2 10 18 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/497/GGLP-Report-on-Dee-INNS-29thVSAD-Hi-Res-1.pdf 05b6db9a14f483bc997d691720591735 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 Report on the distribution of INNS in the River Dee Catchment 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. – 1901VS Report on the distribution of INNS in the River Dee Catchment June 2019 For further information on this report please contact: Name of GFT Project Manager – V Semple Galloway Fisheries Trust Fisheries House Station Industrial Estate Newton Stewart DG8 6ND Telephone: 01671 403011 E-mail: victoria@gallowayfisheriestrust.org This report should be quoted as: Galloway Fisheries Trust. June 2019. Report on the distribution of INNS in the River Dee Catchment. Report 1901VS 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. 40T © Galloway Fisheries Trust Year – 2019 40T Summary Report on the distribution of INNS in the River Dee Catchment Commissioned Report No.: 1901VS Year of publication: June 2019 Keywords Japanese knotweed; Himalayan balsam; American skunk cabbage; Signal crayfish; River Dee; Electrofishing; Galloway Background Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) are plants or animals which have been introduced to an area by human activity to which they are not naturally found. The invasive nature of these species is ecologically, environmentally and economically damaging. Their ability to spread and dominate riparian areas is altering ecosystems and has led to the ongoing destruction and loss of natural habitats. This report focuses on six key species which are present within the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee catchment. These include North American signal crayfish, American mink, American skunk cabbage, Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and most recently Giant hogweed. Main findings  The presence of Signal crayfish were checked at 280 Galloway Fisheries Trust electrofishing sites completed within the River Dee catchment.  Signal crayfish were recorded at 23 of the electrofishing sites.  Numerous reports of Signal crayfish, invasive plants and Mink were provided by the public following a social media request and targeted emails.  The 27 un-confirmed reports of crayfish suggest crayfish presence over a wider area than confirmed records show. The un-confirmed reports were spread across the River Dee from Loch Ken down to Arkland, upper Water of Ken at Smittons Bridge, Mossdale Loch and Woodhall Loch.  Most of the reports from the public on the distribution of invasive plants in the catchment matched those Galloway Fisheries Trust were aware of from previous surveys and historical reports.  The first report of Giant hogweed has been made to Galloway Fisheries Trust within the Dee catchment however it is a coastal population and the risk of it traveling upstream is low.  Reports of Mink in the catchment indicates that the species is well established and is widely distributed. For further information on this project contact: Name of Project Manager – V Semple Telephone No. of Project Manager – 01671 403011 U Table of Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Electrofishing data for surveying Signal crayfish 2.2 Confirmed sightings 2.3 Un-confirmed reports 2.3.1 Historical reports made to GFT 2.3.2 Social media search and requests 4 4 4 4 4 5 3. RESULTS 3.1 Electrofishing data 3.2 Historical reports made to GFT 3.3 Reports found by internet search and made to GFT via social media 3.3.1 American signal crayfish 3.3.2 Invasive plants 3.3.3 American mink 3.4 Known locations of INNS plants through GFT surveys undertaken since 2011 3.4.1 Japanese knotweed 3.4.2 American skunk cabbage 3.4.3 Himalayan balsam 3.4.4 Giant hogweed 6 6 8 8 8 10 10 13 13 13 13 13 DISCUSSION 4.1 American signal crayfish 4.1.1 Control of Signal crayfish 4.1.2 Confirmed and un-confirmed Signal crayfish reports 4.1.3 High risk areas for potential crayfish introductions 4.1.4 Priority areas for future crayfish surveys 4.2 Invasive Non-Native species of plants 4.2.1 Risk of spread 4.2.2 Control of Invasive Non-Native Species of plants 4.2.3 Future surveys 4.3 American mink 4.3.1 Control of American mink 4.4 Legislation 14 14 14 14 17 17 19 19 20 20 21 21 21 4. 2 1. INTRODUCTION Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) are plants or animals which have been introduced to an area by human activity to which they are not naturally found. The invasive nature of these species is ecologically, environmentally and economically damaging. Their ability to spread and dominate riparian areas is altering ecosystems and has led to the ongoing destruction and loss of natural habitats. This report focuses on six key species which are present within the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee catchment. These include North American signal crayfish, American mink, American skunk cabbage, Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and most recently Giant hogweed. North American signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) is an Invasive Non-Native (INN) invertebrate species which has become established in some Scottish waters. It is recognised that they can impact on native species, in particular due to their burrowing activity, competing with fish species for habitat, grazing pressure on aquatic plants and predation on invertebrates, fish and fish eggs. They appear to be able to successfully colonise a wide variety of freshwater habitats. The first record of American mink (Neovison vison) in the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee catchment was in 19631. They were introduced into the wild through releases from Mink farms throughout the UK and the first recorded breeding activity in Scotland was in 1962 in Aberdeenshire. In the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee catchment there is little in the way of consistent trapping and monitoring so it is not possibly to quantify current densities, only spatial distribution. Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera), American skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus) and Giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) are all invasive species of plants which are found in the Dee catchment. Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam are both negatively impacting riparian areas due to their ability to dominate large areas of ground and outcompete native plants. When allowed to grow unchecked they spread throughout river systems and negatively affect local biodiversity. As these species are annual plants they die back in winter, exposing large areas of bare river bank which leads to increased rates of bankside erosion resulting in habitat loss. The presence of Giant hogweed is currently unconfirmed on the River Dee however there has been a sighting in the coastal reaches of the catchment. If this sighting is accurate it is concerning that a new species has been introduced, most likely through seed dispersal by the sea. Giant hogweed is highly invasive with each plant producing an average of 20,000 seeds which can lie dormant in the ground for over 10 years. The primary concern with this species is the risk to public health due to its notoriously dangerous sap. In the present study Galloway Fisheries Trust (GFT) will provide updated distribution information of INNS within the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee catchment. The study will utilise electrofishing and habitat surveying data already held by GFT and will collect un-confirmed reports from the public to direct future survey and treatment programmes. 1 Lever, C., 1977. The naturalised animals of the British Isles. Granada Publishing 3 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Electrofishing data for surveying Signal crayfish The GFT undertakes electrofishing at up to 200 sites annually across the Galloway river catchments. While the primary aim of these surveys are to investigate the resident fish populations, if certain survey protocols are covered then they would also be expected to capture any Signal crayfish present in the survey site. The Scottish Signal crayfish distribution survey in 2009 developed a standard crayfish survey methodology, using combinations of kick sampling, electrofishing and baited trap setting, to assess the presence or absence of Signal crayfish. As part of a Glasgow University PhD2, further investigations through a comparative field study on the River Clyde was used to test the efficacy of the different sampling methods for detecting Signal crayfish in shallow, flowing waters. This report recommended a combination of kick-sampling and electrofishing as a Signal crayfish detection protocol. The kick sampling was considered effective at capturing the very young age classes of crayfish while electrofishing caught samples of the older larger crayfish. Thus electrofishing would be expected to catch Signal crayfish if an established population was present. The electrofishing data held by GFT had all been collected to a recognised standard; Scottish Fishery Co-ordination Centre (SFCC) protocol. In Galloway, it is confirmed that Signal crayfish are present in parts of the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee. For this study GFT reviewed electrofishing data from Kirkcudbrightshire Dee collected between 2010 and 2018. Data was only included in the study if it was area based electrofishing, a banner net was used and environmental conditions (water temperature, water flow) were suitable for effective use of electrofishing. The presence or absence of crayfish was noted for each site. 2.2 Confirmed sightings GFT have been treating INNS within the Dee catchment since 2011 and have a basic understanding on the current distribution. Surveys were carried out in 2019 to provide additional reports. Along with this, confirmed reports from other various sources have contributed to a map which presents currently known populations and their range within the river system. 2.3 Un-confirmed reports Information was collated from un-confirmed reports of INNS within the Dee catchment from a variety of sources as described below. All other historical reports of INNS have been either confirmed or denied. 2.3.1 Historical reports made to GFT Possible sightings of INNS are reported to GFT from time to time by members of the public and anglers. These reports are often vague with little information on their exact location. GFT will often investigate these reports if they appear plausible. Un-confirmed reports of crayfish made to GFT since 2009, which do not cover already confirmed crayfish locations, are presented in this report. 2 Gladman, Z. F. 2012. Crayfish in Scotland. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow. 4 2.3.2 Social media search and requests A search was undertaken of angling and wildlife on-line forums, discussion groups and websites to look for reports of INNS in Galloway where particular species have not yet been confirmed. This method was primarily used for monitoring Signal crayfish distribution. Requests for INNS sightings were made by email to key GFT contacts and through the news section of the GFT website, GFT twitter account and GFT Facebook page. 5 3. RESULTS 3.1 Electrofishing data Electrofishing data analysis was a method utilised to attain information on the distribution of American signal crayfish. A total of 280 electrofishing sites were found to be suitable to provide reliable presence or absence data. Many of the sites are surveyed over more than one year. Twenty three sites were found to contain Signal crayfish. The electrofishing data is summarised in Table 1 below and presented on Map 1. Table 1: Electrofishing data summary River catchment Survey years Dee 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 6 Total number of electrofishing sites 280 Number of sites with Signal crayfish recorded 23 Map 1: Presence/absence of Signal crayfish within the Dee catchment. Data drawn from historical electrofishing results. 7 3.2 Historical reports made to GFT Many reports have been made to GFT over the years regarding INNS within the Dee catchment. All of these which have been confirmed are listed in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2: Historical American signal crayfish reports since 2009 (un-confirmed) Species Signal crayfish Year(s) of record 2018 Location Grid ref Information Bridge of Dee 273400 559500 Numerous crayfish remains from otter kills on banks of the river Table 3: Historical reports of INNS of plants made to GFT Species Japanese knotweed Japanese knotweed Japanese knotweed American skunk cabbage American skunk cabbage Japanese knotweed Japanese knotweed Japanese knotweed Japanese knotweed Japanese knotweed Himalayan balsam Year(s) of record 2017 Location Grid ref Information Shirmers Burn 266750 575450 Private farmland 2016 Glenlee Farm 261150 580050 Private land 2016 Sheil Farm 261850 579780 Private farm 2017 Balmaclellan 264800 578800 Private property 2017 Balmaclellan 264200 578200 2016 Glenlochar 273150 564550 2016 Shirmers 265950 573650 2016 Earlston wood 261450 582150 2016 Pumphouse 273850 563500 2016 Tongland 269700 553700 2017 Glenlochar barrage 273150 564450 Found within and downstream of Aquavitae Burn Reported by Scottish power Reported by Scottish power Reported by Scottish power Reported by Scottish power Reported by Scottish power Anonymous source 3.3 Reports found by internet search and made to GFT via social media 3.3.1 American signal crayfish A total of 23 different reports of Signal crayfish were submitted to GFT by email or through social media. These reports suggest a wider distribution of Signal crayfish than detailed in 2009 or identified earlier in this report from the electrofishing data. The Facebook post requesting crayfish reports reached 7,967 people. GFT estimated the grid reference of each report based on the information provided. 8 The reports made to GFT are summarised in Table 4 below and are presented on Map 3 alongside the historical crayfish reports data. Table 4: Reported Signal crayfish sightings from social media (un-confirmed) Year(s) of record Since 2010 Location Grid Ref Information Glenlee Burn 259500 580700 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 2015 Water of Ken by Smittons Farm Water of Ken at Smittons Bridge Water of Ken at Smittons Bridge 263300 591700 Seen regularly in the burn over the last 9 years Seen in the river behind the farm Seen while fishing 2015 Dee by Kenbridge Hotel 264000 578400 2017 264500 570500 2018 Black Water of Dee at Stroan Bridge Black Water of Dee at Stroan Bridge Mossdale Loch (outflow into Black Water of Dee Nether Crae Burn (flows into Woodhall Loch) Top of Woodhall Loch 2017, 2018 2007, 2018 Woodhall Loch Loch Ken 266700 567700 271500 568500 2018 Loch Ken 271500 568500 Not stated Dee at Arkland Beat 271800 557700 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 Not stated 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 2016 Loch Ken by Crossmichael 272900 566700 Not stated Not stated 2018 2016 2017 2015 2018 263300 591800 263300 591800 264500 570500 265600 571000 266000 567500 266400 568500 Dee at Culvennan Dee by Threave Castle 273300 564100 273800 562400 Dee by Threave Castle 273800 562400 Arvie Burn Coom Burn Water of Deugh at Knockengorroch 268500 572700 260700 580700 255500 597100 9 Several seen while looking over bridge and when fishing upstream 10 crayfish were seen when looking over the bridge outside the hotel Seen while fishing Three seen on the bank below the bridge Several carcasses on an angling jetty Berried female crayfish were found in November Claws spotted at edge of water in November Seen while fishing Several reports of crayfish seen and caught while fishing 110 crayfish caught while fishing over a period of two days, berried females seen Second hand report of crayfish seen in river Crayfish are caught every May and September while fishing Seen while fishing Seen while fishing; numbers have increased each year Shown crayfish in the river next to the castle Caught while fishing Seen Claw possibly from a crayfish found on river bank during Not stated 3.3.2 Water of Deugh by Kendoon Approx 259000 592200 Knockengorroch Festival Heard second hand of a crayfish being seen. Vague location provided Invasive plants A total of eight reports of INNS of plants were submitted to GFT by email or through social media. A few of these reports were duplicated or were already known to GFT so were not noted in Table 5 but all known locations are presented on Map 2. The Facebook post requesting INNS reports (excluding Signal crayfish) reached 704 people. GFT estimated the grid reference of each report based on the information provided. Table 5: Reports of INNS plants made to GFT via social media (Grid references are approximate) Species Japanese Knotweed Giant Hogweed Himalayan balsam 3.3.3 Year(s) of record 2019 Location Grid Ref Information St Marys Isle 267500 549100 Anonymous source 2019 St Marys Isle 267434 548968 Anonymous source 2017 Glenlochar barrage 273150 564450 Anonymous source American mink A total of 10 reports of American mink were submitted to GFT by email or through social media. These reports are listed in Table 6 and presented in Map 2. There are records of Mink as far up the system as Garroch Estate near St Johns Town of Dalry and as low down as the Skinnel Burn. There are further populations recorded within Bridge of Dee which highlights that this species is wide spread within the catchment and any areas which do not inhabit Mink are most certainly at risk. Only a few of these reports are confirmed through trappings however all reports are considered a sighting and provide an insight into the spatial distribution of the species however does not indicate specific densities. This information can be used to direct future tracking and trapping programs in the region. The Facebook post requesting American mink reports reached 934 people. GFT estimated the grid reference of each report based on the information provided. Table 6: Reports of American mink made to GFT via social media and other external sources Year(s) of record 2019 Location Grid ref Information Pulwhirrin Burn 260700 549000 2019 2019 2019 Mutehill Skinnel Burn Buckland Burn 268750 548700 269000 548250 269450 548850 Reported mink within private property and along the stretch of burn towards Kirkandrews Local report Local report Local report 10 2019 2019 268500 551500 273000 559850 273350 560900 260200 581200 Local report Local report 2018 Kirkcudbright RNLI Between Netherhall and the “Old Brig” Garroch Estate, St Johns Town Shirmers Burn 266500 574450 2015 Tributary of Shirmers Burn 266250 573900 2018 2019 Auchlane (Water of Ken) Threave Castle Nature Reserve N/A 274074 562141 Remains of a mink seen on the roadside Mink have been trapped alongside the Dee hatchery for a number of years Local report Local report 2019 11 Local report Map 2: Map of reported sightings of INNS (excluding Signal crayfish) within the Dee catchment. Hatched areas are locations which are known to GFT through surveying, dots are new reports in 2019, some of which overlap previously known areas. 12 3.4 Known locations of INNS plants through GFT surveys undertaken since 2011 3.4.1 Japanese knotweed Known populations of Japanese knotweed within the Dee catchment range from sporadic patches to dense stretches along the River Dee and surrounding burns and tributaries. GFT have previously treated an area approximately 5 km in length which has notable populations of Japanese knotweed. Surveys in 2019 confirmed reports and added additional sightings which are presented in Map 2. Along with treating river banks, GFT have been called into specific locations where Japanese knotweed has been allowed to grow extensively and treatment is ongoing. Since 2016 Scottish Power (now Drax) have contracted GFT to treat various sites within their land and this is an ongoing program. 3.4.2 American skunk cabbage There is one population of American skunk cabbage within the Dee catchment that has spread from a known source on the Aquavitae Burn. A marsh area at the bottom of this burn near the confluence with River Dee is now host to a dense population of Skunk cabbage covering at least 0.1 Ha. Some treatment began in 2017 however there will be a significant seed bank built up over time as the plant has been prevalent at source for a couple of decades according to local knowledge. 3.4.3 Himalayan balsam Himalayan balsam has been spotted in one particular stretch of the River Dee, covering at least 1 km in a relatively low density. This report was made in 2017 so densities are likely to have increased. This record is presented in Map 2. 3.4.4 Giant hogweed A confirmed sighting of Giant hogweed has been reported on the River Dee, in its lower reaches on St Marys Isle. As there are no further reports further up the catchment, it is likely this infestation has resulted from seeds being washed in from the sea. 13 4. DISCUSSION 4.1 American signal crayfish In 2007, the Scottish Government listed Signal crayfish under the Species Action Framework (SAF), a five-year strategy for species management in Scotland. The objectives included determining the distribution of invasive crayfish so that control or containment efforts could be targeted. In 2009 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) contracted the River and Fishery Trusts of Scotland (RAFTS) and its members to investigate and detail the distribution of Signal crayfish in Scotland. The 2009 study3 considered existing records of crayfish distribution to direct extensive field surveys. A standard crayfish detection protocol involving kick sampling, electrofishing and baited traps was applied at all sites. The report stated that Signal crayfish were known to occupy at least 58 km of river length in Scotland. The Kirkcudbrightshire Dee catchment was found to support the most abundant and widely distributed Signal crayfish population in Scotland. Over the following 10 years no further Scottish wide crayfish distribution surveys have been undertaken. The Scottish Government’s ‘Code of Practice on NNS and INNS, a framework of responsibilities’ was developed for the relevant Government organisations in 2012. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) was given the habitat responsibility for freshwater (still and flowing waters). In 2009 SNH contracted RAFTS and its members to investigate and detail the distribution of Signal crayfish in Scotland using a standard crayfish detection protocol involving kick sampling, electrofishing and baited traps. Signal crayfish were found to occupy at least 58 km of river length in Scotland with the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee catchment supporting the most abundant and widely distributed Signal crayfish population. No further Scottish wide crayfish distribution surveys have been undertaken since. 4.1.1 Control of Signal crayfish Control of crayfish is done primarily through trapping. However, it is illegal to trap crayfish without the appropriate licence. This law was put in place to reduce the chance of spreading crayfish any further. Biocides have also been used in the past however most events have proven unsuccessful. Due to the size of the crayfish population in the Dee catchment, eradication is no longer possible. The focus now is primarily on stopping the spread through improved biosecurity. 4.1.2 Confirmed and un-confirmed Signal crayfish reports 280 sites were electrofished across the Dee catchment between 2009 – 2018. Signal crayfish were reported at 23 sites covering 11 different watercourses; Shirmers Burn, Garple Burn, Glenlee Burn, Black Water of Dee, Barlay Burn, Water of Ken, Cassenvey Burn, Craigshinnie Burn, Polifferie Burn, Coom Burn and Dullarg Burn. The previous distribution report in 2009 did not identify crayfish in the Glenlee Burn, Barclay Burn, Cassenvey Burn, Craigshinnie Burn, Polifferie Burn, Dullarg Burn and Water of Ken (upstream of Kendoon). Numerous un-confirmed reports of crayfish were made to GFT via social media in the present study. These reports suggested crayfish presence over a wider area than the confirmed records show. New areas of particular interest include; River Dee (down to 3 Sinclair, C.A. 2009. Fine scale mapping of Signal crayfish distribution in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report, Project 26686. 14 Arkland), upper Water of Ken (down to Smitton Bridge), Mossdale Loch, Woodhall Loch (and inflowing tributary Nether Crae) and Water of Deugh. Two reports (one historical and one via social media) suggest an established population in a coastal burn catchment near Auchencairn. The exact location is unknown and the grid reference provided in this report has been estimated by GFT based on the reports. It has been reported that crayfish at this location have been harvested for private consumption. The locations of the confirmed and un-confirmed Signal crayfish records for the Dee catchment are presented on Map 15 Map 3: Dee catchment showing confirmed and un-confirmed crayfish reports 16 4.1.3 High risk areas for potential crayfish introductions In Table 7 below, watercourses have been identified where there is a potential high risk of the Dee crayfish population accessing other ‘crayfish free’ neighbouring river catchment(s). If a watercourse was found to contain crayfish then for this exercise it was assumed crayfish were present throughout the whole of that water. This was a desk top exercise and it will be necessary to ground truth these areas of concern to clarify how accessible it would be crayfish to move between the watercourse catchments and to check if there are any barriers to crayfish movement that would stop their natural spread. Table 7: Potential high risk areas of crayfish transfer between catchments Water at risk Grid reference Notes Loch Doon (Doon catchment) 251000 599250 Polskeoch Burn (Nith) 268400 602200 Auchrae BurnBenbrack Burn (DeeNith) 267000 596400 The Galloway Hydro Scheme periodically pumps water from both the Water of Deugh (GR:254600 598400) and the Bow Burn (GR:255900 598050) to Loch Doon. In this study there were two possible reports of Signal crayfish in the Water of Deugh. Crayfish are confirmed in the Water of Ken at GR:263448 593168 although their upper limit is unknown. The very upper reaches of the Water of Ken stretches very close to the Polskeoch Burn (Nith catchment). These watercourses appear on maps to possibly be linked. Auchrae Burn is a tributary of the Water of Ken close to where crayfish are now confirmed. It is unknown if Signal crayfish are present in the burn. The Auchrae Burn is very close to the upper reaches of the Benbrack Burn (Nith catchment). 4.1.4 Priority areas for future crayfish surveys In Table 8 below, locations have been identified which are considered as priority areas for further survey work. These areas have been prioritised as there is a need to identify the limits of some confirmed crayfish populations and to check the validity of some un-confirmed crayfish reports that are considered plausible. Table 8: Recommended priority areas for further crayfish surveys Watercourse (catchment) Coastal burn catchment near Auchencairn Grid ref. Justification / purpose Approx. 277700 550600 Two reliable sources have reported crayfish present in ponds but exact location was not provided. Need to identify possible ponds, liaise with land owners and undertake crayfish surveys. It has been suggested this population is being harvested for private 17 Water of Ken (upstream of Kendoon) Upstream of 261800 590100 Kendoon Loch 261400 590000 Water of Deugh and Carsphairn Lane Upstream of 258600 592300 Lower River Dee 272300 558500 – 270700 556000 Mossdale Loch / Woodhall Loch 265600 571000 and 266400 568500 Auchrae Burn, Barlay Burn, Cassenvey Burn Upstream of; 266300 595750, 269574 578572, 268505 577629 consumption. Crayfish surveys required to identify upper and lower point of the confirmed crayfish population. It is important to understand if crayfish have reached Kendoon Reservoir where there is a fish farm located. Trapping should take place in Kendoon Loch to check whether crayfish are present. If present then could have implications for the operations of a fish farm and increase the risk of them entering the Water of Deugh. Two vague reports of crayfish were made. Due to the high risk of possible transfer of crayfish from the Deugh catchment to the Doon through the workings of the Galloway Hydro Scheme it is essential to know if they are present in this sub-catchment. The lowest confirmed record for crayfish in the Dee system is immediately below Loch Ken but numerous angler reports now suggest they are far further down the system including Arkland. It should now be assumed that crayfish are now present in the River Dee down to the estuary. Trapping should be undertaken in the lower river around Arkland / Tongland to confirm their presence throughout the lower river. Trapping should be undertaken to confirm these lochs support crayfish so appropriate biosecurity measures are put into place. Numerous reports made by anglers that they are present. These three burns have been identified as containing or possibly containing crayfish and that their headwaters may be linked through drainage / wet ground to other river catchments without crayfish. It is recommended that the potential cross catchment risk through watercourse linkages is assessed in detail and if there is a true risk then the location of crayfish in the burns is identified. 18 4.2 Invasive Non-Native species of plants GFT have been treating INNS within the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee catchment since 2011. Limited funding has directed control to focus on priority areas and therefore there are large areas of the Dee catchment which have not been surveyed and the distribution of INNS is unknown. There are four SSSIs’ in close proximity to known INNS populations within the Dee catchment (SNH 764; 1597; 833 and 1535) and a further three SSSIs’ which are within areas considered at risk from the existing INNS upstream. Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam are both negatively impacting riparian areas due to their ability to dominate large areas of ground and outcompete native plants. When allowed to grow unchecked they spread throughout river systems and negatively affect local biodiversity. As these species are annual plants they die back in winter, exposing large areas of bare river bank which leads to increased rates of bankside erosion resulting in habitat loss. Himalayan balsam is very popular with bees, which in turn results in a reduction of the pollination of native plants. Control of this species is also very challenging. The most effective control method of invasive plants is herbicide control, however depending on the density in which Himalayan balsam can be found, there could be too many non-target areas impacted which could outweigh the benefit of control. Mechanical removal of this species is preferred however this is often an impossible task due to the sheer extent of the species distribution within a catchment. The species also has a very prolific method of seed dispersal and with up to 800 seeds per plant re-population of an area is usually very quick. In some cases treatment is no longer a viable option. Biological control methods have been introduced in England however are still being trialled and are hopefully going to be introduced into Scotland in 2019. This may be the only way to reduce the impact of Himalayan balsam in the region if future surveys suggest that the population is beyond mechanical or chemical control. American skunk cabbage is usually found around ponds, swamps and marshes. Currently this species is still available to purchase in local garden centres and is very popular in ornamental gardens. The primary concern surrounding this invasive species is its impact on biodiversity in the areas which it dominates. The plant can grow very large and its leathery leaves can block out sunlight to any remaining ground and reduces the ability for native plants to grow. The nature of the plant also means that if left unchecked, it can choke off small watercourses as it can become very dense. Giant hogweed is a species of plant which along with being invasive, is also a public health risk. The plant produces a hazardous, photo-reactive sap which burns the skin in a way that mimics a chemical burn. The sap reacts to the UV in sunlight and can re-blister when exposed. This species has never before been reported in the Dee catchment and given its current location presented in Map 2, it is coastal and potentially introduced through sea dispersal. GFT confirmed this sighting and it is understood that this population is being managed by the land owner. These plants are bordering a public footpath and pose a significant risk to the general public. Care must be taken and efforts need to be made to raise awareness in the community. 