch Ken Angling Record to mail@gallowayfisheriestrust.org , a participating ticket outlet: Loch Ken Holiday Park (Parton), The Post Office & J R Hopkins Newsagents (New Galloway) or a match official WIN A £50 ANGLING VOUCHER Please remember to include contact details with your completed form to be in with a chance of winning a £50 angling voucher! A winner will be selected monthly between November 2016 & July 2017. Keep an eye on the Galloway Fisheries Trust Website and social media pages for more information on this project. 73 ANNEX 2: LOCH KEN CREEL RECORD Key: Loch Ken Creel Record Your details Your fishing trip Name Address or town/region Tel. No. residential Date Duration Less than 1/2 day Permit Your fishing insert text or cross (X) box that applies Email Time at start of fishing (00:00) Half day Full Day Yes If 'yes' - please detail permit issuer Bankside Boat or circle within map overleaf Pike Bream Roach Perch Location Grid ref Target Species No Trout Other (cross all that apply) Sample Catch Fish No. No. rods Have you caught anything today? If yes and returned - what was your catch? Species Estimate #/weight If fish caught are present - ask to process individual fish Species Method Yes Length(cm) Weight (lbs/oz) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 74 Photo* No Comments (distinguishing features/scale sample taken) 16 17 18 *If angler has additional fish photos to share, please provide an email address above Mark point of sample on the map above with a circle or cross 75 Angler profile Angler sex Age <18 18-24 25-34 Are you a Dumfries and Galloway resident? How far have you travelled to reach Loch Ken (miles)? Is your visit: If overnight, give stay duration Accomodation type: Invasive NonNative Species (INNS) Male 35-44 0 to 10 45-54 Female 55-64 65+ 10 to 30 Yes 30 to 50 No >50 Day Overnight 1 night Wild camping Self Campsite cater 2 nights >2 nights B&B Hotel Is this your first fishing visit to loch ken? Yes No If no, how often do you visit annually? Are you aware of any INNS species in/around Loch Ken? Yes No If 'Yes' - what? Have you come across any invasive non-native species today? Yes No If 'Yes', what? Do you undertake any biosecurity measures? Yes No If 'Yes': How often do you carry out biosecurity measures? Always Sometimes Only if moving between waterbodies/catchments If 'No': Why don't you carry out biosecurity every time you fish? - No-one else does it so why should I? - I don't believe it makes any difference Biosecurity Angler - I don't know what I'm supposed to do - There were no facilities available for me to wash equipment - I don't visit waters which have invasive species - It's inconvenient/I don't have time - Other (please specify) Are you aware of the Check, Clean, Dry Campaign? Yes No Provide Check, Clean, Dry Leaflet How should we raise awareness of biosecurity at Loch Ken? - provide basic information on permits - run events for loch users to provide information - distribute leaflets - erect information panels If there were disinfectant stations at Loch Ken - would you use them? Yes No If 'Yes' - where would you suggest they be positioned to encourage useage? - On banksides, within 100m of popular fishing locations - At ticket outlets - In villages, e.g. New Galloway or at entry points to loch e.g. marina Are there any ways Loch Ken fishery and fishing experience could be improved? 76 Feedback No - leave water/fishery as it is Yes - make a crayfish control plan Yes - carry out predator control Yes - construct a fishery management plan Yes - run a hatchery programme (please specify for what in comments) Yes - undertake bankside management Yes - all 'Yes' suggestions above Comments: Have ASC affected your fishing experience today? Are you using a particular method to avoid signal crayfish? Yes Yes No No If 'Yes' - describe method? On a scale of 1-5, how satisfied are you with your fishing experience at Loch Ken? 1-very unhappy 2-un-happy 3-neither happy or unhappy 4-happy 5-very happy Please explain score with +ve/-ve aspects: 77 ANNEX 3: ANGLING MATCH STRATEGY Galloway Fisheries Trust (GFT) have recognised that Loch Ken Coarse Fish Matches can provide a brilliant resource for sampling the coarse fish community within Loch Ken. With a number of anglers fishing the loch at one time (40+), adopting very similar fishing methods, and for the same fishing duration - sampling fish on a match day will help GFT both identify the fish species most readily available to anglers fishing from the bankside and generate baseline data for future year’s comparison on species length, weight and age class structures. Developing an approach to fish sampling GFT attended a match in December 2016 where many fish were captured by anglers. A total of 302 fish were length sampled (172 bream, 55 roach, 45 ruffe, 15 dace and 15 perch and a wide range of fish lengths recorded (172-400 mm bream, 93-200 mm roach, 92–160 mm perch, 110–210 mm dace and 68–105 mm ruffe). At this event it was clear that it was not likely to be possible to sample all fish from future matches given the time, staff and logistical constraints in doing so. Therefore, an approach to sampling has been prepared to ensure that representative samples of the range of fish captured are recorded to make best use of the staff resources available and the opportunity to gather valuable data. We have investigated how age could be extrapolated from recorded fish length data using the Environment Agency document ‘Fish Ageing Survey Report (2014)’. Using scale samples, the report confirmed that fish age structures in bream, roach and perch can be verified in relation to age classes predicted by length data. Using the average length to age conversion table provided within the report, lengths of bream, roach and perch have been categorised into age classes by compartmentalising groups of lengths within a recording sheet (Appendix 1). Predicted age classes are shown as alternate shaded and clear bands in the length categories and these will be used to help guide scale sampling within these bands to verify predicted age class structures of bream, roach and perch caught at Loch Ken matches. Weight information will also be collected from across the predicted age class bands to allow an assessment of condition factor to be determined by species and age. It is proposed that the following general approach to sampling will be undertaken: • All fish of all species will have individual lengths recorded • For all species other than ruffe i.e. bream, perch, roach and dace, weights will be recorded and scale samples taken from every 10th fish not within the predicted 0+ age class • A subset of these scale samples will be selected for reading and analysis with other samples archived for later use It is noted that volume of fish captured in the match may prevent all fish being measured for length or limit the feasibility of collecting scales and weights from every 10th fish. In such circumstances GFT will determine how best to proceed to maximise the data collected at any match. General methods GFT will aim to sample between 200 and 300 fish during each Loch Ken match in cooperation with the anglers and match organisers. GFT will be present at the close of the match and follow the competition weigh-in and transfer anglers catches held in keep nets after weigh-in into GFT keep nets. Fish held in GFT keep nets will be secured in the water on each section of the competition until weigh-in has finished and processing can commence. Fish will be processed from as wide a geographic range as the match competition is spaced (normally West Bank within NGAA section and East Bank on Glenlaggan). GFT will split into two teams to cover the East and West Bank. 78 Working in pairs, GFT will sample all (or most) fish for length data; weight and scale samples (not for ruffe) will be collected from every 10th fish of each species across a range of sizes. 79 ANNEX 4: TABLE IDENTIFYING LOCATION BY SECTION NAME, PEG NUMBER AND GRID REFERENCE WHERE FISH WERE SAMPLED DURING THREE LOCH KEN MATCHES Section Name West Bank Twin Bridges Robins Birches Boulders Shaley Bank East Bank Deeps Big Point Little Point Shallows Peg # GR Match Northing Easting 1 Peg # GR Match Northing Easting 2 14 to 17 18 to 22 23 to 27 28 to 32 33 to 36 264587 264602 264731 264766 264944 264980 265142 265154 265186 265203 574224 N/A 574200 573993 1 573947 4 573602 5 573563 9 573254 10 573215 14 573142 N/A 573112 13 to 9 8 to 5 4 to 1 N/A 268011 268042 268071 268097 268144 268157 571309 N/A 571262 571137 14 571111 11 571001 10 570968 6 5 1 80 264738 264770 264940 264985 265135 265152 268078 268094 268148 268166 268200 268241 573987 573958 573607 573557 573258 573203 571132 571114 571002 570967 570942 570876 Peg # GR Match Northing Easting 3 B6 B10 B11 B15 C1 C5 C6 C10 C11 C15 264565 264600 264724 264765 264940 264978 265140 265158 265185 265200 574226 574200 573996 573951 573597 573564 573260 573208 573138 573110 B5 B1 A15 A11 A10 A6 A5 A1 268012 268040 268079 268094 268144 268160 268198 268228 571314 571272 571135 571112 571014 570962 570938 570886 ANNEX 5: MAP OF LOCATIONS WHERE ANGLER RECORDS WERE UNDERTAKEN ON LOCH KEN 81 ANNEX 6: MAP OF LOCATIONS WHERE CREEL SURVEYS WERE UNDERTAKEN ON LOCH KEN 82 ANNEX 7: MAP OF LOCATIONS WHERE SEINE NETTING SURVEYS WERE COMPLETED ON LOCH KEN 83  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Galloway Glens – Fish, Fisheries and Angler Survey in Loch Ken Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_39 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2019 Description An account of the resource Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Commissioned Report undertaken by Galloway Fisheries Trust environment GGLP