4.2.1 Risk of spread Each plant species has its own level of risk depending on its current distribution and its method of dispersal. As it stands, Japanese knotweed is the most prevalent species and is widespread throughout the catchment. The area at risk below the lowest known location of Japanese knotweed is approximately 5 km in length however there are many stretches of river bank between the current sites which are at risk of infestation if control is not 19 undertaken. As this species is infertile and spreads only via vegetation, further spreading should only occur if the plant is interfered with or if there are areas of ground disturbance above dormant rhizomes. Currently established populations will increase in size every year if left untouched. A primary concern associated with Japanese knotweed is its ability to reactivate even if it appears to have been killed and is no longer actively growing. This means that treated ground should remain untouched and can be a problem if found in built up and residential areas. Himalayan balsam has been confirmed to be present within the catchment downstream of Glenlochar barrage. The exact area of coverage is unknown however it is assumed that the area at risk of infestation below the currently known population is approximately 15 km. As this plant spreads by seed and is predominantly found along river banks, the risk of spread is considerable if left unchecked. American skunk cabbage is only known to be present in one area on the River Dee catchment and appears to have remained relatively contained considering it is presumed to have been present in this location for over a decade according to local reports. This plant spreads by seed however as the lowest population is contained within a marsh as opposed to fast flowing water, the spread downstream appears to be slow. Regardless of the speed of spread, the river length downstream of this population which is at risk is significant (approximately 30 km) and includes Loch Ken. As a result of requesting reports of INNS within the Dee Catchment as part of this report, GFT have received a report of a confirmed sighting of Giant hogweed. Currently there are no other known population of this species within the catchment, and as this sighting is in Kirkcudbright Bay it may be an isolated population from seeds washed ashore. There is a risk of this spreading upstream however it is a very low risk. Early response and effective treatment before the plants seeds later in the season could eliminate the problem. 4.2.2 Control of Invasive Non-Native Species of plants Each species reacts differently to treatment. Giant hogweed and Japanese knotweed both respond well to herbicide applications, however treatment should be carried out at different times of year. Giant hogweed should be treated before it produces a flower head to reduce the risk of seed production, usually around May and June. Japanese knotweed reacts better to treatment when it is carried out in late summer, around August or early September. This is in response to the winter drawback of the plant, where it pulls in all its reserves into the roots, drawing in more chemical as a result. Japanese knotweed is a perennial and requires up to four years of treatment in order to eradicate the plant. The species rhizomes are capable of lying dormant however and reappearing if disturbed years after it was actively growing. American skunk cabbage responds well to herbicide application but not well to foliar spray. Due to the waxy nature of the plants leaves, they are less permeable to chemical and therefor it is suggested that the plants are injected or their stems should be cut to allow chemical to access their root system. Himalayan balsam does respond well to herbicide application however due to the densities that this species is regularly found in, usually dispersed between many different native plant species, there would be an unacceptably high non-target impact of foliar spraying. Hand pulling is the preferred method of treatment, which should be carried out in June or July before seed pods are formed. 4.2.3 Future surveys 20 As each species growing season differs, it is advisable to survey each one at the most effective time of year. American skunk cabbage is the first species to appear early spring. It is distinguishable even as a young sapling so surveying for this species can be carried out earlier than the other plant species. Giant hogweed appears mid-April however new saplings can emerge at various times within spring so it would be most effective to survey for this species in June-October. Using drone footage to survey for Giant hogweed would be most effective later in the growing season as the white flower head is a very distinguishable feature which could highlight areas where access is limited on foot. Surveying for Himalayan balsam is most effective when the plant is in flower as younger saplings can be missed under thicker foliage. Again, this plant can emerge and grow at various rates so delaying surveys until later is beneficial. Japanese knotweed surveys are best conducted late summer when the plant is at its largest, to ensue small saplings are not missed. Surveys of these plants can be conducted at the same time as treatment. The top most known location affected by invasive plants known to GFT on the Dee catchment is Grid reference: 261500 582050. Future surveys should be conducted to confirm this is the upmost point and completed to provide an accurate representation of the spread of INNS within the catchment. Once this level of information is available, effective treatment programs can be implemented and future management plans can be produced. 4.3 American mink American mink are a carnivorous mammal which inhabit watersides such as burns, rivers, lochs, marshes, swamps and coastlines. Their presence is linked to the decline in numbers of water voles and they can have a damaging effect on nesting birds on offshore islands, game birds and fish stocks. The presence of American mink in the Dee catchment appears to be considerable. Their distribution is widespread and although the number of reports is limited, the top and bottom limits of the reports signify there is a large area of the catchment at risk of infestation. Considering the scale of the impact this species can have and the area at risk within the Dee catchment, it is imperative that there is future monitoring and trapping programs put in place to provide an ongoing management procedure to ensure this species does not further dominate or impact the local watercourses. 4.3.1 Control of American mink Control of American mink is carried out across the region however not as often as required to control the species. Mink are tracked using mink rafts which are placed in areas which show signs of activity. The rafts have a clay pot which records paw prints and can show whether mink are present within the area. If there is evidence of mink using the raft, a trap is then placed in the vicinity with bait inside. Once a mink is caught it is then dispatched. 4.4 Legislation It is illegal to allow the spread of invasive species in Scotland. As amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act (2004) and the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (Sections 14 to 14P) is the principal legislation dealing with non-native species in Scotland. Section 14(1) of the Act makes it illegal to 21 release, allow to escape, or cause an animal to be at a place out with its native range. Section 14(2) makes it illegal to plant or otherwise cause a plant to grow in the wild at a place out with its native range. Offences under section 14 carry a maximum penalty of a £40,000 fine and/or 12 months imprisonment on summary conviction and an unlimited fine (i.e. whatever the court feels to be commensurate with the offence) and/or 2 years imprisonment on indictment. Due to the location of INNS in the Dee catchment, in particular the Giant hogweed which is situated on St Marys Isle on a public footpath, it is important that the local community is aware of the risks associated with the species and follows the Check, Clean, Dry protocol to ensure further spread does not occur. 22  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 Report on the distribution of INNS in the River Dee Catchment Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_38 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 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/496/GGLP-Barhill-Wood.pdf 01b71eeda363c3f0badb81e3f3c4cd45 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 Woods, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment 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 PUBLIC www.dendrochronicle.co.uk Barhill Woods, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment Coralie M Mills & Peter Quelch August 2019 PUBLIC PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment Prepared for ‘Can You Dig It’ Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership / Rathmell Archaeology Sponsors Authors Coralie M Mills & Peter Quelch Project No. 0196 Date of Report August 2019 (amended Nov 2019 & March 2020) Enquiries to Dr Coralie Mills Dendrochronicle T: 0131 258 3199 W: www.dendrochronicle.co.uk E: coralie.mills@dendrochronicle.co.uk Illus 1 Barhill woodland heritage walk (Photo: Claire Williamson, Rathmell Archaeology) PUBLIC PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Barhill Wood Historic Woodland Assessment: Summary This project has assessed the evidence for the history of Barhill Wood, identifying that woodland existed there in the late medieval period, with a subsequent period of woodland absence evident by the mid-18th century, before tree cover was reintroduced as part of estate-wide plantations by the Earls of Selkirk in the late 18th century. The style of plantation saw the rocky knolls being enclosed and planted, while the better ground between them was retained for agriculture, in this case for sheltered grazing in small fields. Many of these small fields remained open until planted up by the Forestry Commission in 1953. The loss in a fire of the St Mary’s Isle estate records means that specific written evidence for the management of the Barhill woods prior to FC acquisition may not survive. The combination of fields and woodland very probably echoed a much older integrated forestry and farming system developed in the particular topography of this region, and faint traces of earthen banks within Barhill Wood are likely to be from this earlier system. The 18th century plantations were created for both ornament and economy, re-clothing the bare hills, and the woods were worked until at least the period between the First and Second World Wars, when our tree-ring evidence suggests the coppices were last cut. The documentary and field evidence show this to have been a mixed species plantation with a large amount of sweet chestnut which could have been coppiced for production of fencing and other products. While mostly identified as dead stumps, a few sweet chestnut coppiced trees survive in the less disturbed parts of the wood. The natural heritage of Barhill Wood is well known, especially its importance as a red squirrel habitat, which is to a great extent a consequence of the mix of conifer and broadleaf species planted in the 18th and 20th centuries. What is probably less well known is the survival of a range of cultural heritage features in the wood. Some of them, like the enclosure dykes, stone quarries and boundary banks, relate to the woodland’s history as a mixed forestry and agricultural system. However, there is also a section of a very old road preserved within the wood and in the fields to its east, likely to be late medieval in origin if not even earlier. Unlike the other old roads radiating from Kirkcudbright, this one has not been converted into a tarmacked public road, and has a delightful stretch of hollow-way surviving at its town-ward end. The wood may well contain other built heritage features and this is worthy of further investigation. In due course, introducing some interpretive material about the history of the wood could add to the enjoyment of this already popular place. This report includes a discussion of current and future woodland management issues to assist possible future community involvement. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 1 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Barhill Woodland Heritage: Fun Facts for Educators Farming and forestry You may notice something unusual about this wood - there are old stone dykes within it which have trees on either side and do not obviously enclose or separate anything. The historic evidence reveals that these were once enclosure walls (acting like fences) around the plantations of the late 18th century, with trees planted on the poor thin soils of the rocky knolls and the better land between the knolls kept as small fields used for sheltered grazing. Many of the small old fields were then planted with trees in the 1950s by the Forestry Commission, so now there are trees both inside and outside the old enclosure dykes. However, one old field survives just to the west of Barhill Wood and is still used for grazing. Can you find any old fields inside the wood? The old road through the wood One of Kirkcudbright’s oldest roads survives through the wood. Its route is shown as a red dashed line on Illus 3. It is easy to find and you can walk along it from one side of the wood to the other. At its western end, in Silver Craigs Wood between the town and Barhill, it has been worn down over hundreds of years by the feet of many travellers to become a ‘hollow-way’. The old road then crosses the field into Barhill Wood where it acts as a path. Near the eastern side of the wood it passes through what was once a gate, now an opening in the remains of a dyke marked by two old hornbeam trees acting like gate-posts. Can you find them? Walk on from there towards the red squirrel hide and look out into the fields, and you will see the earthwork of the old road continuing eastwards. It is probably medieval or even earlier in origin, and unlike most of the other old routes radiating from Kirkcudbright, it has not become a tarmacked public road. Tree forms and what they tell us There are two main forms of tree at Barhill Wood: single-stemmed ‘maiden’ trees (what we think of as ‘normal’ trees); and multi-stemmed coppiced trees. Coppicing was undertaken historically on a range of broadleaf tree species and means cutting the tree back to just above the ground and letting it regrow. Broadleaf trees will then usually produce many new shoots which will grow into useful pole sized stems before being harvested by cutting back again. The harvesting is done on a rotation, for example about every 20 years for oak in Scotland. At Barhill, one of the species coppiced was sweet chestnut, possibly to produce fencing material. The base of the coppiced tree gets bigger over time, and is called the ‘stool’. The bigger the stool the older the tree. Our research indicates the Barhill coppices were last worked between the First and Second World wars, although some may have been felled or cut back again at or after the time of the Forestry Commission plantations in the 1950s. Can you find examples of the two different tree forms? How old is that tree? It is often thought that you can work out how old a tree is by the girth (circumference) of its trunk, but in fact growth rates are so variable between trees that this is pretty unreliable. There are lots of stumps of felled trees in Barhill Wood and on some of them you can see the tree rings. Every year the tree puts on a new growth ring just under the bark, so every ring represents one year in the tree’s life, with the earliest ring at the centre and the most recent ring at the outside. Count the rings on an old stump and you will find out how old that tree was when it was felled. It is also possible to age living trees by taking a small sample out of them with a special coring device. Narrower than a pencil, the core allows the rings of the living tree to be counted. The science of investigating tree-rings is called ‘Dendrochronology’. As well as providing tree age information, dendrochronology can be used to study climate change and to date old objects made of wood. Know your trees There are many different tree species at Barhill, native and exotic, so it is a good place to practice tree identification. There are excellent resources on The Woodland Trust website to help you https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british-trees/how-to-identify-trees. It’s easiest in the summer with leaves present, but come back in winter and check out their forms and bark too. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 2 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Introduction Rathmell Archaeology, on behalf of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership’s ‘Can You Dig It’ archaeology programme, invited Dendrochronicle to undertake an Historic Woodland Assessment at Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright. This particular wood was suggested by GGLP given its historical nature and the local community interest in the wood. The main woodland is owned by Forestry and Land Scotland (formerly the Forestry Commission, FC), while the adjoining smaller woodland closer to the town, Silver Craigs Wood, is owned by Dumfries and Galloway Council. Barhill Wood was acquired by the FC in 1952 from the landowners, the Hope Dunbar family of St Mary’s Isle, and covers some 17 ha. It was historically part of the estates of the Earls of Selkirk. The woodland is important to the town, both visually as a backdrop, and in daily use by the community for walking and cycling. There have been recent very successful community initiatives within the wood, such as the creation of an outdoor classroom and red squirrel hide, and the hope is that the wider community will in time become more involved in the woodland’s management. The FC (Stables 2009) describe Barhill Wood as a plantation on an Ancient Woodland site, with a varied species mix of conifer and broadleaf and with some relict Ancient Woodland present. Their main objective for the block is gradual restoration to Native Woodland. Peter Quelch and Coralie Mills spent most of three days (28th to 30th May 2019) getting to know this small but surprisingly complex woodland close to Kirkcudbright town. Furthermore, Coralie Mills led two public guided walks for the community on 14th and 15th June 2019, sharing some of the immediate results of the work. Core samples from six living trees were also taken for tree-ageing purposes on those dates, some as demonstrations during the guided walks. Historic maps analysis Our first technique, employed even before entering the site, was to consult the old maps available publicly on the National Library for Scotland website. The detailed map analysis is attached separately (Appendix 1), with images of the relevant map extracts included. The sequence contains nine selected old maps and plans, and seven extracts from the various editions and scales of early 20th century Ordnance Survey maps, plus an aerial photographic view from 1930. Two local 18th century plans are also included, note that these are not part of the NLS online collection. So, the old map analysis shows that Barhill ridge was wooded at the time of Timothy Pont’s survey c1590, as depicted in Blaeu’s Atlas of 1654, and again in 1662. Pont’s survey is the earliest available to us so it is significant that woodlands at Barhill can be traced back through the map evidence to at least the late 16th century. One assumes these must have been natural origin woods, but not necessarily – they could be late medieval/early modern period plantings, being so close to an important trading town with port and castle. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 3 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Illus 2 Blaeu’s Atlas of 1662 with survey data from Pont c1590, clearly showing the hill above Kirkcudbright town at Kirkland as wooded, as is also St Mary’s Isle However, there is not necessarily continuity of woodland on this site, as Barr Hill seems to be bare at the time of Roy’s survey in c.1750, though we know that woods in poor condition or unenclosed may be missed off his maps. It could well be that the Barhill Farm grazings, as shown on John Gillone’s survey plan of 1776, did contain an element of natural scrub on the site of previous woodlands, but the improvement period plans tended to accentuate the new improved woods, parks and avenues and did not show natural scrubland. The second survey plan, published by Robert Heron in 1790, is a survey by John and James Tate which they call an ‘eye-draught’ of Kirkcudbright. This sketch plan does indeed show a new star shaped plantation on Barhill, and this is confirmed in later county maps by Ainslie 1797 and Thomson 1821. The first edition OS map of 1847 at 6 inches to the mile shows these now mature woodlands in great detail, as does the second edition OS map of 1895 which is also available at the 25 inch to the mile scale. The woodland’s complex outline changes little over this time, and this is verified by a fascinating early aerial view of the town and wooded hill in 1930. Subsequently, as mentioned above, the main Barhill Wood was acquired by the Forestry Commission in 1952 and as their stockmap shows, was planted up in 1953 with a mix of largely non-native broadleaf and conifer species. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 4 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Illus 3 Barhill Wood and environs, with ownership boundaries (blue FLS, green DGC), strip wood plantations A-E, the red squirrel ‘hide’ and core-sampled tree locations (red dots) shown on OS 6” 2nd edition base map www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 5 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Field observations Woodland topography and archaeology The terrain within Barhill main woodland is of narrow rocky ridges running SW to NE according to the Silurian geology of hard greywacke and shale, folded into these ridges. The stone is hard enough for building purposes, for constructing the field walls and roads and for building in the town itself. The ridges therefore have many disused small stone quarries on them, interspersed with rather smooth and level valleys. Illus 4 Stone quarry in Strip Wood D, with ash and beech. Some beech has had beech bark disease in the past but this is not nearly so serious a threat as the current outbreak of ash dieback (photo PQ132) The planting of the early 1950s went ‘through hill and dale’ with no areas left bare, and the land within the FC fence boundaries is almost completely planted up. But there is a reason for this unusual mosaic of topography within the wider woodland of today. Visitors to the woodland trails will notice that the ridges within the woodland have low drystone dykes surrounding them, yet the original purpose of those dykes is not obvious. During our field visits we traced most of these dykes and worked out their pattern, which corresponds well with the 19th century layout shown very clearly on the OS Second Edition 25 inch to the mile maps (see Appendix 1 for details). Just a glance at the aerial photo of 1930 (Appendix 1) shows that the level areas between the ridges were indeed old narrow fields, even by that late date. So, the estate left the intermediate strip fields unplanted at the time of the original c1780 planting, presumably as a benefit to farmers at the time for sheltering livestock. Even today the larger rectangular old field within the FC woodland is known as ‘The Paddock’, while the remaining strip field between the FC and council owned woods just to the Paddock’s north-west side is still used for grazing. It has been named the ‘Lamb Field’ in Illus 3 as the writers of this report were told locally that it has been used for lambing into the recent past www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 6 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 due to the shelter afforded. Traces of old cultivation rigs running roughly NE to SW have been noted in the centre and lower areas of this field (David Devereux pers comm). Illus 5 View of a typical section of Barhill wood, with the path south running along the old NW strip field, and the much older woodland area (Strip A) on the rocky ridge behind, separated from the old field by a low drystone dyke, and all now planted with mature Norway spruce and beech (photo PQ88) This ‘knap and dale’ (hill and field) landscape is particularly interesting to author PQ who sees a very similar arrangement in the landscape of Mid Argyll. The modern forest of Knapdale in north Kintyre is also planted on a ridge and valley system formed by a metamorphic Dalradian geology, with ridges also running SW-NE. Taynish National Nature Reserve, owned by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), is a wooded peninsula within the Knapdale complex which was not afforested with conifers. Here it is possible to study the traditional field and woodland mosaic of an ancient landscape that was only partly improved during the late 18th century, ie at the same time as the Kirkcudbright district when Barhill wood was planted. So, although the majority of the dyke system within the current woodland at Barhill seems to date from small field patterns captured and retained by the improvement era planting of c.1780, perhaps the land use pattern was already well established through medieval times and even earlier? It is interesting that the northern part of strip woodland C seems to have a very sinuous earth bank boundary on its western side rather than a stone dyke, and perhaps this indicates a preimprovement woodland boundary? Just west of the old road beside the squirrel hide is an old ash stool now between two modern fence lines (of different ages) which also indicates a very sinuous older woodbank. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 7 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Illus 6 Old ash stool on the sinuous woodbank of Strip Wood D, just west of the squirrel hide (photo PQ128) One of the truisms of this type of landscape study is that the geology and soils of an area is relatively fixed, and the resulting post glacial landscape can only be farmed in certain ways. This becomes very obvious when you have a rocky ridge and narrow valley system such as at Barhill, when clearly any arable fields must be sited within the valleys. The ridges on the other hand, being of little use to agriculture, are well suited for growing woodland. It seems to the authors that there is scope for archaeological research into Barhill woodland’s old strip fields within a wider landscape context. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 8 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Illus 7 Wood pasture landscape south of the squirrel hide (photo PQ119) Illus 8 Southern boundary dyke of woodland strip B with author CM inspecting a large chestnut stump, with oak on the left, probably both from the original c1780 planting, amid 1953 beech. (photo PQ92) www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 9 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Illus 9 Another view of strip woodland B, with the old NE field on the RHS (south-east) of the dyke , again all planted with beech and Norway spruce, with an older ash on the dyke at the left (photo PQ94) Other field records There are no DGC Historic Environment records in Barhill Wood or Janet’s Plantation (at the NE end of Barhill Wood, see Illus 3). The nearest site included in the HER is Kirkland Fort about 250m east of Barhill Wood. There are other significant historic sites close by, such as the early church of St Cuthbert and the lords of Galloway castle at Loch Fergus, and further studies into the wider landscape history of the lands at Barhill and around Kirkcudbright would be worthwhile. The early maps use the name ‘Kirkland’ for the woods shown at the approximate location of Barhill, and perhaps this land was in the ownership of the church in medieval times. Further work into this was beyond the scope of this HWA project but would be valuable in landscape history terms. The Native Woodland Survey of Scotland (NWSS) records for the study area can be found on the recently created Scottish Forestry Map Viewer. Unfortunately, this does not provide the same level of detail for the NWSS records as was previously available through FCS online. The NWSS divides the wood into five compartments, reflecting the different historic land-use histories to some degree, but all classified as PAWS (Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site). The new map viewer does not allow one to see the tree species recorded, nor the National Vegetation Class (NVC, which is based largely on the ground flora). However, the high percentage of canopy cover (between 80 and 100% recorded) and the largely ‘unidentifiable’ habitat type (relating to a lack of ground cover under the canopy) indicates that this area was recorded as dense mature plantation cover with little understorey vegetation. The accompanying record of every compartment also being 100% seminatural woodland therefore appears to be an error, and certainly does not correspond with the common presence of non-native planted tree species. Our observations of the older examples of native tree species, in the boundaries especially, and the records of nearby less-altered woods suggest that this might originally have been upland ash wood, at least in part, probably falling into NVC W9 (ash/rowan/dog’s mercury woodland type) perhaps with some W7 (alder/ash/yellow pimpernel woodland type) and other related classes in this varied topography. Woodland management issues Access and recreation The woodland in both ownerships is heavily used by local residents and is easily accessed by foot and bicycle, either direct from the town or from the FC car park within the wood. The woodland has an outdoor classroom for visiting groups and a squirrel observation hide, both of which are Galloway Glens / community projects created in 2018. There are informal mountain bike trails within the woodland of a wide range of difficulties, and clearly there are some keenly competitive riders within the community. Janet’s Plantation has no designed access at present, but has potential for trails and viewpoints. The highest part of the woodland has some informal shelters and fire sites, possibly on the site of an old croft, but these are in poor condition and not visited by the public at large. Amenity and landscape value Most of this woodland is very much under the public eye, either as seen by visitors within the woods, as a backdrop to Kirkcudbright town, or as seen in the wider landscape of the district. Therefore careful planning will be needed to protect the landscaping and amenity value of the woodland during any future woodland operations. There has not been a recent history of thinning and felling www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 10 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 in these woodlands, but with the plantations now rather mature, it is inevitable that selective felling will be required soon. The relatively new FC access road is an asset in that regard, and will allow timber lorries to safely access extracted logs as and when required. Wind-throw of individual trees or even whole stands may also occur in this rather exposed location. Illus 10 Sheep grazing in the ‘lamb field’ west of Strip Wood A , looking north-east (photo PQ30) Red Squirrel conservation The resident red squirrels present a challenge for future management of the woodland, as the cones of the pines, larch and spruce trees represent a significant food source for them. In addition, the tall conifers provide shelter for these endangered animals. Any kind of simplistic conversion to predominantly native species woodland, for example of the oak/hazel type which would grow well on these hard ridges, would almost certainly worsen the red squirrel habitat value of the woodlands. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 11 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Illus 11 Janet’s Plantation poses difficult management decisions, since it is mainly Norway spruce/ beech/sycamore mix: spruce being good for red squirrels while the broadleaves favour grey squirrels (photo PQ34) Clearly, any managing group would need to take expert advice on woodland management to benefit red squirrels, and hence develop a plan for a gradual transformation of Barhill to woodland of the desired mix. There is good advice in the relevant FC Practice Note no 102, titled Managing Forests as Red Squirrel Strongholds (2012). Their Table 3 lists four categories of tree and shrub species according to how much they benefit red squirrels. The tree species most discouraged for red squirrels are large seeded broadleaves: beech, chestnuts, hazel, oaks and sycamore, all of which are present at Barhill, particularly beech and sycamore. Other common broadleaves with smaller seed like willows, alder, birches, holly, aspen, rowan are seen as neutral for red squirrels. Broadleaves which do provide some benefit for red squirrels include bird cherry, blackthorn, dog rose, hawthorn, wild cherry and wych elm. Most of these ‘secondary’ species are already found at Barhill and could be allowed to increase in proportion in future. The favoured species for red squirrel are all coniferous, and include Douglas fir, larches, pines, spruces, and also yew. Although we did not notice any yews at Barhill, it would probably not be difficult to introduce some in due course. However, the other conifers are present in quite a good mix, and are predominantly mature, so it is not surprising that Barhill woods are already a favourable habitat for red squirrels. It is, however, surprising that Barhill is not identified on the Scottish Forestry Map Viewer ‘Policy’ layer as a ‘Red Squirrel Stronghold’. We are unsure therefore whether Barhill is formally recognised as an important red squirrel site. Such recognition would be relevant in influencing the future appropriate management of the wood. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 12 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Future management Beginning the process of introducing younger age classes of crops in this small and sensitive woodland will probably involve selective thinning of some whole stands, plus felling in small groups. Through sale of logs to local craftspeople and smaller sawmills, the undoubtedly high-quality timber might also be used quite locally, as befits a woodland with community management aims. As discussed in the section above on red squirrel conservation, there will need to be careful planning of both tree-felling and replanting species choice. The wholesale felling of mature conifers, or simple conversion to native woodland types, could inadvertently result in making the habitat more suitable for grey squirrels. Of course, the future woodland management may not only turn on the single issue of improving red squirrel habitat, and there are likely to be compromises made with other objectives, such as creating diverse habitats to suit a wide range of wildlife and for enhancing visual and experiential amenities. Consideration should also be given to maintaining the historic aspects of the woodland by retaining at least some trees planted as part of the initially diverse species choice, especially the few surviving sweet chestnut coppice stools, an occasional hornbeam, maybe one or two horse chestnuts, and the occasional oak coppice which is probably derived from some of the earliest planting. Illus 12 Sweet chestnut stool in Janet’s Plantation, derived from the original 1780s planting (photo PQ77) www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 13 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Illus 13 Very large sweet chestnut stool in Strip Wood E which was not planted by the FC (photo PQ150) A long-term management plan might include the gradual thinning of mature tree crops and also the felling of whole groups in places. The area of such group felling should be at least twice tree height in diameter in order to promote ground level regeneration. There may be a case to open up some of the strip fields again, but in a way that does not invite windthrow of the trees on the ridges or slopes on each side of the strip fields. There may well be additional scope within the woodland for more open glades, as there are few at present, perhaps re-opening one of the southern small circular fields. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 14 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Illus 14 One of the old fields near the south of Barhill wood (SW field) with dense beech, which could be opened up into a glade to favour the bluebells (photo PQ184) The tall slender beech and sycamore seem a high priority for removal, bearing in mind the squirrel conservation argument. On the ridges themselves, perhaps a pine/birch/rowan/hawthorn mix would be much more friendly to red squirrels than the current beech, which in any case tends to be quite scrubby on the ridge tops. The beech could be used to create quality firewood for sale. Illus 15 Typical dense beech on a ridge near the south of Barhill (photo PQ176) www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 15 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Illus 16 An open beech stand near to the last photo is much more attractive for walkers, though open grown beech trees will of course produce more seed! (photo PQ181) Illus 17 Already by chance there are small stands of birch with pine, some larch, hawthorn and much less beech in the southern part of Barhill wood, which could be an aspiration for much of the ridgetop woodlands in future. (photo PQ173) www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 16 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Tree ageing by dendrochronology Six living trees were sampled using a Swedish increment corer, on 14th and 15th June 2019 and analysed in August 2019 by Coralie Mills. The sampled trees are shown in Illus 18 and the sample details, including the ageing results, are given in Table 1. Illus 18 Clockwise from top left: oak coppice BAR01; sitka spruce maiden BAR02; sweet chestnut coppice BAR03; beech maiden BAR04; sitka spruce maiden BAR05; wych elm, unusual form, possibly maiden with later secondary stem or a coppice form, BAR06. The first core sample, BAR01 was from one stem of a multi-stem coppiced oak on the western boundary of the main Barhill Wood, above the ‘lamb field’ (Illus 3; Illus 18). Samples BAR02, BAR04 and BAR05 were from maiden trees believed to have been planted in the early stages of FC ownership. Sample BAR03 was from a stem of a large sweet chestnut coppice, from one of the largest stools seen, and from a species which was clearly much more prevalent at Barhill in the past as the examination of many stumps showed. Sample BAR06 was from an unusual Wych Elm. There was a main stem and what appeared to be a secondary smaller stem which was thought possibly to be later. The larger main stem was sampled. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 17 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Table 1 Key attributes of Barhill living tree cores NGR: Sample / species BAR01 Oak coppice stem (Quercus sp.) (2 cores i & ii) BAR02 Sitka spruce maiden (Picea sitchensis) BAR03 Sweet chestnut coppice stem (Castanea satvia) BAR04 Beech maiden (Fagus sylvatica) BAR05 Sitka spruce maiden (Picea sitchensis) BAR06 Wych elm, stunted maiden? Singled coppice? (Ulmus glabra) Estimated stem origin date (allowing for any PO and sample height – rate 1m height takes 5-10 yrs) c.2000 Unclear core Number of measured rings +sv = outer ring spring vessels only Central ring present & measured? If No, est Pith Offset Measured to bark edge? Measured ring span (i) 12+sv PO-7 Y 2007-2019 (ii) 17+sv PO-5 Y 2002-2019 c.1995 NX Sample height (m) Girth at 1.3m height (m) 68806 50753 0.9 1.26 68919 50804 1.1 1.52 61+sv PO-1 Y 1958-2019 c.1948-53 68728 50681 1.3 1.67 (stool circumf 6m) 71+sv PO-7 Y 1948-2019 c.1929-35 68882 50848 1.05 1.15 51+sv PO-7 Y 1968-2019 c.1951-56 68885 50850 1.0 1.52 47+sv PO-2 Y 1972-2019 c.1960-65 68759 50699 0.72 1.33 53+sv PO-6 Y 1966 -2019 c.1953-57 In Table 1, key attributes of the core samples are given, including the calendar dated span of the measured ring sequences. The tree ring width sequences were recorded using the DENDRO programme suite (Tyers 1999) following the English Heritage Dendrochronology Guidelines (1999). This approach improved the accuracy of the ring counts by revealing and resolving problematic parts of the sequences, for example where very narrow or unclear rings occurred. The resulting dendrodated ring spans were then adjusted to allow for any missing central rings from the core (using the Pith Offset estimate or PO) and for the estimated number of years it would have taken the young sapling tree to reach sampling height after germinating: the estimate used is very approximate at 1 to 2 years for every 10 cm of height gained, or 5 to 10 years to reach 1m height (Mills 2011) - the height at which most of the core samples were taken. Actual vertical growth rates are hugely variable depending on whether the sapling was raised in a nursery (which they probably were for FC and earlier planted trees), where the rates could be faster, or whether growing out in a wood experiencing grazing damage or other negative influences on growth such as competition or shading, where they could be considerably slower. The results of the dendrochronological work are considered below. Dendrochronology results and interpretation The results can be considered in two groups: firstly the maiden (ie single-stemmed) trees from the relatively recent plantings, BAR02 (sitka spruce), BAR04 (beech) and BAR05 (sitka spruce); and www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 18 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 secondly the more complex multi-stem forms of trees thought to originate from earlier plantings, BAR01 (oak coppice), BAR03 (sweet chestnut coppice) and BAR06 (wych elm, unusual form). According to the Forestry Commission stock map for Barhill Wood, their plantings were undertaken in 1953 for the main wood and in 1962 for Janet’s Plantation. Our sampled maiden trees were all in the main wood (Illus 3) and the dendrochronological results for BAR02 and BAR04 tally well with this information. Note that the dendrochronological results determine sprouting date while the FC records show planting out date. Tree saplings would be raised in a nursery and planted out usually around 3 years of age. Thus, based on the FC information we would expect a sprouting date of around 1950 in the main wood. The dendrochronological results (Table 1) are 1948-53 for Sitka spruce BAR02 and 1951-56 for Beech BAR04. The ‘dendro’ ageing method, while very precise in terms of ring span dating, involves an estimate for the vertical growth rate, i.e. the number of years it takes the sapling to reach core sampling height, usually about 1m above ground surface. Ring patterns are too distorted near the root plate to sample close to the ground surface. Taking this into account, the dendrochronological results are within or very close to the expected date and are therefore encouraging in terms of the tree-ring method identifying the origin date reliably. The origin date result for Sitka spruce BAR05 is a little later at 1960-65. BAR05 is in the same part of the wood as BAR02 and BAR04 but has an origin date in line with the FC 1962 date for planting up Janet’s Plantation. It seems likely some enrichment planting was undertaken at that stage to fill gaps from the original 1953 planting of the main wood. The results from the other three sampled trees are more diverse. All three were thought to derive from the earlier, pre-FC, historic woodland cover, and oak BAR01 and sweet chestnut BAR03 are multi-stem forms which have definitely been coppiced. The core samples were taken from near the base of a coppice stem on each of these two trees, i.e. from a stem which has regrown since the last coppice cut. This gives a close indication of the date of the last coppice cut. In the case of oak BAR01 the result was c. 1995, while for the sweet chestnut BAR03 it was much earlier at 1929-1935. This difference was quite unexpected, with these trees being not far apart in the unplanted (by FC) strip to the west of the paddock (Illus 3). However, oak BAR01 is on the Barhill Wood western boundary bank with the open ‘lamb field’, whereas BAR03 is within the body of the wood. Therefore the likely explanation is that oak BAR01 was cut back when new fencing was introduced around Barhill Wood. Clearly the wood has been re-fenced within FC ownership times. The origin date for the sweet chestnut coppice stem BAR03 is between the First and Second World Wars, and this is probably when Barhill Wood, or some part of it at least, was last coppiced commercially. Sweet chestnut coppices still survive in SE England, and perhaps elsewhere, and fencing is one of their main products. The stem origin date result for Wych Elm BAR06 is different again, at 1953-57. The sample was taken low, below the emergence of the two stems (Illus 18). This tree was sampled because it was a possible candidate to be a surviving un-coppiced tree of the pre-FC cover. However, the analysis showed that it originated soon after the FC acquired the wood, and it seems most likely that it is natural regeneration that got away alongside the new FC plantings. More generally, we noted widespread young Wych Elms getting away underneath the plantation canopy, as it is a relatively shade-tolerant species. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 19 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 Documentary evidence: written records This HWA has assessed the scope for documentary evidence to contribute to understanding the history of Barhill Wood in further studies, rather than undertaking detailed archival research at this stage. Local enquiries revealed that the St Mary’s Isle estate papers were largely destroyed in a fire in the early 1940s. Local historian David Devereux advised of this situation and provided a summary of knowledge of the history of Barhill Wood from other sources. He indicated that it was understood to have been planted in the late 18th century by the Earl of Selkirk, or more specifically by Lord Daer, then managing the estate for his father. This certainly ties in well with the map and plan evidence outlined above and in Appendix 1, although there is also map evidence to suggest there had also been woodland cover here in an earlier era, but apparently largely lost by the mid-18th century. In the absence of estate records, the Old and New Statistical Accounts of Scotland entries for Kirkcudbright parish provide particularly valuable insights. In the Old Statistical Account there is an account of the ‘Forest Trees’ in the parish (Sinclair 1794, 7-8): ‘Besides the various useful improvements in husbandry, which are carried on in the parish, these which are adapted for ornament, as well as utility, should not to be omitted. The Earl of Selkirk has planted, with great taste and judgement, several hundred acres, with various kinds of forest trees, such as oaks, beeches, ashes, elms, birches, chestnuts, sycamores, hornbeams, rowans, walnuts, larches, together with different sorts of pines, as Scotch, black and white, and American spruce, silver fir and balm of Gilead. He has also reared a nursery, consisting of 15 acres of ground, which, contains more than a million of plants, all in a most thriving condition, and soon to be transplanted for cherishing and beautifying various other fields.’ The species list quoted above includes many of the species still present at Barhill Wood, although notably we did not see any walnut or Balm of Gilead. A local participant on one of our guided walks said that there is a mature walnut tree in a garden in Kirkcudbright which does bear nuts. The Old Statistical Account goes on to relate further investments in establishing orchards and fruit trees in the parish (Sinclair 1794, 8): ‘His Lordship has likewise laid out an extensive orchard of fruit trees, for the purpose of establishing a small orchard at every farm house. A few years ago, there was not a single fruit tree to be seen in any part of the parish, except what grew about St Mary’s Isle. Some vestiges of old orchards scattered up and down, are still to be traced, but neither trees nor fruit are anywhere to be found. They must have gone into decay near a century ago. … In short from the various improvements made, and still carrying on, the face of this country will, in the course of a few years, be totally changed. It will assume a most beautiful appearance. The most charming landscapes will strike the eye, and afford delightful subjects for the poet’s fancy, and the painter’s pencil.’ While the latter entry is not specifically about Barhill, it does demonstrate a considerable estate interest in restoring productive trees in the parish, at a time when woodland seems to have become scarce in the area. This is reflected in the map evidence (see above and Appendix 1). www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 20 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 This scenario is further described and explained in the Rev. Samuel Smith’s treatise on the Agriculture of Galloway (Smith 1810, 176-80), written very much from an ‘Improvement’ perspective. It provides some fascinating and relevant information regarding the selection of areas for plantation and how this fits with the wider agricultural land-use. Therefore, the sections on the Earl of Selkirk’s plantations around Kirkcudbright are quoted at length, because they explain much of what we observed in the field. ‘The plantations of the Earl of Selkirk are more extensive. They cover upwards of eight hundred Scotch acres, and are so finely diversified, as to convey the idea of a still greater extent. The general plan upon which they are laid out, was formed, and the execution of them begun, by the late Earl, about thirty-five years ago. To his Lordship’s taste they do great honour. Although designed at a period, when the public taste in matters of this kind, was far less fastidious than at present, it may safely be asserted, that they will bear to be tried by the principles even of Mr Price. ‘The late Earl had executed only a small part of the plan when, in the year 1786, he transferred the management of his estate to his son, Lord Daer, who immediately made the most judicious arrangements for carrying on this branch of his improvements. The estate was most accurately surveyed, and all the ground intended to be planted marked out. Perceiving, that many advantages would arise from raising the plants up on the spot, he formed a nursery of about twenty acres, which was very speedily stocked with plants suited to the soil and climate. A portion of the ground previously marked out, varying in extent according to circumstances, was then inclosed and planted annually; beginning with the grounds most contiguous to St Mary’s Isle, and gradually extending to the remoter parts of the estate. This mode of proceeding, has been steadily pursued for upwards of twenty years, and the plan has been now nearly completed by the present Earl. ‘By the method described, it will appear obvious, that there would not only be a great saving of expense, by the constant employment afforded at all seasons, to nearly the same number of labourers ; in the management of the nursery ; in forming inclosures ; planting, weeding, pruning, etc, but, what is of still greater consequence, that the labourers having acquired skill and dexterity, by long experience under the direction of an intelligent overseer, would execute every part of the work with much greater judgment and precision. ‘Previous to these improvements, the country in the neighbourhood of Kirkcudbright was extremely naked, and the astonishing alteration produced in the appearance of it, can only be conceived by those who have had an opportunity of seeing it in its former, and in its present state; but abstracting altogether from ornament, it is probable, that they will ultimately be a source of profit. ‘To those who take an interest in matters of taste, a more minute account of the principles, which have been attended to, in laying out the plantations, may be acceptable. ‘Considerations of utility and ornament, concurred in determining the selection of unarable banks on the steep sides of hills, and of rocky knolls near their summits. Steep banks which are inconvenient, for tillage are of course less valuable, and may be given up for planting without so great a sacrifice, as land of equal fertility in other situations; while, on the other hand, there is no place where trees thrive so well, or where a wood of moderate extent, can produce so much www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 21 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 picturesque effect. Upon the summits of high land, though trees do not grow so rapidly, they produce a shelter which adds to the value of the adjoining lands. At the same time, it may be observed, that in any hilly country, fringes of wood irregularly skirting the horizon produce an interesting and varied scenery. In laying out each plantation, the object chiefly attended to, was to preserve the effect of a natural wood; and for this purpose, the outlines of the plantation, were adapted to the natural form of the ground. In most of the natural woods which remain in Galloway, we may observe, that the trees and brush wood, extend as far as the ground is steep or rocky, while the land fit for tillage has been cleared and cultivated ; and in consequence of the irregular boundary of different soils, we find glades of cultivated land, projecting into the woods, and detached woody knolls interspersed among the adjacent fields, producing altogether an interesting and singularly beautiful variety. The picturesque effects, which had thus arisen from accident, it was Lord Selkirk’s aim to imitate, and in most instances the means of effecting this, were pointed out by the marks of the plough. In the former rude state of agriculture, little pains had been taken to bring into cultivation, any land which was not naturally accessible, and the steep or rocky banks had been left untouched in the midst of arable fields. If these neglected patches could have been planted exactly to the boundaries which the plough had reached, they would have produced the same effect as if the natural wood had never been cleared. The difficulty arose from the necessity of fencing the plantation effectually from cattle. To inclose every bank or knoll separately, would have required an immoderate extent of fences. This was obviated by inclosing within one fence a groupe, or chain of knolls, along with the arable land which was interspersed among them, and which was in some cases left unplanted as glades in the woods, and sometimes was planted, in order to give dress to the different knolls, which might otherwise have appeared too unconnected. The boundaries of the plantations, however, were in all cases carried as nearly as possible along the boundary of the arable land; and though it afterwards required a greater length of fences to follow the intricate varieties of the ground, yet the picturesque effect which was gained, was thought a sufficient inducement for this sacrifice. ‘In one respect the effect has not proved equal to the intention. The fences which divide the plantations from the pasture fields, mark their termination with a distinct and hard outline, very different from the imperceptible gradation observed in the edges of natural woods. To remedy this defect, the present Earl of Selkirk has lately removed the fences of some of the plantations which are approaching to maturity, making new fences at a little distance concealed within the wood, and leaving a verge on the outside open to the field. The trees have attained to such a growth, that those which are left exposed to the pasturing stock are not likely to suffer. It would have been better, however, and more easily executed, if this interior fence had been made at the first, and the fence along the extreme boundary of the plantation had only been of a temporary nature, to be removed as soon as the outer verge of trees and brushwood had attained a certain degree of maturity, and also if this outer verge had been intermixed with a greater proportion of under-growths than the rest of the plantation.’ The relevant entry in the New Statistical Account of Scotland in 1845 shows how the plantations have developed since then (NSAS Vol 4, ‘The Parish of Kirkcudbright’ by Rev John McMillan, Minister). ‘The plantations are composed principally of oak, ash, elm, beech, plane, Spanish-chestnut, larch, Scotch fir, spruce, and silver fir; and partially of alder, birch, hornbeam, horse-chestnut, walnut, gean [wild cherry], maple, lime, laburnum, Huntingdon willow, poplar, balm of Gilead fir, and pinaster. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 22 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 ‘There is little wood indigenous to the soil, with the exception of a few ash and mountain-ash trees in the glens of Glenlay and Bombie; and along the bank of the Dee, a little below and above the old bridge of Tongland. There are some oaks, in addition to the ash and rowan; and further up the river, within Culdoch, in the march of Netherthird, there are a few birch. ‘The other plants and shrubs natural to such localities are, the hazel, hawthorn, sloe, wild dogwood, crab, black-saugh, whin, broom, buckie, and bramble briars, rasp, honeysuckle, and ivy. In summary, the NSAS 1845 account depicts a parish with plantation trees as its principal wooded cover, with a planted species list very similar to that given in the Old Statistical Account. There is very little native woodland, with some limited ash, rowan (mountain-ash) and oak, though rather more woody shrubs including some thorny (graze-resistant) species still evident in the small thickets within hilly pasture land today. At about the same time, the Ordnance Survey First Edition name book for Kirkcudbrightshire provides a brief description of Barhill Wood and Janet’s Plantation: OS Name Book 1848-51 ‘Barhill A wood of tolerable extent consisting of fir, oak, ash (? unclear), and a few other sorts. It is on the estate of the Earl of Selkirk’. OS Name Book 1848-51 ‘Janet’s Plantation A small plantation situate on the left of and adjoining the road from Kirkcudbright to Auckinearn (? Spelling) the trees are chiefly ash, beech and oak. It is the property of the Earl of Selkirk’. The documentary evidence, although lacking any estate records, has provided useful insights into the wooded landscape history of the study area, and this will be considered further alongside the other lines of evidence in the discussion below. Discussion This project has assessed a range of sources of evidence for Barhill Wood, including historic maps, field assessment, dendrochronological results and documentary evidence, greatly assisted also by the sharing of local knowledge. Today, Barhill Wood is dominated by the mix of largely non-native broadleaf and conifer tree species planted by the Forestry Commission in the 1950s, but it has a much longer story to tell. The earliest site-specific evidence found is from historic cartography, with Bleau’s Atlas of 1654, based largely on Pont’s manuscript maps of the late 16 th century, showing woods at ‘Kirkland’ in what approximates to the position of Barhill Wood. However, by the time of Roy’s military survey in the mid-18th century, this area is largely treeless, and this corresponds with the documentary evidence of the late 18th and early 19th centuries describing a largely denuded landscape in this part of Galloway. Woodland returns through the hand of man, in fact through the plantation activity of the landowners, the Earls of Selkirk, with a massive phase of plantation spreading out from St Mary’s Isle into the surrounding estate lands after about 1786. The Old Statistical Account (Sinclair 1794) relates an extensive list of planted species introduced then, a mix of native and non-natives, and of broadleaves and conifers. Some of these species still persist at the site today, especially in the boundaries, as coppice forms in unplanted areas or in the understorey of the mid-20th century www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 23 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 plantings. The 18th century witnessed extensive plantations being introduced in Scotland as part of the ‘Improvement Era’ (Smout et al 2005). A treatise on the agriculture of Galloway (Smith 1810) provides some fascinating details on how the Earls of Selkirk’s late 18th century plantations were located, designed and enclosed. It was reassuring to read that information after we had come to much the same conclusion from the field and map work, ie that the plantations had been made on the bare rocky knolls between a series of old fields. Dykes were built to enclose and protect the plantations and to separate them from the fields, and many of those dykes still survive. However, most of the fields have been planted into in the 1950s. Smith (1810) talks of these being arable fields more generally on the estate, but in the case of Barhill it seems more likely that they were already part of a pastoral system. Indeed, the field between Barhill Wood and Silver Craigs Wood has survived and is still used for grazing cattle and sheep. Smith (1810) provides an interesting detail on the enclosure of the plantations, explaining that after the trees had become established, the fence line was moved a little way into the woodland edge so to soften the visual effect. We did see locations where there was more than one boundary bank, for example at the northern edge of Janet’s Plantation, and on the eastern side of Barhill Wood, probably the result of this process. What we are largely lacking is the evidence for the management of those plantations after they were established, and before the FC took over the management. The estate papers lost in a fire would no doubt have been hugely informative on this aspect. Given the prevalence of coppice form trees surviving from the old cover, many with large stools, it would seem likely that the plantations were managed as coppice, probably ‘coppice with standards’. The tree-ring evidence points to a last coppice cut between the First and Second World Wars and we cannot say for sure how long this coppice system prevailed beforehand. One relevant point is the former greater proportion of sweet chestnut in the wood, as evident from the many stumps which appear to be of this species, and they could have been a valuable coppice component, providing useful fencing material for example. There is relatively little oak in this wood, and therefore it seems unlikely to have been a predominantly oak coppice historically. The wood provides an excellent example of a place where cultural and natural history intertwine. There is built heritage within the wood, in the form of the enclosure dykes and even earlier traces of earthen field banks, which has not so far entered the archaeological record. There is also an early road preserved in the wood, which connects to the south east corner of old Kirkcudbright and runs roughly west to east through the wood, past the modern red squirrel hide and through into the fields to the east of the wood in the direction of Dumfries. Where it enters Silver Craigs wood from the town, it has the sunken appearance of a hollow-way, and is very likely to be at least medieval in date. While most other old routes radiating from Kirkcudbright eventually became tarmacked public roads, this one survived in its old pre-improvement form and is an important archaeological feature of the woods. One can still follow the old road through the wood, and there is even an old gateway across it within the wood, near the hide, marked by two veteran hornbeams which have survived within the 20th century plantings. In the twentieth century this old road route had become known as the Nine Stiles Walk, and is one of the old roads around Kirkcudbright investigated by former DGC Roads Engineer, Alex D Anderson and reported in a recent issue of TDGNHAS (Anderson 2018). www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 24 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 We have included a brief section on woodland management issues (usually beyond the scope of an HWA), in the spirit of supporting the local community in any future decisions, not least because the history of the wood is relevant to these considerations. The FC (now FLS) stated management objective (Stables 2009) is ‘gradual restoration to native woodland’, and usually this is something we would wholeheartedly endorse. However, Barhill has not been native woodland for a very long time, probably not since the 16th or 17th century at the very least, with a period of woodland absence in the 18th century, and as such is it is now a PAWS (Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site) with a very interesting history. A combination of the late 18 th century and mid-20th century plantings has produced a habitat with a mix of native and non-native trees and forms, and the planted conifers in particular have created good conditions for red squirrels to survive in. Many of these stands are mature in forestry terms and merit thinning or felling, but if focussed on removing the conifers in favour of native trees, this could have a detrimental effect on red squirrel food sources. Of course, managing for nature more widely is also important and a balance has to be struck between retaining the species mix and restoring the ecological integrity of the woodland. One option is that some of the small fields planted up in 1953, particularly those closely planted with beech in the southern end of the wood, could be opened up to provide glades which would favour the regeneration of an understorey and bluebells in particular. This would be likely to enhance both the biodiversity and the amenity values of the wood. What at first sight appeared to be a largely modern plantation has revealed an interesting landscape history, from woodland to open fields and back to woodland with different styles of planting and woodland management taking place from the 18th to the 20th centuries. Furthermore, there are the physical remains of a long-established integrated management system of agriculture and forestry, unusual in Scotland as a whole but no doubt more common in Galloway. Aspects of this system survive into the modern day with the use for grazing of the sheltered field between Barhill Wood and Silver Craigs Wood, that field also reported to have been used for lambing in the recent past. Many more such small sheltered fields survived within Barhill Wood until the mid-20th century, and they can still be identified with careful observation of the enclosure dykes and planting patterns. The tree planting has occurred before the use of heavy machinery and therefore much of the land surface and many built heritage features have survived intact within the footprint of the woods, adding to the interest of walking through them. It would be worthwhile considering the development of some interpretation materials regarding the cultural heritage aspects in due course. Acknowledgements We are extremely grateful to the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership for their support of this project, to Rathmell Archaeology for involving us to deliver it and to Forestry and Land Scotland (formerly the Forestry Commission) for allowing the work, including the tree-coring, to take place on their land. Our thanks go to those individuals who helped us with this project including Rob Asbridge, Alan Crawford, Jude Crooks, David Devereux, Helen Keron, Archie McConnel, Thomas Rees, Lyndy Renwick and Claire Williamson. Thanks also to the National Library of Scotland Map Library and the Stewartry Museum for provision of map sources. We are also grateful to the many public event participants for their input and enthusiasm. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 25 PUBLIC Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment V4 | Mills & Quelch 2019 References Anderson, AD 2018 'Some old roads in and around Kirkcudbright' TDGNHAS 92, pp 111-121. English Heritage 1999 Dendrochronology Guidelines http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/dendrochronology-guidelines/ Macleod, I 2002 The People of Kirkcudbright in 1786 and 1788: The Visitation Lists of the Rev. Robert Muter. The Stewartry Museum: Kirkcudbright. Mills CM 2011 ‘Old oak coppices, South Loch Katrine: their dendrochronology and history’. Report for FCS (Cowal and Trossachs Forest District) & Loch Lomond & Trossachs National Park Authority. Ordnance Survey 1st edition name books, Kirkcudbrightshire 1845-51 https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/ordnance-survey-name-books/kirkcudbrightshireos-name-books-1848-1851/kirkcudbrightshire-volume-151/28 Sinclair, J 1794 Statistical Account of Scotland Part XI, Number 1 ‘Parish of Kirkcudbright’ by Rev Robert Muter. Smith, Rev S 1810 General View of the Agriculture of Galloway. Richard Phillips; London. Smout, T C, MacDonald, A R & Watson, F 2005 A history of the native woodlands of Scotland 15001920. Edinburgh University Press. Stables, S 2009 Barhill, Kirkcudbright: Forest Design Plan. Forestry Commission report. Tyers, I 1999 Dendro for Windows Program Guide 2nd edition. ARCUS Report 50 www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 26 PUBLIC Appendix 1 Historic map analysis, Peter Quelch Joan Blaeu, 1654 and 1662 Blaeu’s atlas of 1654 which is based on Timothy Pont’s survey of the late 16th C, shows the rectangular outline of ‘Kirkcubright’ town in vivid red, with the castle adjacent. Immediately east of the town (Blaeu is printed with north to the RHS) are unenclosed woodlands close to the place-name Kirkland. This depiction of woodland is significant as the map otherwise only shows occasional distinctive woods, often in enclosed parks in the surrounding district. Joan Blaeu’s Atlas 1654 www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 27 PUBLIC Blaeu’s Atlas Major of 1662 has the same information presented slightly differently, with the Kirkland woods and also woodlands on ‘St Mary Yl’ being prominent. Archie McConnell (of the Dumfries Archival Mapping Project) reports that it is known that St Mary’s Isle has held woodlands since medieval monastic times, including some veteran Sweet Chestnut trees. Joan Blaeu’s Atlas 1662 www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 28 PUBLIC Herman Moll, 1745 Molls map of Kirkcudbrightshire is interesting for its place-names but does not show any woodland, so is of little help in dating the woodland at Kirkland. Herman Moll 1745 www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 29 PUBLIC Herman Moll 1745 www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 30 PUBLIC William Roy Military survey 1747-55 The military survey is a detailed and well-drawn map, showing the street pattern in Kirkcudbright town and all the surrounding agricultural enclosures, but does not depict any woodland on Kirkland hill. It is hard to say whether this means that any previously planted or natural origin woodlands (as shown on Pont and Blaeu’s survey) on Barhill were at a very low ebb or destroyed at that time, or whether it is an omission from a map which was mainly concerned with showing new agricultural enclosures near the town. My feeling is that in c1750 there were either no woods on Barhill or only sparse scrub left over from the late 16th C woodland cover shown on Pont/Blaeu. William Roy’s Military Survey 1747-55 www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 31 PUBLIC John Gillone 1776 The most authoritative plan found in this study is a ‘Plan of the Town of Kirkcudbright’ surveyed by ‘John Gillone, January 1776’. Interestingly the plan shows no planting at Barhill, either north or south of the ‘Road to Auchencairn’, which is the same road that Roy shows as the ‘Low road to Dumfries’. South of that road is labelled ‘Part of Barhill Farm’, while to the north is labelled ‘Part of Silver-Craigs Parks’. The hill has been surveyed to allow contours to be inserted on the plan, but no woodlands. Obviously, by the date of survey of 1776 the planting of Barhill wood had not yet taken place. However, as Archie McConnel (of DAMP) reminds us, the purpose of these late 18th C plans was to help the lairds and their land managers plan the details of land improvements including any new plantations. So, it seems likely that the planting of Barhill Wood and Janet’s Plantation took place within a few years after 1776, say around 1780. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 32 PUBLIC John Gillone 1776 (hand-traced copy made by Mr G Nicholson, provided by local historian David Devereux) www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 33 PUBLIC James and John Tate/Robert Heron, 1790 A second useful detailed plan is taken from Robert Heron’s book of his travels ‘Observations made in a journey through the Western Counties of Scotland in 1792’. The plan is printed as Plate IV entitled ‘An eye draught of Kirkcudbright and parts adjacent 1790’. It is known that James and John Tate (father and son) carried out these ‘eyedraught’ plans in Dumfries and Galloway, often for municipalities like Kirkcudbright. It is a sketch plan yet appears remarkably accurate, so it must be based on some measured survey, but depicted as if the surveyors were in a balloon! However, no doubt the Tates would have been given access to the detailed plan by Gillone carried out only 14 years before. The relevance to this study is that the Tate/Heron plan clearly shows the Barhill woods in splendid isolation and planted in an unusual star shape. When compared to the first edition OS 6 inch map, the prominent westwards extending arm of the star corresponds exactly, as does the spur to the SE which we found on the ground, now barely wooded and outside the current fence. The north spur is also identifiable as the triangular strip woodland E (see this survey’s map, Illus 3) running up to the ‘Paddock’. Strip woodland E (mostly DGC owned) is currently the most natural in character of all the woods in the Barhill complex, with some of the best old trees remaining as coppice stools, while the flora in parts is that of an ancient woodland. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 34 PUBLIC James and John Tate/Robert Heron 1790 (as reproduced in Macleod 2002) www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 35 PUBLIC John Ainslie, 1797 Ainslie’s map of the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright published in 1797 does indeed show two sets of woodland east of the town, with Barhill Wood firmly in place running north of Cannee, much as now. It is difficult to exactly trace the woodland boundaries on these older county maps as the roads and even the named farm locations are not the same as on the later accurate OS mapping of the post improvement landscape. However, clearly Barhill plantation has been created by the time of the Ainslie survey. Ainslie shows estate ownerships on his map and for St Mary’s Isle, and presumably for Barhill Farm too, the owner is the Earl of Selkirk. John Ainslie 1797 www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 36 PUBLIC John Thomson, 1821 As part of John Thomson’s Atlas of Scotland published in 1832, the sheet for Kirkcudbrightshire was published in 1821. It is similar to the older Ainslie survey but less detailed for the Kirkland woodland. It does however show a long wooded ridge from Auchenflower in the south to Mickle Kirkland in the north, and also a strip of separate woodland above the town (ie Silvercraigs wood) with an open field in between (this survey’s ‘Lamb field’). John Thomson 1821 www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 37 PUBLIC Ordnance Survey old maps (downloaded from NLS website) The first edition OS map for the study area was surveyed in 1850 and published in 1854. The map represents an accurate and reliable picture of the land after the main improvements have been carried out. The old road from Low Kirkland west to Kirkcudbright is shown and this road can be traced from the open field to the east of the current squirrel hide down to the hollow way, then through Silver Craig Wood down to Kirkcudbright. The OS map even shows ‘old fence’ on the line of this road in the field opposite the hide, while the raised bank of that old fence (or wall or hedge) and adjoining road is very visible on the ground. Further research finds that this is indeed the ‘low road between Kirkcudbright and Dumfries’ as marked on the Military survey c1750, and again on Gillone 1776 as ‘The Road to Auchencairn’. All maps later than Gillone show the public roads on this side of town much as now. The old road to Dumfries, where it meets Barhill wood close to the squirrel hide (photo PQ124) The other key point of the first edition OS is that it shows that Barhill woodland is only a solid block at its southern half, and even then there are substantial bare patches within the enclosure near the south end. These patches seen on the ground are flat with good soil and resemble small fields internally within the main enclosure. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 38 PUBLIC OS First Edition 6 inch surveyed 1850 At the centre and north of the woodland the narrow cultivable valleys between the wooded rocky ridges are shown as un-wooded on the first edition OS, and indeed also on the second edition OS revised in 1894. Janet’s Plantation on the north east side of the public road is however shown as a single enclosed block on the first edition OS, although both maps show strips of wooded ridges in the agricultural land east of that plantation. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 39 PUBLIC OS Second Edition 6 inch surveyed 1894 The second edition OS is also available at 25 inch to the mile scale and these maps show the unusual strip layout and also internal bare areas very clearly indeed. Around ten downloads from the NLS website were taken to capture the whole woodland study area. When blown up on screen they give a very clear picture of each internal and external boundary feature of the late 19th C woodland layout. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 40 PUBLIC OS Second Edition 25 inch surveyed 1894 (composite map from NLS website) The various editions of the OS at one inch to the mile are useful in showing the basic outline of Barhill wood. The first edition one inch (surveyed 1847) shows Barhill woodland, though not named, as an octopus shape with long tentacles to the north-east! www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 41 PUBLIC OS One inch First edition surveyed 1847 The second edition (s 1895) shows very much the same pattern, as does the third edition one inch (s 1902). OS One inch Second edition surveyed 1895 www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 42 PUBLIC OS One inch Third edition surveyed 1902 The Popular edition one inch map (s 1922) shows the same woodland layout but with the old road from Low Kirkland not being shown, but a new footpath route from Cannee to the town running across the south end of the wood. www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 43 PUBLIC OS One inch Popular edition, sheet 92, surveyed 1922 www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 44 PUBLIC Early aerial photography Finally, the aerial photographic view dated 1930 plainly shows the Octopus shape of Barhill woodland in the early 20th C. It was only two decades later that the FC replanted the whole woodland including the narrow internal fields, giving the mature plantation that we have today. Aerial view of Kirkcudbright and Barhill Woods in 1930 www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 45 PUBLIC List of old maps selected Pre-OS old maps and plans 1 Joan Blaeu 1654 2 Joan Blaeu 1662 3/4 Herman Moll 1745 5 William Roy 1747-55 6 John Gillone 1776 7 Robert Heron 1790 8 John Ainslie 1797 9 John Thomson 1821 OS large scale maps OS 1st Ed 6 inch (sheet 50) s1850, p1854 OS 2nd Ed 6 inch (sheet LV NW) s1894, p1896 OS 2nd Ed 25 inch composite s1894 OS small scale maps First Edition OS One inch, Sheet 5, s1847, p1857 Second Edition OS One inch, Sheet 5, s1895, p1897 Third Edition OS One inch, Sheet 5, s1902, p 1905 Popular Edition OS One inch, Sheet 92, s 1922, p1925 Aerial photograph View of Kirkcudbright with Barhill woods plainly visible, taken in c1930 www.dendrochronicle.co.uk PUBLIC 46 PUBLIC www.dendrochronicle.co.uk 47 PUBLIC www.dendrochronicle.co.uk 48  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 Woods, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_37 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 GGLP heritage https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/495/GGLP-Galloway-Glens-Biosphere-Experience-FINAL-Report-May-2020-Web.pdf 3d104ea0a59084aa60e61863b3eb585b 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 Biosphere Experience Final Project Report September 2018 – March 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 Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Final Project Report September 2018 – March 2020 = Company No. 200827 www.sup.org.uk registered in Edinburgh Charity No. SC029475 T:01750 725 154 THE SOUTHERN 1 Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project Report Contents Contents ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Who Was Involved in the Project? ........................................................................................................... 3 Objectives fit with LEADER Strategy and HLF Outputs........................................................................ 3 Funding......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Experience.......................................................................................................................................... 5 Delivery and Actions ................................................................................................................................... 5 Training and Networking ............................................................................................................................ 5 Events ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Tours ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Bus Tours ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Bike Tours ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Workshops ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Weekend Packages.................................................................................................................................. 10 Winter Birds in the Biosphere ............................................................................................................. 10 Kirkcudbright Artist’s Town: Past and Present ................................................................................. 11 Marketing ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 Social Media .............................................................................................................................................. 12 Marketing Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Outputs - LEADER.................................................................................................................................... 13 Outputs – HLF/Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme .................................................... 13 Budget ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 Achievements ............................................................................................................................................ 14 Lessons Learnt .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 15 Appendices List ............................................................................................................................................. 16 2 Company No. 200827 registered in Edinburgh Charity No. SC029475 T:01750 725 154 www.sup.org.uk Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project Report Introduction The project was developed to encourage local businesses, individuals and groups to explore opportunities to promote experiential tourism within the Galloway Glens landscape partnership area. We wanted to people to see how their skills and knowledge could provide a unique experience for visitors by immersing them in the history, culture, environment or art of the region. It was hoped that this would encourage collaboration between businesses to begin to offer packages of activities, accommodation and food to create a more bespoke experience for guests. If successful this would hopefully lead to improvement in local economy due to increased numbers of visitors and potentially job or training opportunities for young people in our rural communities who may not have considered tourism as a career path. Who Was Involved in the Project? The project was led by Southern Uplands Partnership (SUP) but worked closely with the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere and the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership to ensure any developments complimentary to existing initiatives were transferable over a wider area. A full-time project officer was recruited in September 2018 to manage the project. This involved networking with over 80 individuals, businesses and organisations including local accommodation providers, the creative sector, activity tourism businesses, local authority partners, NGO’s, community groups and tourism bodies. A list of the contacts made during the project can be found in the appendices. Objectives fit with LEADER Strategy and HLF Outputs Tourism is a vital part of the local economy and is one of three sub-sections of the economy theme set out in the LEADER Development Strategy 2014-2020. Experiential tourism is identified as part of the rationale for tourism and it is suggested that VisitScotland, D&G Outdoor Access Forum and Visit South West Scotland are the key partner bodies for this activity. The LDS also identifies the need to “promote mentoring in the creative/artisan culture” and to find “innovative ways of joining up local arts”. The project was designed to directly address this opportunity to tap potential in the region for “experiential” tourism products, ie high quality novel experiences, provided by local businesses and agencies that can be sold to the visitor. It was also intended to help create links between local arts and crafts people and to consider opportunities to promote local mentoring. An example might be a local artist or artisan who could run workshops for small groups, if they had the right skills, appropriate venue and suitable back-up (eg catering, toilets, insurance, etc,). These opportunities are often small scale, and their development requires local cooperation between businesses so that critical mass can be achieved. Company No. 200827 www.sup.org.uk registered in Edinburgh Charity No. SC029475 T:01750 725 154 3 Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project Report The project aimed to develop new products locally, and to use the UNESCO Biosphere and Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership project to give them an identity. It was important to give careful consideration to the most appropriate way of marketing the new products and we had a modest budget to help with this. An aspiration was that groups of businesses may apply for marketing assistance, e.g. Growth Fund, once they had products ready for market. Funding Funding came from a number of sources as detailed in the table below: Dumfries and Galloway LEADER Programme (49.99%) £36,843.00 Heritage Lottery Fund (Galloway Glens LPS) (38.54%) £28,400.00 Dumfries and Galloway Council (Area Committee) £3,166.50 Dumfries and Galloway Council £3,166.50 Southern Uplands Partnership £2,111.00 £73,687.00 4 Company No. 200827 registered in Edinburgh Charity No. SC029475 T:01750 725 154 www.sup.org.uk Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project Report Project Experience Delivery and Actions The project ran from September 2018 until March 2020. The project officer was employed on a full-time basis from September 2018 until January 2020 when they continued to work on the project on a part time basis (50% pro rata) until March 2020. The project aimed to deliver a marketing plan, a series of networking and training events and a programme of trial events, activities and packages which could be promoted to visitors. Training and Networking On Tuesday 4th October 2018 the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership hosted an event called Galloway Is Special as part of Dumfries and Galloway Business Week. The aim was to inform businesses about the opportunities presented by the UNESCO Biosphere and the Dark Sky Park designations. As part of that event there was a chance to give a short introduction to this project and it provided a good networking opportunity so early on in the process. A copy of the slides can be found in the appendices. The Galloway Glens team arranged a series of Business Academy events in 2019 in conjunction with Business Gateway. Rather than trying to duplicate these activities the project saw them as a good opportunity to signpost training opportunities to the businesses who had engaged with the project so far. The project officer was able to attend these and use them as a networking opportunity. 31st January – Maximising income from your accommodation business 28th February – Creative Businesses: New Ideas for Getting your Work to Market 29th April – Food Producers: Starting or Growing your Small Food Business 5th September – Accommodation Providers: Boosting Business Through Green Credentials 10th October – Retail Businesses: Driving Footfall Through Social Media Company No. 200827 www.sup.org.uk registered in Edinburgh Charity No. SC029475 T:01750 725 154 5 Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project Report On 10th June 2019 the project hosted an informal tourism discussion group with some invited local tourism providers. The aim was to open up communication channels between different providers and share ideas and best practice. This meeting was held at The Gallery at Laurieston and 10 people attended representing different tourism sectors. The group started with a round the room introduction and then moved on to look at some of the discussion points:         What is your opinion on the current state of tourism in our immediate area? What % of your business is made up of visitors vs locals What is your capacity for an increase in visitor numbers? If visitor numbers in the area doubled or tripled would your business have any constraints for dealing with this? Do you do any marketing specifically aimed at visitors before they arrive in the region? Is it working? What would you like to see happen in the region to attract more visitors? How can we make visitors more aware of events/activities/experiences on offer? How could businesses/groups/individuals work better together to improve tourism for all? The discussion was informal with notes recorded on a flip chart as people spoke allowing the conversation to flow freely around the topics. All of the group agreed that it had been a useful exercise and had created new networking opportunities. A full transcript of the discussion can be found in the appendices. 6 Company No. 200827 registered in Edinburgh Charity No. SC029475 T:01750 725 154 www.sup.org.uk Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project Report Events As part of the project a number of tourism events took place to establish the demand and feasibility of running these on a more commercial basis. Working with already established and newer tourism businesses it was a good opportunity to encourage networking and collaboration. A summary of the events can be seen in the table. More details about each are given in the next section. Event Date Businesses Attendees Attendees Cost Engaged D&G Non D&G run PP to Castles & Lochs Bus Tour 2/4/19 1 11 0 £10.90 Loch Ken Bus Tour 11/4/19 1 0 0 N/A Glens & Lochs Cycle Tour 1/5/19 1 0 0 N/A Laurieston Loop Cycle Tour 5/5/19 2 0 0 N/A Winter Birds In The Biosphere 31/1/20- 4 0 8 £286.55 Weekend 2/2/20 Make Your Own Herbal Ointment 27/02/20 2 10 0 £23.50 An Introduction to Permaculture 12/03/20 3 6 4 £40.60 Kirkcudbright Artists Town: Past 20/3/20- 6 7 booked 2 booked Covid 19 & Present Weekend 22/3/20 Foraging For Medicinal Herbs 24/03/20 and Composting Creating A Mandela Garden With 26/03/20 Permaculture Cancelled 2 3 12 booked 0 Covid 19 (2 wait list) Cancelled 11 booked 0 Covid 19 (2 wait list) Cancelled Tours The first events targeted by the project were guided tours. It was felt that single day or part day tours were an established business model in other areas of the country. There appeared to be an opportunity to trial similar offerings within the project area which would identify potential routes and themes. The cost of hiring transport to run single day tours is a barrier to entry in this market, in other parts of the UK these types of businesses typically run their own fleet of vehicles. Additionally, in areas with a high footfall of tourists it is easier for tour operators to fill tours with on the day bookings. Our model locally would likely need to rely on advance bookings from visitors to ensure each tour was viable financially. Company No. 200827 www.sup.org.uk registered in Edinburgh Charity No. SC029475 T:01750 725 154 7 Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project Report Bus Tours Having made contact with Solway Tours who specialise in small group history-based tours we agreed to trial two 1-day routes. The idea was to provide visitors with a snapshot of the area with a knowledgeable local guide. Solway Tours operate their own 16 seat mini bus and agreed to run the two tours at a reduced rate to assess the demand. These were scheduled for 2nd and 11th April. The first tour focussed on a few of the castles and tower houses in the area and had a history focus. The second tour was more general taking in some of the history, nature and culture around Loch Ken. Uptake for the tickets was slow, the first tour was attended by 11 people mainly consisting of other tourism providers in the area who were invited to experience the trip and be able to talk about it to visitors. The second tour was cancelled due to lack of interest. Feedback from the first tour was excellent with an average overall rating of 9.4/10. Particular praise was given to the guide experience and the small group atmosphere. Bike Tours The project had also connected with Galloway Cycling Holidays who provide guided and self-guided cycling itineraries for visitors as well as a bike hire service. We were keen to trial some shorter guided trips which would take place in the Galloway Glens area but aimed at leisure cyclists. Bike hire was also available if required. These were scheduled for early May. There was no uptake for the 3 advertised tour routes and on reflection the business and project officer felt that there was a gap in the marketing that didn’t target the casual cyclist effectively; and that there is potential for guided tours of this sort but they need to identify if they are designed for regular cyclists or those with no experience and market accordingly. Galloway Cycling continue to promote their eBike fleet to encourage the less confident cyclist to join in. 8 Company No. 200827 registered in Edinburgh Charity No. SC029475 T:01750 725 154 www.sup.org.uk Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project Report Workshops A number of workshops were organised in February and March 2020. These were themed around using herbs for medicinal purposes and the principles of permaculture in gardening. It was felt that both of these topics linked well with the principles of the Biosphere and we were well supported by two local experienced practitioners in these areas. The first was a practical workshop, teaching participants how to make their own herbal ointment for medicinal use. Local herbalist Alex Ross led the session and provided the necessary materials. The group consisted of 10 people who all left with their own marigold ointment to use. The feedback was excellent with an average score of 9.8/10 and particular praise for the knowledge of Alex. Alex Ross was scheduled to lead a herbal foraging walk at Barrhill Woods in Kirkcudbright. This had a focus on picking herbs and plants that had medicinal purposes. It was felt that foraging for food has become more popular in recent years and medicinal foraging was a new approach. The walk was very popular and places were fully booked with a waiting list. Unfortunately, this event had to be cancelled due to the COVID-19 outbreak. There were also plans to run two permaculture practical sessions. Local permaculture tutor Lusi Alderslowe created full day taster sessions on composting and creating a mandala garden. The composting session was held at the Garroch Walled Garden (a Galloway Glens Project) in March 2020 where the group spent some time discussing the principles of permaculture and the practicalities of composting. They then proceeded to build a batch composting system which will be able to be used by the community garden. The average feedback score was 9.7/10 with participants really enjoying the practical aspect of the day. The mandala garden session was set to take place at Ironmacannie Mill, a permaculture site. Sadly, this event also had to be cancelled due to the COVID-19 outbreak, it had been fully booked with a waiting list. There seems to be a demand for hands-on, small group events with a focus on sustainable, natural principles. This fits well with the local environment in our area and also the ethos of the Biosphere. The challenge is making visitors aware of such opportunities and making places available for booking. There may be an opportunity for accommodation providers who have suitable facilities to host such events and promote them to their guests as well as opening up additional places to local people. Feedback summaries from each of the events that took place can be found in the appendices. Company No. 200827 www.sup.org.uk registered in Edinburgh Charity No. SC029475 T:01750 725 154 9 Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project Report Weekend Packages We were able to put together a couple of packaged weekends towards the end of the project period. The project funding was used to cover the costs of the guides, transport and incidental costs making this an attractive prospect for visitors. Winter Birds in the Biosphere The first was a birdwatching weekend which took place from Friday 31st January to Sunday 2nd February 2020. The accommodation and meals were provided by the Selkirk Arms Hotel in Kirkcudbright, the guide was ex RSPB manager Chris Rollie and the bus and driver were arranged through Glenkens Community Transport. Guests arrived on Friday and were met by guide Chris for a welcome drink and a two-course evening meal. Afterwards Rick Taylor from the South of Scotland Golden Eagle Project gave a talk about their work to reintroduce eagles to this part of Scotland. Saturday was a full day of birdwatching in the local area. After breakfast everyone collected their packed lunches from the hotel and set off on the bus. We visited sites including Threave Estate (National Trust for Scotland), Ken Dee Marshes (RSPB), the Red Kite Feeding Station and Cally Palace and Woods (MacMillan Hotels). Saturday evening was spent enjoying another meal in the hotel with and after dinner talk on Robert Burns and Birds by Chris Rollie. Sunday morning was spent around Kirkcudbright visiting the Red Squirrel Hide at Barrhill Woods (A Galloway Glens project) and taking a walk along the river Dee. Returning to the hotel for a light lunch before guests departed in the afternoon. 10 Company No. 200827 registered in Edinburgh Charity No. SC029475 T:01750 725 154 www.sup.org.uk Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project Report 57 species of bird were recorded over the weekend despite some challenging weather conditions. The weekend was attended by 8 guests travelling from Ayrshire, Cumbria, Lancashire and Derbyshire. The feedback was excellent with an average score of 9.6/10. A full feedback summary can be found in the appendixes. The cost to run per person was £286.55 based on a group of 8 people. Research shows that similar packages in other parts of the UK cost around £350. This makes the weekend a profitable option if it can be marketed effectively. Kirkcudbright Artist’s Town: Past and Present The second weekend package was due to run from 20th-22nd March 2020 was also based in the Selkirk Arms Hotel in Kirkcudbright. Led by Fiona Lee of Kirkcudbright Art Tours and incorporating other local artists and businesses in the programme. This event was not able to go ahead as planned due to the COVID-19 outbreak restricting travel and closing some attractions. Guests were due to arrive on Friday and be given a local art map at check in allowing them to start exploring the area at their leisure. Friday evening’s schedule consisted of a meal hosted by Fiona followed by a talk. The talk was to be delivered by local art historian David Steel who shared his knowledge of artists who have painted in the area and the landscapes that inspired them. Saturday morning would have been spent on a guided tour of Kirkcudbright with Fiona. The tour visits the oldest part of the town including studios and houses that have hosted a huge variety of artists over the years. This includes a visit to Broughton House, Edwardian home of the famous Glasgow Boy, E.A. Hornel. The afternoon should have been spent in Kirkcudbright Galleries where a ticket to the visiting Scottish Portrait Awards was included. The impressive permanent collection in the gallery gives visitors the chance to see the work of some of the artists they would hear about during the morning tour. Saturday evening would have comprised of another hosted dinner and then a presentation by local textile designer Morag MacPherson displaying some of her Kimono and fabric designs and the inspiration from her travels to Japan. Sunday morning should have been spent in the company of local landscape painter Elizabeth Gilbey who would accompany the group on a bus tour of some of the local bays and secluded spots favoured by artists. Elizabeth talks about how artists worked outdoors and the challenges and rewards of “en plein air” painting. This would have finished off with a visit to Elizabeth’s studio to see some of her current work and a chance to enjoy a packed lunch. Company No. 200827 www.sup.org.uk registered in Edinburgh Charity No. SC029475 T:01750 725 154 11 Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project Report Marketing Social Media As part of the project a Facebook page was set up called Experience Galloway. The page aims were to promote activities and events taking place in the Galloway Glens area which may be of interest to visitors. It was also hoped that it could be used as a way of raising awareness amongst tourism businesses about the other offerings in the area. The page was a useful tool for listing events and using paid advertising to market these to specific audiences. The paid advertising campaigns used on Facebook can be seen in the table below: Campaign name Event: Castles and Towers in the Galloway Glens Event: Loch Ken Day Tour Event: Glens and Lochs - Guided Cycle Tour Event: Winter Birds in the Biosphere [04/12/2019] Promoting http://www.gsabiosphere.org.uk/explorethe-biosphere/biosphere-experiences/birdwatching-weekend/ Event: Kirkcudbright Artists' Town, Past & Present [07/01/2020] Promoting http://www.gsabiosphere.org.uk/explorethe-biosphere/biosphere-experiences/birdwatching-weekend/ Event: Make Your Own Herbal Ointment Event: An Introduction to Permaculture and Composting Event: Creating a Mandela Garden with Permaculture Event: Foraging For Medicinal Herbs Event: Kirkcudbright Artists' Town, Past & Present [06/03/2020] Promoting http://www.gsabiosphere.org.uk/explorethe-biosphere/biosphere-experiences/kirkcudbright-art-weekend/ [06/03/2020] Promoting http://www.gsabiosphere.org.uk/explorethe-biosphere/biosphere-experiences/kirkcudbright-art-weekend/ Event: Inspirations from Japan with Morag MacPherson Cost Per Clicks Reach Click Spend 148 3570 £0.14 £20.00 145 3574 £0.10 £15.00 88 2310 £0.17 £15.00 30 1555 £0.67 £20.00 69 63 1898 4174 £0.14 £0.48 £9.90 £30.00 53 14 16 14 30 35 2768 1217 494 940 639 2899 £0.19 £0.71 £0.11 £0.45 £0.08 £0.60 £9.91 £10.00 £1.79 £6.35 £2.52 £21.00 2 64 £0.17 £0.33 160 1 2966 356 £0.07 £1.21 TOTAL £11.99 £1.21 £175.00 Marketing Plan As part of the project outputs a draft marketing plan was created which could be used to develop a marketing strategy for future initiatives. A number of marketing activities were undertaken to promote the tours and events that took place including social media advertised, printed flyers and posters, press releases, email marketing through business partners and website listings on the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere website. See appendices for a copy of the marketing plan and examples of some the advertising that took place. 12 Company No. 200827 registered in Edinburgh Charity No. SC029475 T:01750 725 154 www.sup.org.uk Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project Report Conclusions Outputs - LEADER Target Result LAG List Target Actual Number of new jobs created 1 1 Number of individuals trained/gaining new skills or re-skilled 10 16 Target Actual Number of businesses supported to diversify 10 4 Number of businesses supported to grow 10 3 Number of projects supporting the development of tourism businesses across the 1 1 1 1 Number of projects supporting the development of the arts and culture sectors 1 1 Number of projects that –enhance these environments –support the sustainable use 1 1 Number of projects supporting nature based tourism initiatives 1 1 Number of projects developing initiatives to raise awareness of the diverse 1 1 1 1 Non-Participant Activity Target Result LAG List region Number of projects supporting the development of environmental, nature-based, cultural, activity and experiential tourism of any of these environments –demonstrate the value of these environments to the lives of the people of Dumfries and Galloway landscapes, habitats and species of Dumfries and Galloway Number of projects developing urban/rural relationships Outputs – HLF/Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme Target Project Outputs Workshops (attendees) Training Participation Training Tourism and Business Development Fte job created for 3 years More visitors attracted? Local people and visitors have a better understanding of the heritage Businesses/groups connected Average Social Media reach of tourism events in area Company No. 200827 www.sup.org.uk registered in Edinburgh Charity No. SC029475 T:01750 725 154 0.5 Actual 49 16 1 0.5 79 79 10 200 13 Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project Report Budget Item Budget Spend Project Officer (1FTE salary and on-costs) Laptop, phone and IT Travel Meetings, Marketing and PR £48,758.50 £1,300.00 £3,420.00 £9,880.00 £10,328.50 £73,687.00 £43,909.68 £1,369.33 £1,675.02 £2,216.30 £6,1777.08 £55,347.41 Project management TOTAL Achievements All of the activities that ran as pilots were very well received by attendees. Feedback summaries for each event can be found in the appendixes. In general people liked the small groups, knowledgeable group leaders and the local focus. Generally, the participants were from Dumfries and Galloway but the feedback suggests that this would be of interest to tourists too. Overall, there has been good networking between businesses, community groups and individuals. The project has been successful in helping to build working relationships that did not already exist. It is hoped that these networks will continue to function and expand as a legacy of the project. There has been an increased momentum towards the final six months of the project with more businesses approaching and expressing an interest in being involved. This highlights that there is an enthusiasm within tourism businesses to develop their offering and work together for greater benefit. The workshops events running in the last three months of the project proved very popular and all booked up extremely quickly. Sadly, the COVID-19 outbreak meant some of these could not go ahead but they have shown there is demand for these types of activities. The project has also been well placed to raise awareness of the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere. A number of businesses have signed up as Proud Supporters as a result of the project and are actively talking about the Biosphere in their own marketing activity. This is a key opportunity for businesses to capitalise on a world renowned designation and use it to attract more visitors. Lessons Learnt One of the biggest challenges for the project was the timescale. Trying to develop tourism activities within the 18 months project life meant that there was only 1 full summer season during the course of the work. It was difficult to get buy in from tourism providers at the very start of the project as they preferred to wait and see how it developed. Having a second summer season within the project would have been hugely beneficial to the piloting work. Connected to the project timescale issues was the speed of networking. The project officer was new to the sector and therefore nearly all networking was starting from cold contacts. This had an inevitable impact on the ability to push out trial activities at the beginning. The networking really started to prove fruitful after 14 Company No. 200827 registered in Edinburgh Charity No. SC029475 T:01750 725 154 www.sup.org.uk Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project Report around 12 months on the project when more people started to express an interest in working with the project. One of the key features of this area is the number of people running ‘lifestyle’ businesses. Many have moved here in semi-retirement or for a change of career direction and others run activities as a hobby or side to their main business. This meant that capacity was an issue as often those who offered an interesting experience for visitors were not motivated to expand the number or size of groups. It was also noticeable that many of these businesses took an extended break over the winter months reducing the opportunity to offer out of season itineraries. It would have been good to see more awareness of other projects running locally through the Galloway Glens scheme or LEADER funding and to explore potential synergies. There currently isn’t a formal channel to raise awareness of each projects work and there were certainly some areas where activities overlapped. This project has interacted with a number of other Galloway Glens projects throughout its duration, but this could have been more effective with earlier inter project networking. From a logistical perspective the Package and Linked Travel Arrangements legislation 2018 has given some restrictions on what could be offered through the project. There is a real opportunity to offer small group, niche packages with specific themes throughout the year. However, the organiser of the package needs to comply with the insurance and financial regulations to ensure traveller security. The Biosphere team are currently exploring the feasibility of developing a social enterprise that complies with the requirements enabling them to sell direct. Summary In summary the project can be viewed as a success. Despite some challenges with the timescale and networking needed, a good range of activities were investigated during the course of the project. There were opportunities to create new business networking opportunities and generate ideas amongst existing tourism providers. It is hoped that through the Biosphere team, these connections will continue to work together to build on the progress made so far. Having a globally recognised designation like the UNESCO Biosphere in the region is an ideal opportunity to promote this part of the world more widely and develop a series of packages for visitors that embrace sustainability, local knowledge and the great outdoors. The project successfully showed that there is a need locally for an organisation such as the Biosphere, to coordinate tourism packages and assist small businesses with the networking and marketing aspects that come with trying to promote these more widely. Having a resource that can help with the logistics and communications to the travel industry and visitors would allow the activity and accommodation providers to focus on their own business and service levels. Company No. 200827 www.sup.org.uk registered in Edinburgh Charity No. SC029475 T:01750 725 154 15 Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project Report Appendices List Appendix 1 – Contact List Appendix 2 – D&G Business Week 2018 Slides Appendix 3 – Transcript of Tourism Discussion Group June 2019 Appendix 4 – Feedback from Bus Tour April 2019 Appendix 5 – Feedback from Birdwatching Weekend Jan 2020 Appendix 6 – Feedback from Herbal Ointment Workshop Feb 2020 Appendix 7 – Feedback from Permaculture Composting Workshop Mar 2020 Appendix 8 – Marketing Plan Appendix 9 – Facebook Marketing Activity Examples Appendix 10 – Activities Flyer Example 16 Company No. 200827 registered in Edinburgh Charity No. SC029475 T:01750 725 154 www.sup.org.uk Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project Aims To help local businesses and agencies work together to promote the Galloway Glens as a vibrant and dynamic UNESCO Biosphere tourism destination. Developing existing and new visitor experiences based on the cultural, artistic and natural heritage of the region. Project Supported By: Niche Markets  Agri-tourism  Ancestry tourism  Eco-tourism (wildlife and nature)  Gastronomy tourism  Photography and art tourism  Historical tourism  Adventure tourism Example Itinerary – Nature Tourism  RSPB Ken-Dee Marshes Reserve  Nocturnal Wildlife Tour with Keith Kirk  Explore the Red Kite Trail  Visit the Osprey viewing site at Threave Castle  A day of photography with Scottish Photography Hides  A day out with a local wildlife ranger Value Of Nature Tourism Trips Nights Spend Visitors From UK 630,000 2.8m £208m Day Visitors 410,000 n/a £14m Visitors From Overseas 80,000 0.72m £54m TOTAL 1.12m 3.5m £276m Source: The Economic Impact of Wildlife Tourism in Scotland, Scottish Government Report 63% of people are attracted to D&G for the Scenery & Landscape Source: Scotland Visitor Survey 2015 & 2016, Visit Scotland 32% of visitors had undertaken a wildlife or birdwatching activity during their visit Case Study – www.visitouterhebrides.co.uk  Community Interest Company  Independent but works closely with Visit Scotland and Highlands and Islands Enterprise  Funded by membership subscriptions and funding from other sources  Runs a tourism website and other wider marketing initiatives  Website offers a number of themed trails including:  Photography  Birds of Prey  Food and Drink  Bonnie Prince Charlie  Architecture  Option to self book or contact a local tour operator  Listings for local businesses on each island including accommodation, eateries and attractions Added Value  What can you offer to bring added value to the tourism experience?  Maps  Local Knowledge  Interesting views or wildlife  Personal Recommendations  Links with other local businesses  Extra touches for guests Next Steps  Follow us on Facebook – Experience Galloway  Email me – laura@sup.org.uk  Speak to me tonight and leave your contact details I will keep you updated on the progress of the project as we move forward Tourism Discussion Group – Monday 3rd June Attendees: Laura Davidson – Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Phil McMenemy – The Gallery at Laurieston Elizabeth Tindal – Freelance Ranger Keith Kirk – Nocturnal Wildlife Experiences Jo Gallant – Textile Designer Hazel Campbell – Artist Margaret Milligan – Artist Harriet Williams – Galloway Activity Centre Sarah-Jane Allsop – Heart of Galloway • • • • • • • • • • • • Group started with a welcome and thanks to host Phil McMenemy then a round the room introduction PM stated that he often felt isolated and appreciated the chance to connect and discuss issues in this format, that was backed up by JG and MM. There was a discussion around the types of tourist that used each of the businesses, the arts based activities saw a largely older demographic with niche interests while the outdoor based activities tended to attract a wider age range including families. SJA stated that families in the visitor centre were often looking for free or low cost activities to take part in KK shared some examples of people who had travelled long distances to take part in his activities but due to a lack of geographical awareness they were often booking accommodation a long distance away, in one case Cumbria as google had suggested it was close to D&G. It was discussed that visitors are often not aware of the issues around the rural road network and that times and distances do not always match up to online suggestions. MM raised the issue of needing a tourism newspaper for visitors to be able to find out what is on locally. SJA agreed that this was something that was asked for in the visitor centre. KK confirmed that a what’s on guide had been tried in the past with limited success. It was agreed that such a guide needed to be current, well distributed and comprehensive. There was a discussion around accommodation providers and a general feeling that there was a lack of high quality accommodation for visitors who were prepared to spend a little more on their stay. It was also raised that accommodation was difficult for larger groups of visitors are there were very few hotels with a room capacity to handle a coach trip. It was also felt that food and drink provision was lacking in the late afternoon/early evening for travellers who may be passing through or families with young children. SJA felt this showed Castle Douglas in a poor light and would not encourage people to linger or return to the area. PM talked about the Kirkcudbright Art Trail project and stated he had been asked to be involved and on the map but he felt he was too far out of the area to get benefit from it. There was a suggestion that a similar trail could be created for Castle Douglas and Glenkens with reciprocal links to the Kirkcudbright version. SJA pointed out that the summer opening of Carlisle Airport was a potential opportunity to increase visitor numbers ET and PM suggested that the group as individuals could be doing more on social media to share content and increase awareness of local happenings. It was agreed that LD would circulate contact details for everyone present including social media presence as a start point. SJA requested that people share their news with Heart of Galloway. • • • • • • • • • It was felt that there was a lack of awareness about what else was available to tourists. HW stated that many staff at GAC were not local and would not always be able to advise visitors about other attractions. It was felt that the chance to share knowledge was useful and it would be good to find a way to inform more tourism businesses about each other. Familiarisation trips were discussed and felt to be a worthwhile idea. The group was also in support of trying to get accommodation providers more involved in talking to visitors and raising awareness of the range of options. PM said it would be useful to have some facts and figures to help inform decisions about tourism offerings. It was felt that we had no hard evidence about visitor numbers, demographics and reasons for visiting. It was acknowledged that this information was not easy to collect. LD to review Visit Scotland data and share anything relevant with the group. The concept of online reviews and customer feedback was raised. Some people had been having success with Trip Advisor reviews. LD to investigate whether Trip Advisor could be leveraged to the benefit of the region. PM stated he would support having constructive criticism from visitors to help improve the business, it was felt that the Visit Scotland grading was a tick box exercise and no real feedback was gained. HC, JG and MM discussed visitors who took part in art classes. There seemed to be a split between keen artists who wanted to develop their skills and saw classes as a long term investment to improvement vs those who wanted quick completion with an item that could be taken home to display regardless of skill involved. It was agreed that these were two very different markets and needed to be dealt with differently. The group wanted to find a way to improve communication in the region and were supportive of this meeting and future similar get togethers. There was a request to build on awareness amongst themselves and other businesses to benefit of everyone. There was a strong desire to see a what’s on guide made available in accommodation, tourism providers and visitor centres. LD to look into this further. A query was raised about how to reach visitors who used AirBnB or self catering as many of those may have no contact with a host at the point of check in. Places Visited Timings/Tour Length Guide Organisation Value for money 9 9 10 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 10 10 10 9 8 10 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 10 10 8 8 9 9 9 9 What did you enjoy most about the tour? How the places linked together The people on tour Bus the right size to meet everyone on tour Thank You, quality day out Passion for history is infectious from tour guide. Opportunity to access - with info - places we drive by every day Diversity, knowledge of subject, comfort, pacing, good H&S Very informal tour, well presented. Very knowledgable guides, keep up the good work. Great to be taken/driven round places often see but never visited All of it Very interesting to learn local history The well informed guide and a strong theme Very knowledgable guides, friendly atmosphere of group which was just the right size An excellent day's outing, will go on to explore more for ourselves Well worth arranging for tourism providers, great to be supporting the development of an existing enterprise. Is there anything you would change or any other feedback for the organisers Posters could give more info about which castles are to be visited Whether packed lunch required, whether stout shoes required and suitablility for disabled/accessibility. Microphone for snippets of points of interest as we drive along Kirkcudbright to Orchardton better on coast road Add a coffee stop Either a coffee stop or advise to bring a flask in morning Maybe a handout/summary to take away 8 7 10 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Avg Rating Detractor Passive 9.1 0 9 0 9.9 0 9.8 0 9.2 0 9.4 3 3 0 0 3 Promoter NPS 7 7 10 10 7 70 70 100 100 70 Places Visited Itinerary Guide Evening Talks Organisation Accommodation Meals 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 10 10 10 9 8 10 9 10 9 10 9 10 10 9 10 8 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 Avg Rating Detractor (1Passive (7-8) Promoter (9NPS 9.86 0 0 7 9.29 0 1 6 10.00 0 0 7 9.29 0 1 6 10.00 0 0 7 9.43 0 1 6 9.64 0 1 6 9.64 What would you expect to pay per person for this sort of weekend including accommodation, food, guide, transport and evening events? Less than £150 £150-£200 2 £200-£250 4 £250-£300 More than £300 What did you enjoy most about the tour? The knowledge of the guide and enthusiasm! Being taken to different reserves with a knowledgable guide Being taken to excellent bird reserves with knowledgable guide Talks, hides, landscapes Excellent guide Party size ideal, guides very good, hotel & meals excellent The enthusiasm and knowledge of Chris Rollie Is there anything you would change or any other feedback for the organsisers? The eagle project talk was very interesting and informative but the speaker spoke too quickly and didn't project fully Weather! Include the price of 2 courses in evening meal (unsure what this refers too - meals were two courses plus coffee) No Happy with the organisation No Maybe more time to explore Kirkcudbright 100 86 100 86 100 86 86 How did you hear about this weekend? Via Selkirk Arms 7 GSA Biosphere Website Facebook Other Have you visited Dumfries and Galloway Before? Yes 7 All areas, been to Selkirk Arms twice before, Kirkcudbright No Would you recommend Dumfries and Galloway as a holiday destination Yes 6 No Guests Travelled from Ayrshire, Cumbria, Lancashire and Derbyshire Content Leader Venue Group Size Organisation 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 9 10 How Much Would You Expect To Pay For This Sort Of Event? Less Than £10 £10-£15 5 £15-£20 5 More than £20 What did you enjoy most about the tour? Very interactive and knowledge base is amazing. Lovely presentation I liked how the lady included everyone and how it was interactive. The information hand outs were great as there wasn't too much info. The depth of knowledge of leader, being able to digresss and provide info around a subject. Practical applications and knowledge of leader Calm atmosphere, discussions, lots of interesting info Well organised, interesting, will use Enthusiasm of leader, her knowledge on a wide range of related topics Learning a little about herbal medicine and how to make ointment. Hearing about herbal walks. Millionaire's shortbread! So much info on how to use marigold Is there anything you would change or any other feedback for the organisers Clearer booking process please Nothing, maybe more advertising Love to do other similar courses. NO, great! None Get a cooker More herbal medicine information Directions to venue How Did You Hear About This Event? GSA Biosphere Website 1 Facebook 9 Other 1 Word of mouth How Far Did You Travel To Here (approx) 34 Miles (1 Hour) 2 1 Hour 1 30 Mins 1 15 Miles 1 3 Miles 1 10 Mins 1 About 1 mile 1 12 Miles 1 20 Miles 1 10 10 10 10 9 Avg Rating Detractor Passive 9.7 0 9.8 0 9.7 0 9.8 0 9.8 0 9.76 1 0 0 0 0 Promoter NPS 9 10 10 10 10 70 70 100 100 70 Content Leader Venue Group Size Organisation 9 9 9 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 10 10 8 10 9 Avg Rating Detractor Passive 9.75 0 9.875 0 9.375 0 9.875 0 9.625 0 9.7 1 0 0 0 0 Promoter NPS 9 10 10 10 10 How Much Would You Expect To Pay For This Sort Of Event? Less Than £10 £10-£15 1 £15-£20 2 More than £20 3 What did you enjoy most about the tour? Learning about hot composting and the principles of permaculture Friendly nice group, hands on Really helpful and fun practical element. Theory was very digestible and relaxed style of teaching Practical elements, building the hot box for composting. The sandwiches were excellent The info, co-operation and practical work Small class with different abilities New ideas, social aspect Meeting like minded people Is there anything you would change or any other feedback for the organisers We really appreciate the organisation and intention of this course and happily provide a donation or pay for the course due to the quality. Lovely Teacher. Maybe do practical stuff in the morning then theory in the afternoon Dry weather :) How Did You Hear About This Event? GSA Biosphere Website Facebook 3 Other 5 Word of Mouth How Far Did You Travel To Here (approx) 1 Hour 2 30 Miles 1 40 Miles (1 Hour) 1 3 Miles 4 70 70 100 100 70 Marketing Plan Objective To raise awareness of events, activities and packages developed through the project. Maximise bookings for each event. Improve the profile of the Galloway Glens area as a varied and rewarding destination for visitors. Target Customers Target customers will vary depending on the event or activity being marketed. Generally, the aim is to market to visitors and potential visitors to the region. Visit Scotland figures suggest that visitors to Dumfries and Galloway are looking for scenery and landscape and the chance to get away from it all. 43% are return visitors to the area so are likely to be seeking new experiences for their next visit. Geographical Targeting Historically Dumfries and Galloway has attracted visitors from the central belt of Scotland and the North of England. It has been popular as a short break destination and therefore visitors have travelled from up to 2-3 hours away to get here. There is also an emerging market from the South of England with a train service direct from London to Carlisle or Lockerbie and the opening of Carlisle Airport offering scheduled flights to London Southend. Domestics visitors predominantly stay 1-3 nights (61%) with less than 10% of domestic visitors staying longer than 8 nights. In addition, overseas visitors have arrived via Glasgow or Edinburgh looking for an alternative Scottish experience. There is a 33% growth in American tourists many of whom are researching family history and travelling to those locations (Source: Visit Scotland Insights 2018) International visitors tend to stay longer with 43% choosing an 8-14 night break and 34% staying for 15 nights or more. Interest Targeting There is an opportunity to target niche markets for some of the specific attractions of our area. By highlighting the key features that would interest specific groups providers can attract premium guests who are looking for a unique experience tailored to their hobbies and interests. For example, there are a great number of interesting bird watching opportunities throughout the year but particularly in the winter months. This opens up the chance to fill bed spaces out of peak season and also introduce visitors to some of the other attractions locally. Demographics It could be argued that there is something for all ages and groups in Dumfries and Galloway however it makes sense to focus on some key sectors who we know will be interested in what we can offer. Families – there are a great many attractions for family groups as well as an abundance of peaceful outdoor space to enjoy. By highlighting family friendly accommodation options such as self -catering or adjoining rooms or the added facilities available like high chairs or travel cots businesses can attract family groups Retired – Outside of the school holiday period there is an opportunity to attract retired individuals or couples who have disposable income and the time to travel. Often these people are looking for unique, bespoke and authentic local experiences as part of their trip. They may place more value on quality accommodation and food. Industry Regulations The Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations (2018) apply to all packages which consist of two or more of the following; accommodation, transport, activities. Providers are required to provide adequate insurance to cover the package in case of failure. The level of protection varies depending on whether it is a package or a linked travel arrangement. ATOL only applies if air travel is included in the package. Networking/Industry Bodies There are a number of industry bodies and local groups who can provide useful information and a potential route to market for packages and activities. Visit Scotland Visit Scotland is the national tourism agency for Scotland. It aims to promote Scotland as a destination to visitors. They run national and area specific marketing campaigns. Visit South West Scotland Visit South West Scotland are a membership organisation promoting accommodation and local businesses in South West Scotland. The run a website made up of entries from members and also promote the South West Coastal 300 route. Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere Designated by UNESCO as a world class environment for people and nature. Working on 3 main functions of conservation, learning and development. Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership A 5 year project to connect people with their landscape and heritage. Running a number of projects across the partnership area which have a tourism angle. Method Facebook Advertising Pros • • • Cons Easily measurable Good reach to key demographics Cost Effective • • May miss a % of target market who are not on Facebook Restricted to Facebook algorithm Google Adwords Pros • • • Effective exposure to people searching for your keywords Only pay for clicks Easily measurable Cons • • Can be costly for competitive keywords Low search volume on more niche products Print Advertising Pros • • • • Can give a very wide reach Interest magazines can access relevant target market Reaches audience who are not online Can provide a feeling of authenticity (builds trust in brand) Cons • • • Expensive Not targeted Difficult to measure Cons • • • Difficult to measure Can’t control the message Slow to spread Word of Mouth Pros • • Effective for building trust in brand Free Event Guides/Listings (on and off line) Pros • • Often free or low cost Can increase reach to wider audience Cons • • • May not be targeted to a particular audience Can be time consuming to update multiple listings Reliant on listing provider to format in a user friendly manner Email Marketing Pros • • Can target people who already interested in the product Measurable Cons • • Can be difficult to obtain database and permissions Can be difficult to gain attention in a busy inbox Printed Materials (Posters/Flyers) Pros • • • • May catch attention from a market you hadn’t thought of Can be useful to cross market more than one activity Potential to be passed around multiple people Caters for target audience who are not online Cons • • • Can be time consuming and costly to produce Requires a distribution network to be seen Can become out of date very quickly Galloway Activity Centre An outdoors centre situated on the banks of Loch Ken. Take part in a range of water and land based activities suitable for all ages. Enjoy a bite in the waterfront café. www.lochken.co.uk | Tel: 01556 502011 | Loch Ken, Parton, DG7 3NQ Galloway Cycling Holidays Personalised cycling routes and bike hire, with or without a guide. Let's have more WOW DAYS! www.gallowaycycling.com | Tel: 07756 047464 | Location varies depending on route Kirkcudbright Art Tours A guided walk around Kirkcudbright looking at historical and current artists. Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 11am & 2pm in July and August. £5 per adult, U10 free. www.facebook.com/kirkcudbrightarttours | Tel:07972 275388 Margaret S Milligan Fine Art Tuition Join Margaret in her studio or on location, for private and group workshops. Beginners welcome. www.margaretsmilligan.co.uk | Tel:07845 306818 | WASPS Studios, Kirkcudbright, DG6 4JG The Gallery at Laurieston Welcoming gallery of photographer/artist Phil McMenemy. New tearoom now open! Workshop and commissions available. See Facebook page for opening times and more information www.philmcmenemy.smugmug.com | Tel: 01644 450235 | Laurieston, DG7 2PQ Heart Of Galloway Visitor Centre Community run visitor centre providing local information, booking services and gift shop. Open 10-5 Mon to Sat. Market Hill, Castle Douglas | Tel: 01556 503918 Freelance Ranger Elizabeth Tindal will create a personalised experience for you with night time stargazing and darkness experiences plus day time outdoor activities such as den building, campfire cooking, rockpooling and environmental art. She has lots to offer all year round. Elizabeth has a Biosphere Certification Mark as well as being a Proud Supporter of the Biosphere. www.freelanceranger.com | Tel: 07842 241141 | Location varies depending on activity Castles and Houses Other Local Attractions Threave Castle—Castle Douglas Broughton House and Gardens—Kirkcudbright Threave Gardens and House—Castle Douglas MacLellan’s Castle—Kirkcudbright Theatre and Cinema CatStrand Theatre/Arts Centre—New Galloway The Fullarton Theatre—Castle Douglas Leisure Castle Douglas Swimming Pool—01556 502745 Kirkcudbright Swimming Pool—01557 331881 Nature and Wildlife RSPB Ken Dee Marshes— Nr Laurieston Red Kite Feeding Station—Laurieston Red Kite Trail—Around Loch Ken Barrhill Woods Squirrel Hide—Kirkcudbright Osprey Viewing Platform—Threave Estate Kirkcudbright Tourist Information Volunteer led information centre providing information about local events and attractions. Open 10-4 every day. Harbour Square, Kirkcudbright What is a Biosphere? Galloway and Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere has been recognised internationally as a world class environment for people and nature. This special designation is awarded by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and is the centre piece of the international Man and Biosphere Programme that brings together over 660 Biospheres worldwide. The UNESCO Biosphere designation is a recognition of the fantastic array of landscapes, wildlife, cultural heritage and learning opportunities that South West Scotland offers for communities, businesses and visitors to experience and celebrate in a sustainable way. Look out for the businesses listed in this brochure who have signed up to the Biosphere Charter to become Proud Supporters of the Biosphere. Some have also completed the Biosphere Certification mark meaning they have been assessed on a variety of criteria to ensure they are upholding the principles of the Biosphere. www.gsabiosphere.org.uk The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme is a Heritage Lottery funded initiative that is aiming to undertake a series of projects across the area to ‘connect people, communities and their heritage’. This Biosphere Experience project is part of the wider Galloway Glens portfolio of projects and is aiming to develop experiential tourism activities within the area. Galloway Glens Biosphere Experience Project www.facebook.com/experiencegalloway  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 Biosphere Experience Final Project Report September 2018 – March 2020 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_36 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 Southern Uplands Partnership (SUP) GGLP https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/494/GGLP-Upper-Dee-Salmon-Restoration-Project-FINAL-Nov-20.pdf 885d2d6ed1fd30ef0f45db1a8df255c7 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 Restoration of salmon in the upper River Dee (Kirkcudbrightshire) 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. – RMCAD18920 Restoration of salmon in the upper River Dee (Kirkcudbrightshire) For further information on this report please contact: Name of GFT Project Manager – R McCleary Galloway Fisheries Trust Fisheries House Station Industrial Estate Newton Stewart DG8 6ND Telephone: 01671 403011 E-mail: rowan@gallowayfisheriestrust.org This report should be quoted as: Galloway Fisheries Trust. September 2020. Restoration of salmon in the upper River Dee (Kirkcudbrightshire) Galloway Fisheries Trust Report No. – RMCAD18920 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 – 2020 Summary Restoration of salmon in the upper River Dee (Kirkcudbrightshire) Commissioned Report No.: Report No. RMCAD18920 Contractor: Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Year of publication: September 2020 Keywords Salmon; Brown trout; Electrofishing; Habitat surveying; Galloway Hydro Scheme; Kirkcudbrightshire Dee. Background The Kirkcudbrightshire Dee is one of the largest river catchments in South West Scotland at over 1000 km2. Since 1935, the Galloway Hydro Scheme has been in operation on the river with its six power stations and associated dams and tunnel networks presenting a range of challenges for migratory fish movements throughout the catchment. Fish passes, located at the three lowermost on-river dams (Tongland, Earlstoun and Carsfad) allow salmon to access as far upstream as Kendoon Dam. In 2001, the Galloway Fisheries Trust (GFT) undertook the first electrofishing surveys to establish migratory fish distribution throughout the Dee catchment. At this time, on behalf of the Galloway Hydro Scheme operator, GFT began managing migratory fish data gathered by Tongland Fish Counter located at the bottom of the river. This data set has illustrated that there has been a decline in Atlantic salmon abundance in recent years and as such, it is crucial to conserve and protect remaining salmon stocks. This report details findings from electrofishing and habitat surveys carried out by GFT during the 2019 survey season; to investigate the current distribution of salmon within the upper Dee catchment and direct a programme of habitat works that will help increase salmon production in this important part of the river. Main findings  Juvenile salmon were present in five out of twenty electrofishing sites surveyed.  Production of salmon was concentrated within the Polharrow Burn, where salmon were found as far upstream as an impassable fall within Waukers Linn.  The first record of salmon production within the Earlstoun Burn was made during the surveys undertaken within this project. i  Habitat improvement works should be considered, particularly addition of woody debris. The lower Earlstoun Burn is an area where active bankside erosion was recorded and addressing this should be considered.  The Water of Ken between Carsfad Dam and Craigs Linn has a lack of smaller substrates which appears to be limiting fish production. Possible option to increase smaller substrates here should be considered.  Further electrofishing surveys should be undertaken within the upper reaches of the Polmaddy Burn to confirm salmon are not utilising the burn in favourable habitat.  Water management practices should be investigated for their potential in increasing river flows between Polmaddy Burn outflow and Kendoon.  A drone survey should be undertaken within the gorge section of river downstream of Polmaddie settlement to investigate for the presence of further impassable falls that may impede salmon access to the burn.  Smolt sampling methods should be investigated surrounding the outflow of Polharrow Burn in order to input to a future smolt tracking study planned for the river. For further information on this project contact: Name of Project Manager – R McCleary Telephone No. of Project Manager – 01671 403011 ii Table of Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION 5 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Electrofishing survey 2.1.1 Data recording 2.1.2 Electrofishing techniques 2.1.3 Electrofishing equipment used 2.1.4 Age determination 2.1.5 Non-salmonid fish species 2.1.6 Site measurement 2.1.7 Bankside / instream habitat assessment 2.1.8 Site selection 2.2 Data recording 2.2.1 Walk-over survey 2.2.2 Method 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 3. RESULTS 3.1 Electrofishing results 3.1.1 Figures presented 3.1.2 Survey limitations 3.1.3 Electrofishing results 3.2 Habitat survey results 3.2.1 Earlstoun Burn 3.2.2 Cleugh Burn 3.2.3 Polmaddy Burn 3.2.4 Water of Deugh – Carsfad Loch to Bridge at Dundeugh 3.2.5 Water of Ken – Carsfad Dam to Earlstoun Loch 3.2.6 Polharrow Burn 3.2.7 Crummy Burn 10 10 10 11 12 14 14 22 24 35 38 42 48 4. DISCUSSION 4.1 Electrofishing sites 4.1.1 Site 1: Earlstoun Burn 4.1.2 Site 2: Earlstoun Burn 4.1.3 Site 3: Earlstoun Burn 4.1.4 Site 4: Earlstoun Burn 4.1.5 Site 5: Cleugh Burn 4.1.6 Site 6: Polmaddy Burn 4.1.7 Site 7: Polmaddy Burn 4.1.8 Site 8: Polharrow Burn – McAdams Burn 4.1.9 Site 9: Polharrow Burn – Mid Burn 4.1.10 Site 10: Polharrow Burn – Burnhead Burn 4.1.11 Site 11: Polharrow Burn – Lumford Burn 4.1.12 Site 12: Polharrow Burn – Lumford Burn 4.1.13 Site 13: Polharrow Burn 4.1.14 Site 14: Polharrow Burn 4.1.15 Site 15: Polharrow Burn 4.1.16 Site 16: Polharrow Burn – Crummy Burn 4.1.17 Site 17: Polharrow Burn – Crummy Burn 4.1.18 Site 18: Polharrow Burn 4.1.19 Site 19: Polharrow Burn 4.1.20 Site 20: Glen Strand 50 50 50 50 51 52 53 53 54 55 56 56 57 58 59 59 60 61 61 62 64 65 5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 66 3 6. APPENDIX 1: RESULTS FROM TIMED (NO. FISH/MINUTE), AREA DELINEATED (NO. FISH PER 100 M2) AND PRESENCE/ABSENCE (P/A) ELECTROFISHING SURVEYS UNDERTAKEN AS PART OF THE GALLOWAY GLENS UPPER DEE SALMON RESTORATION PROJECT 68 7. APPENDIX 2: RESULTS FROM HISTORICAL ELECTROFISHING SURVEYS UNDERTAKEN BY THE GFT ON MAIN STEM AND TRIBUTARIES OF THE UPPER KIRKCUDBRIGHSHIRE DEE CATCHMENT (2001 – 2018) 70 8. APPENDIX 3: SFCC ELECTROFISHING METHODOLOGY 73 9. APPENDIX 4: SFCC GENERAL HABITAT SURVEY 75 4 1. INTRODUCTION The Kirkcudbrightshire Dee is considered to be a ‘heavily modified water body’ in the Solway and Tweed River Basin Management Plan. At its source in Ayrshire, the river arises from extracted Loch Doon water that is passed through the first of six power stations at Drumjohn to form Carsphairn Lane. Drumjohn Power Station also receives water extracted and piped from the Water of Deugh, located eastwards in the upper Dee catchment. At Kendoon - the second Power Station in the network – water is utilised from the Water of Deugh before joining the Water of Ken to form the main body of river that runs southwards, passing through Carsfad and Earlstoun Power Stations then Loch Ken and eventually reaches the estuary at Tongland where the largest Power Station of the network is located. Offset from the main run-on-river power stations and positioned midway in the catchment, Glenlee Power Station utilises water impounded at Clatteringshaws reservoir. The design and operation of the Galloway Hydro system, owned and run by Drax, has a significant impact across the catchment on fish stocks, particularly salmon. For instance, the large Tongland Dam located at the bottom of the system is impassable to ascending young European eels thus eels are not found anywhere in the river or its tributaries. The upper Water of Ken is located upstream of Kendoon Power Station and its associated dam. This dam does not possess a fish pass so no migratory salmonids are able to access the upper Water of Ken. Juvenile electrofishing surveys are carried out annually on the river for a range of fishery management purposes that have included data collection to inform and direct the District Salmon Fishery Boards hatchery operation and input to the planning stages of many extensive construction works that have taken place in the catchment. However, because the operation of the Galloway Hydro Scheme plays such a key influence on the entire river network; GFT have placed a great deal of focus into this area as a key contributor in influencing current and future distribution and abundance of migratory fish within the river. A Vaki Riverwatcher fish counter, located at Tongland Dam fish ladder has indicated that the Dee salmon population could be nearing extinction, having dropped in number from around 1000 adult salmon entering the river in 2007 and 2008 to only 98 salmon in 2019. Whilst adult fish returns have significantly declined in recent years, there is also an immediate threat from the presence of North American Signal Crayfish to salmon production within the lower river. Crayfish are currently absent from the upper river which is accessible to migratory fish. Genetic data has shown the most diverse sub population of salmon exists in the Polharrow Burn (upper Dee tributary) from within the Galloway Rivers. With the Dee salmon population declining as it currently is, the work undertaken as part of this study was commissioned in an effort to focus effort into enhancing the Dee salmon population, beginning within its important upper accessible catchment. 5 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Electrofishing survey 2.1.1 Data recording The GFT is a partner in the Scottish Fisheries Co-ordination Centre (SFCC), an initiative involving the Scottish Fishery Trusts and others, including the Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory, The Tweed Foundation, the Spey Research Trust, the Tay Foundation and the Cromarty Firth Fisheries Trust. This group has, in partnership, developed a set of agreed methodologies and record sheets for use with electrofishing surveys and an associated database in which to record information gathered from such surveys. The electrofishing surveys undertaken by the GFT have been completed to the standards that are required by the SFCC and recorded using the agreed formats. 2.1.2 Electrofishing techniques To assess the fish population present within a section of river various techniques have been developed in recent decades. The main method of determining the health of a fish population is by the use of electrofishing equipment. This technique involves the stunning of fish using an electric current which enables the operator to remove the fish from the water. Once captured, the fish recover in a holding container. They are then anaesthetised using a specific fish anaesthetic, identified, measured and recorded, and once recovered, returned unharmed to the area from which they were captured. The method of fishing employed by GFT involves the anode operator drawing stunned fish downstream to a banner net held against the current by an assistant. Fish captured are then transferred to a water-filled recovery container. The team works its way across the section and upstream, thereby fishing thoroughly all the river in the survey stretch. To obtain quantitative information on the fish populations within the river, each survey site is fished through a number of times to allow the calculation of a more accurate population density estimate of the fish population. A Zippin estimation of a fish population is a calculation carried using a depletion method (multiple run fishing). This is an estimate of the fish population density per 100 m2 of water, including the 95% confidence limits (this information is presented in Table 2). When a Zippin estimate of the population is not possible, a minimum estimate of the fish population is provided for that section of river. The equipment used for this survey was a standard 2.2 kw generator, powering a bankside set of equipment. GFT endeavors to use a bankside generator wherever possible. Electrofishing was undertaken by a team of three SFCC accredited GFT staff at all survey sites. It is the policy of the GFT to disinfect all relevant equipment both prior to and following work in each catchment, to ensure that there is no transfer of disease organisms. 6 2.1.3 Electrofishing equipment used The bankside generator apparatus which is employed during GFT electrofishing surveys is powered by a 2.2 kw petrol generator (5 horse power) with a variable voltage output (200 – 250 volts) linked to an Electracatch controller unit (WFC7 – 1a). Smooth direct current was used at all sites during the survey. The Electracatch control unit is linked to a stationary cathode of braided copper (placed instream) and a mobile, single anode, consisting of a pole-mounted stainless steel ring and trigger switch. 2.1.4 Age determination The electrofishing survey concentrated on juvenile salmonid species, although other fish species are also captured. In the majority of cases age determination of salmonids can be made by assessment of the length of fish present. However with older fish it is more difficult to clarify age classes. In these cases a small number of scale samples are often taken from fish, in addition to length assessments, to verify the ages of fish whose age can not be determined with certainty from the length. 2.1.5 Non-salmonid fish species At each site the presence of non-salmonid fish species was noted. Population densities for these species were not calculated. 2.1.6 Site measurement At each site surveyed a total length was recorded and average wet, bed and bank widths calculated. The average wet width was calculated from several individual widths recorded at equidistant intervals from the lower end of the site (0 m) to the top. At each site a final width was noted at the absolute upper limit of the survey site. From these site lengths and average wet widths the total wetted area fished was calculated. 2.1.7 Bankside / instream habitat assessment At each site an assessment was made of the instream habitat available for older (parr aged) fish. This assessment graded instream cover present as none, poor, moderate, good or excellent. This grading provides a suitability index of instream cover where diverse substrate compositions will score more favorably than areas of uniform substrate providing poor cover. In accordance with SFCC protocols, percentage estimates of depths, substrate type and flow type were made at each site. Additionally, percentage estimates of the quantity of the bankside features undercut banks, draped vegetation, bare banks and marginal vegetation were made. All of these bankside and instream habitat site features are summarised in Section 5. When reference to left or right bank is made, it is always left and right bank when facing downstream. 7 2.1.8 Site selection Twenty sites were selected to cover every watercourse within the upper Dee catchment that salmon may be currently utilising. Work was carried out over five days between July 2019 and October 2019. 2.2 Data recording 2.2.1 Walk-over survey The walk-over habitat surveys aimed to give general information on the current status of the instream and bankside habitats present within the burn. A modified Hendry and Cragg-Hine (1997) walk-over survey was developed and undertaken. This method of habitat surveying allows for much ground to be covered, giving the maximum amount of information to be gained in the minimum of time. The walk-over habitat surveys aimed to provide an insight into the status and locations of spawning gravels and juvenile habitat areas within the watercourses. During the surveys, information on substrate type, bank structure and obstructions to fish movement are recorded. General comments on individual stretches of river are recorded to assist in the rapid overview of the survey area as a whole. A photographic record of the watercourses was collected during the surveys. 2.2.2 Method Tributaries entering the east and west sides of Earlstoun and Carsfad Lochs were surveyed by a GFT surveyor. The predominant habitat type was recorded within specific stretches, and defined as described in Table 1. The habitats described are not disparate but regarded as definable parts of a spectrum of habitats found in a river. Where spawning gravels were present and accessible, an assessment of their quality in terms of stability, compaction and siltation were made. In addition, the bankside structure and surrounding land use was also described where appropriate. Table 1: Habitat Classification for walk-over survey method Habitat Type Classification Spawning gravel Stable gravel up to 30 cm deep that is not compacted or contains excessive silt. Substrate size with a diameter of 0.8 to 10.2 cm Fry habitat * Shallow (<0.2 m) and fast flowing water indicative of riffles and runs with a substrate dominated by gravel (16 - 64 mm) and cobbles (64 - 256 mm) Parr habitat * Riffle – run habitat that is generally faster and deeper than fry habitat (0.2 - 0.4 m). Substrate consists of gravels (16 - 64 mm), cobbles (64 - 256 mm) and boulder (> 256 mm) Glides Smooth laminar flow with little surface turbulence and generally greater than 0.3 m deep Pools No perceptible flow and usually greater than 1 m deep Flow constriction Where flows are accelerated between narrow banksides (usually combined with deep fast flows and bedrock substrates) Obstacles A structure or item identified as a potential obstruction to fish passage at certain water heights * If significant amounts of fry and parr habitat were found to co-exist in the same section, these habitat classifications are often combined and classified as juvenile habitat. Where parr habitat is mentioned this will 8 refer to habitat that has principally be identified as habitat more suited to parr than fry, however will habitually contain a lower quantity of fry habitat and habitat which is suited to both fry and parr. Problematical bank structures such as areas of erosion were recorded. If the reason for the problem was evident then this was highlighted e.g. over-grazing by sheep causing a collapsing bank. Obstructions were assessed for complete impassability at any flow or for being passable under certain flow conditions. Additional comments were also made as to the nature and permanency of the obstruction. 9 3. RESULTS 3.1 Electrofishing results 3.1.1 Figures presented The results of the electrofishing survey are outlined in Section 3.1.3 and presented in detail in Appendix 1 (Results from Timed (no. fish/minute), Area delineated (no. fish per 100 m2) and Presence/Absence (P/A) electrofishing surveys undertaken as part of the Galloway Glens Upper Dee Salmon Restoration Project). These provide information on the population densities of juvenile salmonids at each site. Site code, watercourse, site location, O.S. Grid reference, survey date, non-salmonid species and area fished (m2) are also shown where applicable. Map 1 (below) illustrates the location of electrofishing sites completed during 2019 as part of this study and whether salmon were present or absent. Map 1 (below): Presence/absence of salmon at 2019 electrofishing sites With regard to the juvenile salmonid age classes, these are separated into four categories, which are defined in Table 2: Salmon Fry (0+): Trout Fry (0+): Salmon Parr (1+ and older): Trout Parr Table 2: Salmonid age classes Refers to young fish less than one year old resulting from spawning at the end of 2018. Refers to young fish less than one year old resulting from spawning at the end of 2018. Refers to young fish of greater than one year and greater than two years old (where present) from spawning years 2017 and 2016. Refers to young fish of greater than one year and greater 10 (1+ and older): than two years old (where present) from spawning years 2017 and 2016. If captured, trout of up to three or four years old are also included in this category. Within the electrofishing results, juvenile salmonid numbers recorded have been classified into several categories. A classification scheme for densities of salmonids was previously generated by the SFCC using data collected from 1,638 Scottish electrofishing survey sites, covering the period 1997 to 2002 (Godfrey, 20051). From this, regional figures were created to allow more accurate local ranges. The categories are based on quintile ranges for onesample electrofishing surveys in the Solway region (Solway Salmon Fishery Statistical Region), allowing densities of fish observed to be put into a regional context. Table 3 shows these quintile ranges. Table 3: Quintile ranges for juvenile salmonids (per 100 m2) based on one-sample electrofishing events, calculated on densities >0 over 291 sites in the Solway Statistical Region Salmon 0+ Salmon 1++ Trout 0+ Trout 1++ Minimum (Very Low) 0.22 0.38 0.38 0.35 20th Percentile (Low) 5.21 2.86 4.14 2.27 40th Percentile (Moderate) 12.68 5.87 12.09 4.71 60th Percentile (High) 25.28 9.12 26.63 8.25 80th Percentile (Very High) 46.53 15.03 56.49 16.28 Where timed electrofishing data has been gathered, salmon fry and parr densities can be classified using a Galloway timed sites salmon fry index, developed by the Galloway Fisheries Trust in 2019 (Table 4). Table 4: 2016-2019 Galloway timed sites salmon fry index: fry and parr classification Breakpoint (salmon Class Breakpoint (salmon fry/min) parr/min) 0 Absent 0 <3.4 Very low <1.0 3.5 to <7.0 Low 1.1 to <1.8 7.1 to <11.4 Moderate 1.9 to <2.6 11.5 to <23.2 Good 2.7 to <4.6 >23.2 Excellent >4.6 3.1.2 Survey limitations The juvenile salmonid density classification scheme is based solely on data from surveyed sites containing fish in the period 1997 to 2002, and refers to regional conditions at that time; therefore it must only be used as a very relative guide and not be used to draw conclusions. Moreover, the figures for juvenile trout are less reliable for various reasons (e.g. some surveyed populations of trout are isolated; sea trout contributing to stock in some areas etc) and so can only be used as a relative indication of numbers. Electrofishing and habitat information is discussed, with reference to any specific issues such as sensitivities, in Section 4. 1 Godfrey, J. D., 2005; Site Condition Monitoring of Atlantic Salmon SACs: Report by the SFCC to Scottish Natural Heritage, Contract F02AC608. 11 3.1.3  Electrofishing results Site 1 (DKE1): Earlstoun Burn Grid reference: 264176 585770 Salmon fry and parr were absent at site 1. Trout fry and parr were present in a low density. No other fish species were recorded.  Site 2 (DKE2): Earlstoun Burn Grid reference: 262420 583693 Salmon fry and parr were absent at site 2. Trout fry and parr were present in a low density. No other fish species were recorded.  Site 3 (DKE3): Earlstoun Burn Grid reference: 262295 583189 Salmon fry and parr were absent at site 3. Trout fry and parr were present in a low density. No other fish species were recorded.  Site 4 (DKE4): Earlstoun Burn Grid reference: 262070 583310 Salmon fry were absent at this site. Salmon parr were present in a very low density. Trout were not recorded at this site. Of the non-salmonid fish species, three-spined sticklebacks were also recorded.  Site 5 (DKC1): Cleugh Burn Grid reference: 261700 586295 No fish were recorded at this site.  Site 6 (DKPol1): Polmaddy Burn Grid reference: 259159 587862 Salmon were absent at this site. Trout fry and parr were present in a low density. Minnows were also recorded at this site.  Site 7 (DKPol2): Polmaddy Burn Grid reference: 259625 587930 Salmon were absent at this site. Trout fry and parr were present in a low density. Minnows were also recorded at this site.  Site 8 (DKP1): Polharrow Burn (McAdams Burn) Grid reference: 254570 585255 Salmon were absent at this site. Trout fry and parr were present in a low density. No other fish species were recorded at this site.  Site 9 (DKP2): Polharrow Burn (Mid Burn) Grid reference: 254581 585361 Salmon were absent at this site. Trout fry were also absent. Trout parr were present in a low density. No other fish species were recorded at this site.  Site 10 (DKP3): Polharrow Burn (Burnhead Burn) Grid reference: 255305 586190 Salmon were absent at this site. Trout fry were present in a low density. Trout parr were absent. No other fish species were recorded at this site. 12  Site 11 (DKP4): Polharrow Burn (Lumford Burn) Grid reference: 254698 586567 Salmon were absent at this site. Trout fry and parr were present in a low density. No other fish species were recorded at this site.  Site 12 (DKP5): Polharrow Burn (Lumford Burn) Grid reference: 255272 586356 Salmon were absent at this site. Trout fry and parr were present in a low density. No other fish species were recorded at this site.  Site 13 (DKP6): Polharrow Burn Grid reference: 256386 586542 Salmon were absent at this site. Trout fry were also absent. Trout parr were present in a low density. No other fish species were recorded at this site.  Site 14 (DKP7): Polharrow Burn Grid reference: 257724 585667 Salmon were absent at this site. Trout fry were present in a low density. Trout parr were absent. No other fish species were recorded at this site.  Site 15 (DKP8): Polharrow Burn Grid reference: 258600 585297 Salmon were found within this site as parr in a very low density. Trout fry and parr were present in a low density. No other fish species were recorded at this site.  Site 16 (DKP9): Polharrow Burn (Crummy Burn) Grid reference: 259056 584261 Salmon were absent at this site. Trout fry were present but trout parr were unrecorded. No other fish species were recorded at this site.  Site 17 (DKP10): Polharrow Burn (Crummy Burn) Grid reference: 259248 584596 Salmon were present within this site; as parr in a very low density. Trout fry and parr were recorded in a low density. Minnows were the only other fish species recorded at this site.  Site 18 (DKP11): Polharrow Burn Grid reference: 259262 584632 Salmon fry and parr were present in a very low density within this site. Trout fry and parr were present in a low density. Stoneloach were the only other fish species recorded at this site.  Site 19 (DKP12): Polharrow Burn Grid reference: 260297 584418 Salmon were present within this site; as fry in a very low density and parr in a moderate density. Trout fry were present in a low density. Trout parr were not recorded at this site. Minnows were the only other fish species recorded at this site.  Site 20 (DKG1): Glen Strand Grid reference: 260748 583647 No fish were recorded at this site. 13 3.2 Habitat survey results 3.2.1 Earlstoun Burn The survey of the Earlstoun Burn commenced at (NX) 261608 583233, a short distance from where the burn entered the east side of Earlstoun Loch (reservoir). Deep parr suited habitat, in the form of cobbles and boulders, covered the first 50 m of the burn (Figure 1) before reaching the first set of falls at (NX) 261655 583240. This first set of shallow (passable) falls stretched for around 15 m, banked on either side of the burn by elm and birch woodland. Mixed juvenile habitat containing small pockets of gravel extended a short reach upstream from (NX) 261672 583247. From (NX) 261748 583269, the base of the burn was mostly comprised of bedrock, which formed a series of small (passable) falls before the burn steepened and narrowed for a distance of around 30 m containing limited deeper parr habitat (cobbles). A section of falls extended from (NX) 261790 583295, interspersed with small areas of mixed juvenile habitat. A series of steps, up to 1 m high (Figure 2); although deemed passable - presented the most challenging obstacle to fish passage encountered so far at (NX) 261852 583334. Figure 1: An area of parr habitat on the lower Earlstoun Burn Figure 2: A section of (passable) bedrock falls on the lower Earlstoun Burn 14 From here, the burn began to widen and provide a continuous stretch of mixed juvenile habitat from (NX) 261858 583342. An abundance of woody debris provided ample cover for parr (Figure 3) across a 60 m length of the burn, before a series of falls was met at (NX) 261914 583323. From here, the burn steepened and narrowed and together, with greater water velocity, presented an unproductive stretch of water over a distance of approximately 50 m, within which, a small stand of larch was encountered along the right bankside (Figure 4). Figure 3: Fallen trees provide a source of woody debris within the burn Figure 4: A 50 m section of unproductive (bedrock) instream habitat The burn became productive, presenting good quality juvenile spawning habitat in the form of shallow cobbles and pebbles from (NX) 262036 583372 (Figure 5). Mixed deciduous woodland and rhododendrons provided tree cover along the entire right bankside and together with some exceptional woody debris; gave quality mixed juvenile and spawning habitat from as far upstream as (NX) 262070 583288 where habitat quality began to diminish with a lack of tree cover on both banks and some notable bankside erosion (the likely result of bankside grazing by cattle). Despite the limitations of bankside habitat from this point onwards (Figure 6), the burn adopted some quality pool-run/riffle flow habitat, suited to 15 juvenile salmonids and adult brown trout. This habitat terminated at a ford at (NX) 262088 583252, below an old bridge apron. Figure 5: Good spawning habitat Figure 6: A gradual increase in gradient produces a nice section of run and riffle habitat at the tail end of a glide From (NX) 261030 583211, instream habitat began to diminish as bankside erosion became more notable; existing on both banksides at (NX) 262140 583166. Bank instability and collapse were much more evident at (NX) 262223 583146 (Figure 7) where areas of fine sediment were encountered surrounding each section of bank collapse as the burn wound its way up towards a watergate at (NX) 262264 583169, where this section terminated at the road bridge, within 1 km from the Earlstoun Loch. 16 Figure 7: A section of actively eroding bankside Good quality spawning habitat in the form of cobbles and gravels existed over an 80 m stretch of the burn upstream of the road bridge (Figure 8). Here, the bankside was grazed (by sheep) along the right bankside and lined by mature deciduous trees along the left bankside. A series of small bedrock steps existed over a 10 m length, where it is likely trout may inhabit given the tree roots and overhanging cover provided on the left bankside. Shortly upstream, a small dam composed of flood and woody debris (Figure 9), existed at (NX) 262401 583231. Beyond a drystone dyke lining the burn at this point, land use adjacent to the left bankside changed from rough pasture to felled conifer woodland. Figure 8: An 80 m stretch of good quality spawning habitat upstream of the road bridge 17 Figure 9: A fallen tree gathering flood debris may impede fish movement within the burn An exposed side bar of cobbles and gravels lined the right bankside upstream of the debris dam, where the watercourse had been weaving around a mass of tree branches (Figure 10) that extended from the left bankside to beyond the right bankside. The burn began to narrow and deepen, becoming much more suited to parr and in particular, trout parr – given the extent of deadwood that was present along the left bankside. At this point, the burn becomes more gorge-like, with steep sides and small sections of natural falls at (NX) 262344 583332. However, a 40 m stretch of mixed juvenile habitat could be seen extending from the corner to a watergate and fence line at (NX) 262345 583406 (Figure 11). Figure 10: A side bar of fine substrates has been created as the burn weaves around an uprooted tree 18 Figure 11: The burn flattens out above a section of gorge to provide good mixed juvenile habitat From upstream of the watergate, the burn entered a gorge. From this point upstream, the burn was steep-sided, narrow and completely over shaded, with no bankside cover for fish. Limited parr habitat may exist for trout throughout this section, up to a large natural fall of over 2 m in height at (NX) 262418 583438, considered impassable to upstream migrating fish (Figure 12). The falls were located approximately 500 m upstream of the start of this section at the B7000 road bridge. Given the bare-banked and steep-sided terrain of the riparian zone within the vicinity of the falls, surveying re-commenced at (NX) 262425 583550 upstream of the falls where the burn left the woodland. Here, the left bankside had been recently fenced to exclude livestock from the watercourse (Figure 13). Figure 12: A waterfall, considered impassable to upstream migrating fish, lies approximately 500 m upstream of the B7000 road bridge 19 Figure 13: The burn opens out into rough upland moorland habitat as it leaves the gorge The burn continued upstream for approximately 200 m – self-contained by a fence on the left bankside and dry stone dyke on the right bankside – before reaching a bridge at (NX) 262420 583634. From here, the burn entered open moorland habitat where rough pasture and bracken were the principal vegetation types present within the riparian zone. In this next section, approximately 800 m of the burn was surveyed through unfenced upland pasture. Immediately upstream of the road bridge, the burn contained excellent quality mixed juvenile instream habitat with an abundance of cobbles making it well suited to parr in particular (Figure 14). Grazing pressure by sheep was negligible with overhanging vegetation, including bracken, dominating within the riparian zone. The burn narrowed to approximately 2.5 m at (NX) 262473 583877 and adopted the characteristics of a typical upland trout water with deep glide flows dominating over shallow run and riffle. As the burn turned a corner, it widened to approximately 5 m and straightened out from (NX) 262497 583950 (Figure 15). Figure 14: A section of the burn where salmon parr would thrive 20 Figure 15: Bankside erosion can be seen along the right bankside Further excellent quality mixed juvenile habitat and in particular parr habitat, could be found instream from (NX) 262472 583972 (Figure 16). The pressure of bankside erosion was notable throughout the entire section of the burn upstream of the bridge. Given the lack of any bankside protection (i.e. a livestock exclusion fence or presence of established broadleaved trees) there was little opportunity for the banksides to recover regardless of the low grazing pressure that existed surrounding the burn. Erosion was most notable as the burn turned a corner (Figure 17) where an exposed gravel bed lined the inside of the bend and fine particulate matter could be seen transposing from the left bankside. A drystone dyke appeared to have been replaced with a fence line along the right bankside where excessive erosion had compromised the field perimeter. A short distance upstream of the corner, the burn narrowed to approximately 4 m wide, and began to steepen, with instream habitat changing from a mixture of fairly mobile pebble/cobble to deep pools lined with bedrock and small pockets of fine gravel at (NX) 262472 584099. Figure 16: Good instream cover for fish but a lack of bankside refuge 21 Figure 17: The instability of the banksides clearly demonstrated on an actively eroding bend The burn exhibited a series of falls at (NX) 262562 584169 (Figure 18) before it transferred through a dyke and became much narrower (NX) 262598 584218. The survey was terminated at this point as the burn transferred from sub optimal mixed juvenile habitat (containing some spawning material) to predominately bedrock (unproductive) instream habitat. Figure 18: Instream habitat switches from good quality mixed juvenile to unproductive bedrock at a series of small falls 3.2.2 Cleugh Burn The Cleugh Burn is a small tributary which arises from watercourses draining the moorland to the East side of Carsfad Loch. Denoted on the OS map, the Cleugh Burn is likely to have a waterfall a short distance upstream of the B7000 road. This suggests a limited distance of approximately 800 m of the lower watercourse may provide suitable habitat for salmonid production and in particular, salmon. The burn was surveyed in an upstream direction from (NX) 260957 586369, where it entered Carsfad Loch. The riparian zone included larch woodland along the left bankside and mixed 22 broadleaved woodland along the right bankside. As a consequence, the burn was heavily over shaded with a lack of any underlying vegetation on both banks. Within approximately 50 m of the mouth of the burn, a series of natural waterfalls were encountered at (NX) 260984 586362 (Figure 19). These were considered to be passable by fish. A further series of falls was encountered at (NX) 261019 586362. Despite being unable to access the burn directly at this point (due to the steep-sided banks), it was evident that instream habitat would limit fish production, being exclusively composed of bedrock. Both banksides were bare of vegetation, with only moss able to survive the little light penetrating through the dense canopy. Within approximately 80 m of the first set of falls encountered, a much larger waterfall was recorded at (NX) 261064 586362 (Figure 20). This waterfall was considered to be impassable to fish, given its approximate height of 4 m and narrow/vertical chute-like formation. Figure 19: A series of waterfalls encountered within 50 m of Carsfad Loch Figure 20: Looking downstream from the crest of an impassable waterfall, estimated to be over 4 m high Beyond the falls, some trout parr habitat was encountered in the form of a deep pool located beneath woody debris (Figure 21) at (NX) 261111 586358. The burn - inaccessible to livestock up until this point by stock exclusion fencing along both banks - widened and 23 became shallower to form a water hole located between two watergates at (NX) 261127 586333. Livestock, including cattle, were noted to have access to the burn at this point from a field on the left bankside. Upstream of the waterhole, some light began to penetrate through the dense canopy and for approximately 80 m length, the burn provided some mixed juvenile habitat (Figure 22) before narrowing and returning to bedrock composition at (NX) 261243 586276 where the survey ceased at the only point that the burn could be exited safely before entering a further, much narrower gorge. In total, approximately 350 m of the burn was surveyed. Figure 21: Good trout parr habitat lies beneath a build-up of woody debris Figure 22: Light begins to penetrate through the canopy upon an 80 m stretch of mixed juvenile habitat 3.2.3 Polmaddy Burn Over 4 km of the Polmaddy Burn was surveyed in an upstream direction from (NX) 260054 588007 where the burn enters the Water of Deugh near Dundeugh. The survey commenced with a short 200 m section of fairly inhospitable water that traversed a number of small bedrock steps (Figure 23) before levelling out beneath the A713 road 24 bridge at (NX) 259868 588057. Instream habitat was composed entirely of bedrock, with some boulders. A mixture of broadleaved trees and mature pine trees partly lined the right bankside and most of the left bankside. This short reach of the river contained very little spawning substrate. Figure 23: The lowermost reaches of the Polmaddy Burn The river continued upstream in a similar fashion, including run/riffle habitat surrounding small bedrock steps that lay regularly within the first 100 m (Figure 24). Parr are likely to inhabit the river up to (NX) 259708 588011 which signified the top of this section where a small burn entered from the left bankside. An extensive conifer plantation lined the river here, situated over 10 m back from the left bankside. Parr habitat continued with the odd small deposits of pebbles and cobbles amongst bedrock. From a vantage point along the left bankside at (NX) 259670 588001, a natural falls of approximately 1 m high spanned the river, and was likely passable on the right bankside (Figure 25). When viewed along its side profile from the left bankside (Figure 26), the falls were estimated to be around 1 m high by 15 m wide. A shallow and wide bypass channel (Figure 27) would likely assist migrants wishing easier transfer to above the falls, however, this channel was likely to dry up during low water/summer flows. Approximately 50 m2 of salmon spawning material (cobble/pebble) was present within the bypass channel – all of which had an algal coating. Figure 24: Regular sections of run/riffle habitat lie within the first 100 m upstream of the A713 road bridge 25 Figure 25: A 1 m high section of falls Figure 26: The falls viewed side-on from the left bankside Figure 27: A wide by-pass channel containing spawning habitat 26 From (NX) 259659 587947, located upstream of the falls, an exposed area of vegetated boulders would provide good instream parr refuge under higher flows. Parr habitat continued up to (NX) 259468 587930 where a mass of bedrock situated along the right bankside caused a flow constriction that provided run/riffle habitat. A sequence of glide sections containing boulders leading into small natural falls/flow constricted areas continued for a further 150 m up to (NX) 259322 587896 (Figure 28) – beyond which the banksides were too steep to access safely to view the watercourse beneath the footbridge at (NX) 259245 587913. This 70 m section would benefit from a drone survey to quickly uncover if a significant set of falls is located within the inaccessible area of the gorge. Figure 28: The burn becomes inaccessible by foot as the left bankside significantly steepens The survey continued from upstream of the footbridge, with bedrock still the predominate feature instream. As the channel reached a left hand bend at (NX) 259138 587839, the burn widened into a straight section, with deep water and a cobble base providing good cover for parr. Small deposits of gravel lay close to the left bankside. Towards the top end of the glide, the substrates appeared to be compacted. This is likely to be caused by run off from commercial forestry – the main landuse within this catchment. At the end of the straight, the channel changed course and headed around a right-hand bend, where a vegetated island lay adjacent to the left bankside (Figure 29). A deposit of gravel approximately 100 m2 in area lay downstream of the island at (NX) 259175 587757, and was the first encounter with spawning habitat within this section. On the other side of the island, the channel deepened. Substrates that were visible in this area lay amongst silt. At (NX) 259165 587672, the channel widened further through a very unstable section of pool and glide containing a mixture of fine compacted substrates. At the top end of the pool, two islands split the river into three channels (Figure 30). The three channels provided areas of run and riffle and on closer inspection, generous deposits of gravel could be seen upstream and downstream of each island (Figure 31) at (NX) 259124 587602. An area of wetland extended 20 m out with the right bankside of the pool beneath the three islands. 27 Figure 29: A long, thin, vegetated island lies adjacent to the left bankside Figure 30: The river splits into three channels around two islands at the top of a pool Figure 31: Looking downstream from above the islands; large deposits of gravel lie upstream and downstream of the islands 28 A short distance upstream of the islands, the channel narrowed and became enclosed by a dry stone dyke along its right bankside. Mixed juvenile run/riffle habitat continued over a 100 m stretch of river from (NX) 259089 587567 to a right hand bend at (NX) 259001 587579. By now, the burn was approximately 10 m wide and continued to provide run/riffle habitat for a further 100 m (Figure 32) where spawning substrates lay in abundance. Figure 32: Good quality spawning habitat Instream habitat began to change from mixed juvenile to parr habitat from (NX) 258910 587659, as boulders featured more densely. Spawning habitat arose at the tail end of each glide section (Figure 33). A 1 m wide burn entered along the right bankside here (Figure 34). Passage of trout into this burn is likely to be obstructed by a fallen tree at the junction with the main river. Figure 33: Spawning habitat follows a section of glide 29 Figure 34: A narrow tributary that may provide spawning habitat for brown trout A series of large boulders traversed the river at the top of this section at (NX) 258884 587764 (Figure 35), above which there lay a 100 m2 area of spawning habitat. The burn, approximately 15 m wide, continued for around 50 m, providing mixed juvenile habitat with deposits of gravel visible beneath each boulder (Figure 36). Conifer regeneration was present along the right bankside. Figure 35: Large boulders have been artificially placed across the river 30 Figure 36: An area of mixed juvenile habitat The burn began to climb from (NX) 258808 587835 with small bedrock falls a feature over the next 150 m (Figure 37). Fine pockets of gravel lay throughout this section with the largest area of 50 m2 being recorded adjacent to where the conifer forestry met the river along the left bankside. Small birch trees lined the right bankside in this section and boulders began to feature as well as bedrock. From (NX) 258734 587923, bedrock continued to feature and conifer forestry now lined both banks (Figure 38). Parr habitat continued for a further 100 m with some mixed juvenile habitat returning as placement of boulders captured small pockets of gravel. The river, approximately 10 m wide, now rose through a series of boulders at (NX) 258492 588186. Here, upon the right bankside, conifer regeneration was present. Figure 37: The river steadily rises over bedrock and between a series of shallow flow constructions 31 Figure 38: The river is lined by conifer forestry on both banks At the tail end of a pool at (NX) 258387 588302, a 10 m by 100 m area of clean spawning gravels were visible in shallow riffle (Figure 39). This area marked a change in habitat away from a predominately boulder and bedrock substrate base to >1 km length of river that provided areas of excellent spawning substrates between good mixed juvenile holding water. Lovely run/riffle sequences of water lay throughout this section (Figure 40). Of particular interest, was a 300 m stretch of shallow pool and glide water where the conifer plantation sat over 30 m back from the left bankside. A clean bed of gravel, pebbles and cobbles visible here would provide good spawning habitat for salmon if they were present in the catchment (Figure 41). However, deep holding water may be a limiting factor to adult fish residing in this particular stretch and upon viewing the clear and still water; no fish were observed. Figure 39: Clean spawning habitat at the tail end of a pool 32 Figure 40: A long section of run/riffle habitat Figure 41: Clean substrates are visible within a section of shallow glide and run/riffle habitat Upstream of the shallow 300 m section, an area of mixed juvenile habitat was located at (NX) 257969 588471 where a drystone dyke neared the watercourse from the left bankside. Conifer forestry aligned the watercourse once more along the left bankside and clear-fell filled the riparian zone along the right bankside. Shallow glide and run flow types featured with fine gravel - providing spawning opportunities particularly for trout (Figure 42) at (NX) 257744 588743. Conifer regeneration was present along this length. Adult holding water existed within a 75 m stretch of glide/pool water beginning at (NX) 257705 588721. Instream habitat was much more stable here with moss covering substrates at the tail end of a pool (Figure 43). Mixed juvenile habitat recommenced from (NX) 257627 588684. 33 Figure 42: Small spawning substrates particularly suited to trout Figure 43: Moss attached to instream substrates suggest the river is much more stable in this section At (NX) 257477 588704, a track neared the river on the right bankside before conifer forestry began to encroach on both banks. Instream habitat was now more suited to parr and adult fish as the channel gently rose in gradient and became dominated by bedrock substrate. Situated within dense forestry, the channel split around an island (Figure 44), and upon negotiating the left bankside channel of the watercourse, the bankside became suddenly steep which signalled the entrance to Drumness Linn. On climbing the steep left bankside, a significant section of waterfalls at (NX) 257346 588757 could be seen (Figure 45), which despite being unable to view at close proximity; appeared to be impassable under the survey flow. The survey terminated a short distance upstream of the falls where the burn levelled out and an access track could be located to join the forestry road at (NX) 257222 588647. The burn continued upstream for 1.5 km before passing under a forestry road bridge. From here, it runs alongside conifer forestry for over 6 km, arising within the hillside of Craignelder. 34 Figure 44: A burn weaves around an island as it enters Drumness Linn Figure 45: A significant set of (impassable) falls lie at the top of Drumness Linn 3.2.4 Water of Deugh – Carsfad Loch to Bridge at Dundeugh Approximately 1.1 km of the Water of Deugh was surveyed in an upstream direction from where the river joins the upper reaches of Carsfad Loch, to upstream of the junction with the Polmaddy Burn. On the day of surveying, electrical generation was being undertaken at Kendoon Power Station. As such, surveying commenced from the right bankside at (NX) 260533 587272, where the river could be safely walked but not entered (due to deep and potentially fastflowing water). Across the first 350 m of its length, the river consisted of deep pool, containing limited production habitat for salmonids. The river remained inaccessible beneath its junction with the Kendoon Power Station outflow at (NX) 260420 587524 (Figure 46) and only from (NX) 260394 587604 could the watercourse be accessed beneath a suspension bridge (Figure 47). Covering a 50 m section of river upstream to the footbridge, the instream habitat was largely composed of bedrock, and this continued for a further 100 m length upstream. Water depth was notably limiting to salmonid production with only shallow pool and glide present. 35 Figure 46: Looking upstream to the Water of Deugh and Water of Ken junction Figure 47: A section of bedrock within the lower Water of Deugh However, by (NX) 260272 587684, parr habitat began to appear with the introduction of cobbles and boulders into the watercourse. Tiny pockets of gravel also began to appear within this 50 m section and accompanied by run and riffle flow types; limited mixed juvenile habitat existed between the bedrock. From (NX) 260240 587720, parr habitat in the form of boulders and cobbles lay within a large section of shallow glide (Figure 48). Bedrock continued to feature spanning from both banksides within a further 100 m stretch of the river. By (NX) 260125 587850, the river began to narrow to approximately 8 m wide, and some run/riffle water emerged as the watercourse became constricted between masses of bedrock (Figure 49). As the river rose in gradient, faster flows were more readily observed but instream habitat was largely composed of bedrock - making it very limiting to salmonid production. By (NX) 260054 588007, beyond its junction with the Polmaddy Burn; the Water of Deugh dried up significantly (the consequence of upstream water transfer activities by the Galloway Hydro Scheme between the Deugh and Ken catchment). Here, the survey section terminated where the main limiting pressure of water shortage within this part of the Deugh catchment could be seen (Figure 50). 36 Figure 48: An area of good parr habitat Figure 49: River flow improves as the channel is constricted through a section of bedrock 37 Figure 50: The river is notably starved of water upstream of its junction with the Polmaddy Burn 3.2.5 Water of Ken – Carsfad Dam to Earlstoun Loch The Water of Ken was surveyed in a downstream direction for approximately 1.3 km, from downstream of Carsfad Dam at (NX) 260586 585282, to a Linn at (NX) 260651 584205. The survey began within an area of approximately 15 m wide by 35 m length of river containing good parr habitat, with boulders and bedrock visible above the surface of the water (Figure 51). A long slow-flowing pool then continued downstream for approximately 150 m to (NX) 260564 585168. The pool (Figure 52) offered limited use to fish other than holding water for adults. The river continued through a small area (~25 m x 30 m) of large boulders suitable for parr habitat between (NX) 260572 585165 and (NX) 2605558 585145 before returning to pool again with a cobble/boulder bed. The pool was approximately 35-40 m wide by 150 m long. At the tail end of the pool ((NX) 260529 585003)), substrate was comprised mostly of bedrock (Figure 53) covering an area of mixed juvenile habitat. The section ended adjacent to a road layby. Figure 51: Parr habitat lies beneath Carsfad Dam 38 Figure 52: Adult fish-holding water Figure 53: Bedrock begins to dominate substrate composition The river continued downstream consisting mostly of boulders with very little substrate movement evident. The channel was approximately 40 m wide although the flow was concentrated to a much narrower section. Figure 54 pictures the channel looking in an upstream direction from (NX) 260543 584899. Bedrock and boulders created good parr habitat in this section. From here, the channel expanded to approximately 50 m wide with a wetted width of 15 to 30 m. No spawning or juvenile habitat existed in this area of the river. A small stand of Japanese Knotweed was present on the right bankside at (NX) 260501 584725. A 70 m long by 15 m wide pool at (NX) 260463 584630 marked the end of this section. A 10 m section of the left bank was eroded (Figure 55). From the tail end of the pool, good quality juvenile habitat existed across a 200 m by 12 m section from (NX) 260432 584566 to the outflow of the Polharrow Burn. 39 Figure 54: Looking upstream towards Carsfad Dam, vast sections of bedrock can be seen constricting flows towards the left bankside Figure 55: An area of bankside erosion upon the left bank The Polharrow Burn entered into the river within a large deep pool at (NX) 260369 584402, estimated to be 100 m long by 40 m wide (Figure 56). From the tail end of the pool at (NX) 260421 584318, a substrate base of boulders and bedrock provided good parr habitat (Figure 57). There was no fry or spawning habitat within this section. The river began to fall through a section of bedrock, eventually turning a corner where it entered into a deep pool (Figure 58) lined entirely with bedrock at (NX) 260594 584288. Immediately downstream, the river descended into a gorge (Figure 59) which marked the entry to the Craig Linn at (NX) 260651 584205 to which the survey was terminated. The river was concentrated through a 1 m width section of the Craig Linn on the day of survey. 40 Figure 56: A large deep pool is located at the entry to the Polharrow Burn Figure 57: Parr habitat at the tail end of the pool Figure 58: A deep pool lined with bedrock 41 Figure 59: Upstream of the entry to Craig Linn 3.2.6 Polharrow Burn The Polharrow Burn was surveyed in an upstream direction, for a length of approximately 2.5 km, from (NX) 260082 584467, upstream of the old A713 road bridge, to (NX) 258542 585319 where a substantial set of natural falls was encountered. The survey commenced upstream of the old A713 road bridge, upstream of a historical electrofishing site where salmon and trout are both regularly recorded. The burn at this point was lined on both banks with mixed broadleaved trees and was unfenced and opens into rough pasture on its right bankside and arable pasture on its left bank before broadleaved woodland was met (over 100 m from bankside). Instream habitat throughout the first 50 m stretch of river was mixed juvenile, with run and riffle flow types featuring (Figure 60). A small area of spawning habitat of approximately 4 m2 lay adjacent to the left bankside at (NX) 260293 584426, as a gradual bend in the channel was met. From here, the burn became deeper, with pool and glide flow types featuring. The burn was approximately 12 m along this length. Woody debris was noted at (NX) 260244 584455, presenting ideal sheltering habitat for trout parr. The burn gently weaved to the right at (NX) 260107 584464 where there was a slight break into faster glide. A short distance upstream, began a 50 m long section of juvenile habitat from (NX) 260080 584470, leading up to a slight passable flow constriction of approximately 5 m width at (NX) 260035 584488. Beyond this, the burn returned to deep holding water (adult fish habitat), consisting of glide flow. At (NX) 259808 584516, approximately 20 m stretch of the burn presented mixed juvenile habitat upon a slight bend. Thereafter, at (NX) 259780 584500 at the tail end of a pool, approximately 25 m2 of fine spawning material was encountered. The river continued in glide and a small island sat towards the left bankside where a 15 m length and 45 m2 area of small gravels, suited to trout spawning, lined the inside channel. During low water and prolonged dry weather, the channel may become dry. At (NX) 259702 584504, a more significant area of spawning and juvenile habitat was encountered, covering approximately a 20 m length by 7.5 m width of the river, lying adjacent to a centrally located gravel bar (Figure 61). Furthermore, a particularly good area (approximately 100 m2) of salmon spawning habitat was present at the tail end of a glide section at (NX) 259670 584520. A well-vegetated retainer bank was noted to run over 5 m back from the left bankside. At (NX) 259620 584540, approximately 15 m2 of limited spawning, mixed juvenile and glide habitat was present before the river began to widen. 42 Figure 60: Run and riffle habitat within the first 50 m of burn surveyed Figure 61: An area of spawning and juvenile habitat The river appeared to branch and form a narrow second channel along the right bankside. Bank erosion was evident along the left bankside in this predominantly parr water. At (NX) 259555 584598, a 20 m length of the river contained fry/spawning habitat, leading into parr habitat (Figure 62). This led into an area of river containing a bedrock step, where there was a shallow flow constriction (passable) at (NX) 259489 584615 (Figure 63). The river continued in glide with some mixed juvenile habitat instream. A quad bike track ran adjacent to the river at this point. As the river gradually turned to the left, there was a small area of riffle and parr habitat (mixed juvenile) at (NX) 259370 584674 (Figure 64), changing to glide and run flows with some spawning material at the tail end of the glide. Spawning was patchy throughout this section but more substantial at (NX) 259262 584657 at the tail end of a glide section and downstream of where the Crummy Burn entered the river (Figure 65). For a short section of river upstream of the Crummy Burn inflow, the river turned to predominately glide flow but maintained mixed juvenile habitat instream including some patchy spawning matter. 43 Figure 62: A 20 m length of fry/spawning habitat Figure 63: A (passable) flow constriction Figure 64: A lovely area of juvenile and spawning habitat 44 Figure 65: Spawning habitat downstream of the junction with the Crummy Burn From (NX) 259189 584674, glide flow type and parr habitat began to feature more heavily (Figure 66) and from around (NX) 259092 584741, the river noticeably changed with boulders and bedrock featuring heavily as the river climbed towards a passable bedrock step fall at (NX) 259006 584792 (Figure 67). Bedrock featured throughout an area that progressed to a flow constriction with turbulent water at (NX) 258965 584829. Parr habitat dominated this area of the river but from (NX) 258846 584885, some mixed juvenile water was present with glide. A section of stepping stones (Figure 68) traversed the river in an area of juvenile habitat. Thereafter, the river returned to glide/parr habitat with limited production up until (NX) 258685 585192. White water featured as the river fell through bedrock steps, culminating in a 1 m high obstruction at (NX) 258660 585232 (Figure 69). Although problematic to ascend in places, this obstruction was unlikely to cause adult fish any concerns in passing. Across the next 150 m or so, the river remained largely composed of bedrock, with an area of stepped habitat transferring the river upwards and beyond a large island of bedrock, positioned towards the right bankside (where a small side channel separated it from the bank – see Figure 70). Very little juvenile habitat existed in this stretch and the river was largely suited to parr throughout. Finally, at (NX) 258542 585319, a very large waterfall spanned the width of the channel (Figure 71). This significant obstruction was likely to be impassable to migratory fish. 45 Figure 66: Parr habitat lies throughout a section of glide Figure 67: Boulders and bedrock feature heavily on approach to a section of bedrock steps Figure 68: Stepping stones create a feature between mixed juvenile habitat 46 Figure 69: A 1 m high obstruction at (NX) 258660 585232 Figure 70: A large island is situated along the right bankside within an area of parr habitat 47 Figure 71: A large waterfall located within Waukers Linn obstructs migratory fish from passing upstream 3.2.7 Crummy Burn The Crummy Burn was surveyed from its point of entry into the Polharrow Burn at (NX) 259242 584616. Over the first 100 m length of the burn, instream habitat would provide for salmon production with a good run-riffle sequence of flow across a matrix of gravel, pebble and cobble bed (Figure 72). The burn, approximately 5 m in width, would provide around 300 m2 of spawning habitat, leading into mixed juvenile habitat from (NX) 259242 584575. Figure 72: Looking downstream upon the lower reaches of the Crummy Burn At (NX) 259252 584550, the burn began to rise, narrow and enter a gorge. With a base comprised mainly of bedrock, the burn provided very limited opportunities for spawning fish, except for some very small pockets of fine gravel that may have provided habitat for trout (Figure 73). Now with very steep banksides either side and narrowing to between 1 m and 3 m, the burn continued with a series of stepped falls leading eventually to an impassable fall of approximately >10 m high at (NX) 259222 584443 (Figure 74). Overall, the burn was a typical upland tributary that was heavily over shaded and likely to provide instream habitat for limited native brown trout production. 48 Figure 73: Bare, steep banksides of the Crummy Burn Figure 74: An impassable waterfall located approximately 200 m downstream of the road bridge 49 4. DISCUSSION 4.1 Electrofishing sites 4.1.1 Site 1: Earlstoun Burn The Earlstoun Burn was electrofished within its upper reaches, downstream of Corseglass Bridge (Figure 75). A site of approximately 15 m length by 2.5 m width was timed electrofished for a duration of 5 minutes. Substrate cover was considered good, consisting of 25% gravel, 40% pebble, 30% cobble and 5% boulder. Flows were noted to be mostly deep glide and run types. Bankside cover, provided by draped vegetation, was between 60% and 80% on both banks. The riparian zone contained tall herbs and overall land use was recorded as upland rough pasture and conifer forestry. Figure 75: Site DKE1, looking upstream Salmon were not recorded at this site. Four trout fry and a single trout parr were recorded. No other fish species were present. 4.1.2 Site 2: Earlstoun Burn The Earlstoun Burn was electrofished within its middle reaches, upstream of a farm track near Ardoch Hill (Figure 76). A site of approximately 20 m length by 4 m width was timed electrofished for a duration of 5 minutes. Substrate cover was considered excellent, consisting of 20% gravel, 30% pebble, 40% cobble and 10% boulder. Areas of fast flowing water were surveyed (40% run and 60% torrent) upon two breaks. Bankside cover, provided by draped vegetation and undercuts, was only present along 20% of each back. The site was located within rough upland (sheep grazed) pasture. The burn did not appear to be under significant pressure from livestock grazing, however, a lack of trees to help stabilise the banksides, did appear to be exacerbating bankside erosion - visible within this section of the burn. 50 Figure 76: Site DKE2, looking upstream Salmon were not recorded at this site. One trout fry and three trout parr were recorded. No other fish species were present. 4.1.3 Site 3: Earlstoun Burn The Earlstoun Burn was electrofished within its lower reaches, in an area of run and riffle habitat (Figure 77) upstream of the B7000 road bridge. A site of approximately 25 m length by 5 m width was timed electrofished for a duration of 5 minutes through good spawning habitat (40% cobbles and 60% pebbles/gravels). Undercut banks provided fish cover along 20% of the left bankside whilst the right bankside was bare. The burn was unfenced along the right bankside in a field containing light sheep grazing and lined with mature broadleaved trees along its left bankside (providing 50% canopy cover over the site). Figure 77: Site DKE3, looking upstream Salmon were not recorded at this site. Twelve trout fry and two trout parr (including one parr of 286 mm in length – Figure 78) were recorded. No other fish species were present. 51 Figure 78: A beautiful trout parr caught in site 3 4.1.4 Site 4: Earlstoun Burn The Earlstoun Burn was electrofished within its lower reaches, downstream of Earlstoun Bridge upon the B7000 road; mid-way across a cattle grazed field within the grounds of Earlstoun Castle. An area of 88.4 m2 (Figure 79) was electrofished as a single-run (semiquantitative) electrofishing survey. Substrate cover was considered good, consisting of 15% gravel, 30% pebble, 50% cobble and 5% boulder. The site steadily rose in gradient towards a pool, producing fast run and torrent flow types. Bankside cover was negligible with only bare rocks noted as lining each bankside. Landuse was considered rough pasture. Both banksides were unfenced and noted as susceptible to poaching pressure from cattle grazing. Figure 79: Site DKE4, looking upstream A single salmon parr was recorded at this site (Figure 80). This is the first GFT record of juvenile salmon to be found within the Earlstoun Burn. No trout were recorded. Two threespined stickleback were also present. 52 Figure 80: A single salmon parr found at site DKE4 4.1.5 Site 5: Cleugh Burn The Cleugh Burn was electrofished within its lower reaches, upstream of Cleugh Bridge on the B7000. An area of 66.2 m2 (Figure 81) was electrofished as a single-run (semiquantitative) electrofishing survey. Substrate cover was considered good, consisting of 20% gravel, 30% pebble, 40% cobble and 10% boulder. Flows were fast run (70%) and riffle, with the burn gradually ascending around a bend towards a good break, upon which the site ended. Bankside cover was recorded across 50% of both banks, provided by draped vegetation and rocks. Landuse was considered rough pasture. Both banksides were unfenced and noted as susceptible to poaching pressures from grazing livestock. Figure 81: Site DKC1, looking upstream from Cleugh Bridge The burn was fishless. Only two small newts were recorded. 4.1.6 Site 6: Polmaddy Burn The Polmaddy Burn was electrofished upstream of a series of falls upstream of a footbridge near Polmaddie settlement (Figure 82). A site of approximately 40 m length by 8 m width 53 was timed electrofished for a duration of 5 minutes through a sequence of glide/pool and run/riffle habitat. Substrate cover was good with 30% pebble and 50% cobbles recorded amongst boulders and gravels. Bankside cover was present only along the right bank, where 10% cover was provided by draped vegetation and undercut banking. The riparian zone was considered tall herbs and rough pasture within a catchment managed primarily for conifer forestry. Figure 82: Site DKPol1, looking upstream Salmon were not recorded at this site. Seven trout fry and one trout parr were recorded. A single minnow was also recorded. 4.1.7 Site 7: Polmaddy Burn The Polmaddy Burn was electrofished downstream of a series of falls adjacent to a forest road upstream of Dundeugh bridge on the A713 (Figure 83). A site of approximately 20 m length by 10 m width was timed electrofished for a duration of 5 minutes in run/riffle and deep glide habitat. Substrate cover was good with 50% cobble and 30% boulder recorded. All substrates were noted to have a covering of algae which, by their slippery nature, delayed surveyors progress through the site. For this reason and due to low conductivity making it hard to hold fish; a couple of trout parr evaded capture. Bankside cover was good, with both banks densely lined with birch trees. The riparian zone consisted of mixed broadleaved trees against a backdrop of conifer forestry along the left bankside. 54 Figure 83: Site DKPol2, looking upstream Salmon were not recorded at this site. One trout fry and two trout parr were recorded. Five minnows were also recorded. 4.1.8 Site 8: Polharrow Burn – McAdams Burn The McAdams Burn was surveyed a short distance upstream of its confluence with the Mid Burn (Figure 84). A site of approximately 30 m length by 4.5 m width was timed electrofished for a duration of 5 minutes in shallow run/riffle and glide habitat. Instream cover was considered to be good; with 50% cobbles and 30% pebbles recorded amongst a small amount of boulders and gravels. However, bankside cover was lacking with both banks being recorded as 100% bare. Conifer forestry was present <5 m back from the left bankside whilst conifer regeneration existed along the right bankside. Water conductivity was recorded as low, which made it hard to capture fish. Figure 84: Site DKP1, looking upstream Salmon were not recorded at this site. A total of five trout fry and four trout parr were caught at this site. No other fish species were present. 55 4.1.9 Site 9: Polharrow Burn – Mid Burn The Mid Burn was surveyed a short distance upstream of its confluence with the McAdam Burn (Figure 85). A site of approximately 20 m length by 5 m width was timed electrofished for a duration of 5 minutes through gently sloping run and riffle habitat downstream of a forest road bridge. Instream cover was considered excellent, with 60% cobbles and 10% large boulders recorded. The burn was completely over shaded with conifer trees planted <5 m back from each bankside. Low conductivity recorded at this site made it difficult to hold fish. Figure 85: Site DKP2, looking upstream Salmon were not recorded at this site. Trout parr (four in total) were the only fish captured at this site. A single trout parr was lost. 4.1.10 Site 10: Polharrow Burn – Burnhead Burn McAdams and Mid Burn join to form the Burnhead Burn – which is one of two tributaries that create the Polharrow Burn. The Burnhead Burn (Figure 86) was surveyed within the forest, adjacent to the road and car park at Burnhead Bridge. A site of approximately 40 m length by 5 m width was timed electrofished for a duration of 5 minutes through good shallow spawning habitat (gravel/pebble/cobble substrates) with run and riffle flows. The site was completely over shaded by birch trees and both banks were recorded as bare of vegetation. 56 Figure 86: Site DKP3, looking upstream No salmon were recorded at this site. Although the water level was low to medium height and fairly fast flowing (ideal juvenile fish habitat) – no fish were seen escaping from the site and only a single trout fry was captured during the five-minute survey. 4.1.11 Site 11: Polharrow Burn – Lumford Burn The Lumford Burn was surveyed downstream of Fore Bush and downstream of a power house that is part of a hydro scheme operating on the burn. A site of approximately 60 m length by 7 m width (Figure 87) was timed electrofished for a duration of 5 minutes through fast flowing run and torrent water formed mainly from the power house discharge water. Substrates were dominated by mobile gravels and there was evidence that dredging activities have taken place within this site to clear excess gravel build up. Both banks were recorded as 100% bare of vegetation. No tree cover was present at this site. Figure 87: Site DKP4, looking upstream towards the Power House No salmon were recorded at this site. A single trout fry and a single trout parr were captured at this site. No other fish species were recorded. 57 4.1.12 Site 12: Polharrow Burn – Lumford Burn The Lumford Burn was surveyed upstream of the bridge near the carpark at the Forest Lodge (Figure 88). A site of approximately 30 m length by 5 m width was timed electrofished for a duration of 5 minutes through fast riffle and torrent flows. Substrates were dominated by cobble (50%) with finer spawning materials (gravels and pebbles) accounting for 30% of cover recorded. Boulders and bedrock also featured. Both banks were recorded as bare of vegetation but the surrounding forest containing mixed broadleaved trees, contributed overhanging boughs across 80% of the left bank and 60% of the right bank – altogether providing a canopy cover of 60%. Figure 88: Site DKP5, looking upstream No salmon were recorded at this site. Although the water height was considered to be too fast to effectively capture fish; only a couple of parr were seen to evade capture. Overall, two trout fry and one trout parr (Figure 89) were recorded. Figure 89: A trout parr of 195 mm length captured from site DKP5 58 4.1.13 Site 13: Polharrow Burn The upper Polharrow Burn was surveyed upstream of a road bridge close to the Forest Estate Office (Figure 90). A site of approximately 30 m length by 8 m width was timed electrofished for a duration of 5 minutes through a deep, fast-flowing channel, largely consisting of bedrock underfoot (70%) with loose scatterings of cobbles, pebbles and gravels. Overhanging vegetation, undercut bankings and roots provided bankside cover of between 25% and 30% on both banks. Birch trees overhung 60% of both banks. These trees outreached a distance into the main channel to provide a canopy cover of 60% across the entire site. Figure 90: Site DKP6, looking upstream Salmon were not recorded at this site. Due to the depth of water, its fast flow and the precarious substrate base (mostly bedrock); electrofishing was confined towards the right bankside where only three trout parr were captured. 4.1.14 Site 14: Polharrow Burn The Polharrow Burn was surveyed around 400 m downstream of Knockreoch Bridge, upon an area of shallow run/riffle habitat which presented good salmonid spawning habitat (Figure 91). A site of approximately 20 m length by 7 m width was timed electrofished for a duration of 5 minutes through optimal fast flowing spawning habitat at the tail end of a pool. The site fell upon the right bankside of an island, upon which birch trees overhung the left bankside. 59 Figure 91: Site DKP7, looking upstream No salmon were recorded at this site. No fish were captured within the run/riffle habitat at the tail end of the pool. However, upon a quick investigation into habitat beneath the left bankside upstream of the site, two trout fry were captured. 4.1.15 Site 15: Polharrow Burn The Polharrow Burn was surveyed downstream of a significant set of falls at Waukers Linn (Figure 92). A site of approximately 20 m length by 12 m width was timed electrofished for a duration of 5 minutes through deep glide. Only the right bankside of the channel could be fished given the deep water height and underlying substrates (65% bedrock and 10% boulders). Some fine gravels featured along the right bankside. A small riffle area existed at the downstream end of the site. This was also fished but was positioned upon bedrock (and therefore unsuitable for spawning). Overhanging Birch and Rowan trees provided a canopy cover of 30% over the site. Figure 92: Site DKP8, looking upstream 60 Salmon were recorded at this site (Figure 93). Three were captured during the survey. All were parr. Two trout fry and a single trout parr were also recorded. No other fish species were present. Figure 93: Two healthy looking salmon parr and two trout fry captured in site DKP8 4.1.16 Site 16: Polharrow Burn – Crummy Burn The Crummy Burn was surveyed upstream of Crummy Bridge. High water level on the day of survey limited the survey technique that could be adopted and as a result, only a presence/absence survey could be undertaken. Despite the high-water level, three trout fry were captured. No salmon were found at this site. 4.1.17 Site 17: Polharrow Burn – Crummy Burn The Crummy Burn was surveyed 50 m upstream of its junction with the Polharrow Burn (Figure 94). A site of approximately 20 m length by 5 m width was timed electrofished for a duration of 5 minutes through excellent salmon spawning habitat, containing a great mixture of flows and instream habitat (35% cobbles, 30% pebbles and 20% gravels). Although the site was quite over shaded by mature birch trees rooted into both banks; grass and bracken provided vegetation overhanging 20% of both banks. 61 Figure 94: Site DKP10, looking upstream No salmon fry were recorded at this site. A single salmon parr was recorded. Six trout fry were recorded and two trout parr (including one parr of 292 mm in length – Figure 95). A dozen minnows were the only other fish species recorded at this site. Figure 95: A beautiful trout parr captured within site DKP10 4.1.18 Site 18: Polharrow Burn The Polharrow Burn was surveyed in a beautiful part of the river, upon a deep area of run and riffle downstream of the Crummy Burn inflow (Figure 96). A site of approximately 10 m length by 12 m width was timed electrofished for a duration of 5 minutes through very fast flow (40% torrent). Instream habitat was not visible under the high flows, but felt mobile and of a good range of sizes including 40% cobbles and 5% boulders – particularly towards the middle of the channel. Bankside cover was recorded as between 30% and 60%, provided by overhanging vegetation. Broadleaved trees provided canopy cover across 15% of the site, with Elm and Rowan trees sporadically spaced along both banksides. 62 Figure 96: Site DKP11, looking upstream Despite the medium to high flows at which the survey was carried out; a single salmon fry and four salmon parr were captured (Figure 97). A single trout fry and a parr (Figure 98) were also recorded. Three parr were seen evading capture. Two stoneloach were the only other fish species caught during the survey. Figure 97: Three very healthy salmon parr captured from within site DKP11 63 Figure 98: A large trout measuring 275 mm long caught in site DKP11 4.1.19 Site 19: Polharrow Burn The Polharrow Burn was surveyed upstream of the A713 road bridge and old track road bridge (Figure 99) close to a historical electrofishing site located downstream of the old track bridge. A site of approximately 20 m length by 13 m width was timed electrofished for a duration of 5 minutes through run and riffle juvenile salmon habitat containing 50% cobbles and 30% pebbles. Substrates were noted to be slippery, which delayed progress through the site. Both banks were recorded as bare of vegetation. Canopy cover, recorded as shading 60% of the site, was provided by mature birch trees – one of which had fallen into the site, providing woody debris refuge for fish along the left bankside. Figure 99: Site DKP12, looking upstream Ten salmon fry and 10 salmon parr were recorded at this site (Figure 100). Four trout fry were recorded at this site but no trout parr. Minnows were the only other fish species recorded at this site. 64 Figure 100: A well-fed salmon parr lies between four slender looking salmon parr and below three salmon fry – all captured within site DKP12 4.1.20 Site 20: Glen Strand The Glen Strand was surveyed a short distance upstream of where it passes via a long culvert, beneath the A713 that runs adjacent to the West side of Earlstoun Loch. A series of steps marked the entry to a narrow culvert; above which the burn was overgrown with only a couple of small pools accessible to survey by electrofishing (Figure 101). As such, a presence/absence survey was undertaken where the bedrock could be negotiated safely. Figure 101: Site DKG1, looking upstream No fish were recorded at this site. 65 5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Electrofishing Data Stocking of juvenile salmon (eyed ova or fed fry) has been undertaken within the upper Kirkcudbrightshire Dee catchment since beyond 2001, when the first electrofishing monitoring of stocking sites was undertaken by GFT (APPENDIX 2). The Polharrow Burn, which maintains a wild population of salmon, has been stocked with salmon in the past – mostly within its upper reaches. The last known stocking to have taken place on the Polharrow Burn was over five years ago and overall, very little stocking has taken place across the entire catchment in the last three years. Stocking has also been undertaken in the upper catchment within the Water of Ken (2005 and 2007) and Polmaddy Burn (2008). Historical data (APPENDIX 2), shows that salmon have been regularly recorded within the Polharrow Burn (2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2015, 2017 and 2018), mostly within the very bottom of the burn in a site upstream of the A714 road bridge. Results from historical electrofishing data gathered from the Polmaddy Burn (2004, 2008 and 2017), show that wild salmon have never been recorded within the burn (only trout). Data obtained from the Cleugh Burn (2004), Earlstoun Burn (2004) and Water of Ken (2015 and 2016) all indicate that salmon do not utilise these parts of the upper catchment. From the 20 electrofishing sites surveyed as part of this report (APPENDIX 1); juvenile salmon were found in low to moderate densities at five sites (four sites downstream of a large natural waterfall on the Polharrow Burn and a single site within the lower Earlstoun Burn). This confirms that salmon distribution is likely to be confined to watercourses that lie in close proximity to Earlstoun Loch. Juvenile trout were found at 17 sites; and two sites were fishless. The finding of salmon parr within the Earlstoun Burn was the first GFT record of salmon presence within this watercourse. 5.2 Habitat Data The Polharrow Burn, Polmaddy Burn, Earlstoun Burn, Cleugh Burn and Water of Ken were surveyed on foot to assess their spawning potential for salmon. In general, all of the watercourses would benefit from the introduction of woody debris in key locations to improve habitats for fish. There are many well used and simple techniques to introduce and anchor woody debris which are known to produce many environmental benefits particularly for fish. The Earlstoun Burn contained spawning habitat across approximately 500 m of its lower reaches from (NX) 262036 583372 upstream. After which, the burn becomes more gorgelike; eventually meeting a waterfall which is likely to be impassable to salmon. Within the 500 m length of the burn which is favourable to salmon production, bankside erosion was evident. This pressure could be addressed by placing stock exclusion fencing along both banks to prevent further damage by livestock (and in particular – trampling by cattle). This section of the burn could also benefit from broadleaved tree planting along the banksides to help stabilise the banks and provide shade and encourage terrestrial invertebrates (food matter) into the burn. Further habitat works that could be undertaken to encourage salmon to utilise the burn further include debris blockage removal and management of woody debris. The upper reaches of the burn, although most likely inaccessible to salmon; provide a fantastic range of habitats for resident trout populations and these fish would benefit significantly from habitat improvement works to help stabilise the banksides where active erosion was recorded. 66 The Cleugh Burn was fairly inhospitable to fish production in its lower reaches and impassable to salmon only a short distance from its entry to Carsfad Loch. No habitat improvement works would be advisable to help encourage salmon to utilise the burn, but it would be interesting to further investigate brown trout production within the burn upstream of the road bridge where there is good spawning habitat but no fish recorded within the current surveys. The lower reaches of the Polmaddy Burn did not contain suitable spawning substrates and only isolated sections of spawning habitat existed from between the A713 road bridge and footbridge at Polmaddie settlement. From Polmaddie settlement, production potential of instream habitat increased dramatically, with long sections of spawning and mixed juvenile habitat present up to an impassable falls at Drumness Linn. Habitat improvement works to encourage salmon utilisation of the burn are limited; mainly because access to the burn is restricted by water management (the lack of water) where the burn joins the Water of Deugh. The section of river which joins the Polmaddy Burn to the Water of Ken at Kendoon does not appear, under the present water management regime, to provide sufficient depth of water and attraction flow to encourage salmon to ascend towards the Polmaddy Burn. Furthermore, once within the Polmaddy Burn, it is a significant distance for salmon to travel to where spawning potential increases. However, to confirm that salmon are not already utilising the best production areas of the burn; further presence/absence or timed electrofishing surveys should be undertaken. It is also advisable that a drone survey is undertaken in the final section of the gorge, beneath the Polmaddie settlement footbridge; to confirm that a significant set of falls is not already preventing upstream access into the best area of the river. Clearance of conifer regeneration may be beneficial along this burn but overall, the instream habitat is already very varied and provides unlimited spawning opportunities for salmon should they be able to access the burn upstream of Polmaddie settlement in future. The Polmaddy Burn is recognised as being at risk of acidification. It is recommended that water quality monitoring is undertaken to examine the pH of the burn particularly during high flow events in the winter and spring. Fish populations may be limited at present due to acid flushes killing eggs and young fish. The Polharrow Burn contained large sections of deep glide within its lower reaches which would make good adult fish and parr holding water. Spawning potential of instream habitat was particularly good surrounding the Crummy Burn inflow, but from here, the burn contained a lot of bedrock which would limit the spawning potential of the burn significantly. In general, this is a beautiful and wild burn set within naturally reseeding broadleaved woodland with no obvious interference from agricultural or forestry practices in the lower reaches as far upstream as the impassable falls at Waukers Linn. Because salmon production is largely confined to this tributary of the upper Kirkcudbrightshire Dee catchment, it is imperative that conservation measures are strictly adhered to, to ensure the longevity of wild salmon production within the upper Kirkcudbrightshire Dee. The Water of Ken, surveyed between Carsfad Dam and Craigs Linn, did not contain suitable habitat for salmon production. It is likely that the dam structure is impeding the natural movement of smaller substrates from upstream. The lack of gravels, pebbles and smaller cobbles will impact on salmon spawning opportunities and help explain the lack of fish found here in previous electrofishing surveys. Following the survey, discussions were held with DRAX who reported that in 2020 the operation of the dam was varied to flush some substrates through the dam which may help the situation. If this is insufficient then it may be feasible to introduce smaller substrates back into the river close to the foot of the dam. Below the dam there is large pool located at the entrance to Polharrow Burn, which appeared to contain a build-up of salmon smolts departing the upper river during the low water in spring 2020. The potential of smolt holding water and investigation into options for capturing smolts should be investigated further at this location and within the Polharrow Burn to help advise a smolt tracking study which is planned to be undertaken on the river shortly. 67 6. APPENDIX 1: RESULTS FROM TIMED (NO. FISH/MINUTE), AREA DELINEATED (NO. FISH PER 100 M2) AND PRESENCE/ABSENCE (P/A) ELECTROFISHING SURVEYS UNDERTAKEN AS PART OF THE GALLOWAY GLENS UPPER DEE SALMON RESTORATION PROJECT Site Code Watercourse Site Location DKE1 Earlstoun Burn Downstream Corseglass Bridge DKE2 Earlstoun Burn DKE3 Earlstoun Burn Upstream farm track near Ardoch Hill Upstream road bridge DKE4 Earlstoun Burn DKC1 Cleugh Burn DKP1 Polharrow Burn Polharrow Burn Polharrow Burn DKP2 Gallow ay_234 1 DKP3 DKP4 DKP5 Gallow ay_236 1 DKP6 DKP7 DKP8 DKP9 DKP10 Polharrow Burn Polharrow Burn Polharrow Burn Polharrow Burn Polharrow Burn Polharrow Burn Polharrow Burn Polharrow Burn (P/A) Polharrow Within Earlstoun Castle grounds, upstream fallen tree Upstream of road bridge McAdams Burn - downstream bridge Mid Burn Burnhead Burn – downstream of Mid Burn/McAdams Burn confluence Burnhead Burn – within forest, adjacent to road Lumford Burn – downstream of Fore Bush and Power House Lumford Burn – upstream bridge at car park Downstream of car park, upstream of bend Upstream bridge at Forest Estate Office On slight bend, upon riffle Downstream of falls Crummy Burn – upstream of road bridge Crummy Burn – downstream of Catch Per Unit Effort (no. fish caught/min), Density per 100m2 or Presence/Absence (P/A) of fish (no. fish) Salmon Salmon Trout Trout Fry Parr Fry Parr (0+) (1+ and (0+) (1+ and older) older) 0 0 0.8 0.2 Grid Reference Survey Date Presence Of NonSalmonid Species* 264176 585770 262420 583693 262295 583189 262070 583310 261700 586295 254570 585255 254581 585361 254762 585521 16/10/2019 None 16/10/2019 None 0 0 0.2 0.6 16/10/2019 None 0 0 2.4 0.4 03/09/2019 St 0 >1** 0 0 03/09/2019 None 0 0 0 0 02/10/2019 None 0 0 1 0.8 02/10/2019 None 0 0 0 0.8 31/07/2019 None 0 0 0 >3.79** 255305 586190 254698 586567 255272 586356 255606 586477 02/10/2019 None 0 0 0.2 0 02/10/2019 None 0 0 0.2 0.2 02/10/2019 None 0 0 0.4 0.2 31/07/2019 None 0 0 >0.97** 0 256386 586542 257724 585667 258600 585297 259056 584261 259248 22/10/2019 None 0 0 0 0.6 22/10/2019 None 0 0 0.4 0 22/10/2019 None 0 0.6 0.4 0.2 03/09/2019 None A A P(3) A 16/10/2019 M 0 0.2 1.2 0.4 68 DKP11 DKP12 DKPol1 DKPol2 DKG1 Burn Polharrow Burn Polharrow Burn Polmaddy Burn Polmaddy Burn Glen Strand (P/A) falls Downstream of Crummy Burn inflow Upstream of A713 Road Bridge and old bridge Upstream of foot bridge to Polmaddie, upon bend Downstream of falls Upstream of A713 road culvert 584596 259262 584632 260297 584418 259159 587862 259625 587930 260748 583647 16/10/2019 SL 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 22/10/2019 M 2 2 0.8 0 22/10/2019 M 0 0 1.4 0.2 22/10/2019 M 0 0 0.2 0.4 03/09/2019 None A A A A *SL = Stoneloach, M = Minnow, St = Three spined stickleback ** Where a Zippin calculation could be carried out, 95% confidence limits are shown. Where only the number appears, a Zippin estimation could not be carried out. In these cases the number represents a minimum estimate of fish density per 100 m2 of water. 69 7. APPENDIX 2: RESULTS FROM HISTORICAL ELECTROFISHING SURVEYS UNDERTAKEN BY THE GFT ON MAIN STEM AND TRIBUTARIES OF THE UPPER KIRKCUDBRIGHSHIRE DEE CATCHMENT (2001 – 2018) Site Code Watercourse * * Nethercleugh Burn Polharrow Burn Polmaddy Burn Polharrow Burn Earlstoun Burn * * Polharrow Burn Polharrow Burn Polharrow Burn Polharrow Burn Site Location Stocking Monitoring Sites Only Stocking Monitoring, Skerrow, Water of Dee, Bow Burn U/S Bridge @ Dundeugh U/S Bridge D/S Road Bridge Stocking Monitoring Sites Water of Ken, BWoD,Polharrow Burn RRWF Monitoring U/S A713 Stocking Monitoring Ken – Blackwater Burn RRWF Site At Forest Lodge At Watson Bridge D/S Watson Bridge 300m U/S Watson Bridge D/S Falls U/S Falls Grid Reference Survey Date Presence Of NonSalmonid Species* 2001 2003 261800 586300 260200 584400 259400 587200 257300 585800 262200 583200 257300 585800 260200 584400 264700 588650 255500 586300 256500 586300 256400 586550 256300 586400 258600 585300 258400 Catch Per Unit Effort (no. fish caught/min), Density per 100m2 or Presence/Absence (P/A) of fish (no. fish) Salmon Salmon Trout Trout Fry Parr Fry Parr (0+) (1+ and (0+) (1+ and older) older) 28/09/2004 P P 28/09/2004 109.8 20.95 0.91 - 1.82 28/09/2004 81.4 - - 6.14 2.45 18/10/2004 108.1 - - 0.92 3.7 P P 18/10/2004 2005 2006 2006 90.28 >13.29 >3.32 - - 145.3 3.55 5.67 2.75 - 07/11/2008 - - P P 04/11/2008 - - p P - 0.84 0.84 - 2007 15/08/2007 118.7 04/11/2008 05/11/2008 05/11/2008 70 Few Trout 183.0 >1.09 6.01 >5.46 - - Few Trout - Between Bridge and Ford Near Forebush D/S Bridge Lane Mannoch – inflow to Loch D/S Bridge Mid Burn Loch Dungeon Outflow Hawse Burn McAdams (*?) * U/S Forest Estate Polmaddy Burn RRWF Site Polharrow Burn Polharrow Burn Polharrow Burn Water of Ken RRWF Site U/S Bridge RH Branch @ Kendoon Water of Ken RH Branch @ Kendoon Polharrow Burn Polharrow Burn U/S A714 RRWF Site RRWF Site RRWF Site 585400 255250 586350 254350 586700 252500 588300 254000 585400 255150 586000 254700 585500 252800 585100 251400 585200 254450 584750 257350 585800 259350 587900 256900 589150 252806 589801 251300 589400 260250 584400 260200 584400 260250 584400 260283 587683 260283 587683 260331 584342 07/11/2008 Minnows - - Few Trout 07/11/2008 Minnows 28/11/2008 - - 1 Trout 27/11/2008 - - P P 27/11/2008 - - P P 27/11/2008 - - P P 27/11/2008 - - P P 27/11/2008 - - P P 19/09/2008 P P - - 25/09/2008 19/09/2008 55.07 - 5.01 - 9.18 Few Trout 0.83 02/12/2008 - - Trout 28/11/2008 - - Trout Trout 02/12/2008 Fishless 2009 18.0 5.85 0.45 0 2010 13.41 4.19 0 0.84 12.36 9.76 4.55 - 22/09/2015 - - P P 12/10/2016 - - P P 27/11/2008 21/07/2011 Fishless 153.7 13/10/2015 115.2 17.355 4.339 6.074 0.868 27/09/2017 100.0 32.0 1.0 4.0 0 71 Polmaddy Burn Polharrow Burn D/S Road Bridge 259895 588018 260331 584342 20/09/2017 30/10/2018 116.5 *SL = Stoneloach, M = Minnow, St = Three spined stickleback ** Where a Zippin calculation could be carried out, 95% confidence limits are shown. Where only the number appears, a Zippin estimation could not be carried out. In these cases the number represents a minimum estimate of fish density per 100 m2 of water. 72 0 0 5.797 3.865 >11.16 >13.7 >0.85 0 8. APPENDIX 3: SFCC ELECTROFISHING METHODOLOGY  Introduction Electrofishing is a technique that is widely used in fisheries research. In order to ensure that the technique is used in a consistent way and collects comparable data, the SFCC have a protocol that is used by its members when undertaking electrofishing surveys. There are separate protocols dependent upon the type of survey being carried out.  Personnel As a standard, the SFCC protocol states that a minimum of three people are required for generator powered electrofishing operations for Health and Safety reasons.  Semi and Fully-Quantitative surveys Semi-quantitative electrofishing surveys allow population estimates with a low precision to be made. The simplest form of a semi-quantitative survey is a single run electrofishing survey, where the numbers of fish caught give a minimum estimate of the fish population density within the site, presented as fish per 100 m2. This method is used to evaluate broad differences in fish populations where exact numbers are not required. If a more accurate estimate of fish population density is to be made then fully-quantitative electrofishing surveys must be undertaken by depletion sampling. Here, an estimate of fish population is made by collecting fish from a series of electrofishing runs performed at the same site. The number of runs undertaken depends on the proportion of fish caught during each run (to limit runs to two; there must be a good depletion in fish caught between run one and run two). Under the SFCC protocol, surveyors have the opportunity to perform up to four electrofishing runs per site and an accurate population estimate will require that at least 30% of the fish within the site are caught during each run. Confidence limits for a given population estimate can be derived from this method.  Methodology Site selection is carried out prior to undertaking the electrofishing survey. The specific location of the survey site is assessed by surveyors whilst on site as there may be features within the river environment that naturally delineate the specific area to be surveyed. In cases where stop nets are not in use; a site is selected where a natural barrier forms the upstream end of the site (this is usually a set of falls or area where fish are likely to be deterred from easily passing upstream of). Once the site has been selected, the electrofishing team will set up the equipment and begin fishing. As fish are attracted to the anode, they are swiftly removed from the vicinity of the electrofishing ring by the hand net operator and placed in a bucket of water. As the team moves through the site, in an upstream direction, any fish captured are placed in the bucket. When the upstream end is reached, the fishing run ends and the fish are kept in a clearly marked bucket for further processing. The water in the bucket is replenished to reduce stress due to de-oxygenation of the water. The bucket is placed in a shaded area to prevent temperature stress. Before processing of the fish can begin, they are transferred into a bucket of anaesthetic, where they remain until no longer exhibiting signs of movement. They are then placed upon a wet measuring board and measured. Fork length measurements (the distance from the snout of the fish to the fork in its tail) are used as a standard way of measuring the fish. 73 Scale samples may also be taken at this time, by using either a pair of tweezers or a sharp knife to remove scales from a specific area on the fish. This is generally only suitable for large fry or parr. Using fish measurement alone, it is usually possible to clearly identify fry (0+) aged fish from parr (1+) aged fish due to a distinctive gap in fish found between the two age classes. Where this gap is not distinctive, it may be necessary to take a scale sample to determine with use of a microscope, the age class of the fish. Reading of scale samples is also useful if parr are to be individually aged (1+, 2+, 3+ etc). Once the fish have been processed, they are placed in a bucket of fresh water to recover. Once processing has been fully completed, the fish are released back into the river. A habitat survey for the electrofishing site is recorded using SFCC protocol. Photographs of the site may be taken to allow the exact area of river to be identified in future surveys. 74 9. APPENDIX 4: SFCC GENERAL HABITAT SURVEY Introduction  The Scottish Fisheries Co-ordination Centre (SFCC) developed a general habitat survey method that addresses the needs of fisheries managers and researchers. It was specially developed to assess habitat for juvenile salmon and trout and not used to evaluate habitat for other fish species. Although a full SFCC habitat survey (which involves surveying the whole river and its tributaries) was not undertaken, smaller but detailed general habitat surveys were undertaken at each electrofishing site. The survey methodology takes into account many recording requirements and information gathered about river stretches using SFCC fish habitat survey protocol can be used by trained interpreters and within reason to:        Evaluate quality of habitat for juvenile salmonids Identify the potential location of salmonid spawning gravels Identify stream stretches that would benefit from habitat improvements Target areas for stocking Identify and classify point pollution sources Identify and grade obstacles to fish migration Identify location and type of past channel/bank modifications Juvenile salmonids have specific habitat requirements. For example, water quality, shelter, feeding territory and availability of food. Table A describes some basic habitat requirements for different life stages of salmon and trout. The precise habitat requirements for each species and life stage are extremely complex, and have therefore been simplified here. Table A: Age class habitat requirements of salmonids Life stage Eggs/alevins Salmon Golf ball to tennis ball sized substrate Fry Golf ball to tennis ball sized substrate, fast flowing, shallow broken water Parr Tennis ball to football sized substrate, fast flowing broken water, often slightly deeper than fry Unknown Deep pools Smolts Adults 75 Trout Dependent on fish size: Golf ball to tennis ball sized substrate for large brown trout and sea trout, pea to golf ball sized material for smaller trout. Golf ball to tennis ball sized substrate, slow to medium flowing shallow water, often concentrated at stream margins. Variety of substrate, undercut banks, tree roots, big rocks, deeper slower water. Unknown Deeper areas, sustained flow but not too fast, undercut banks, tree roots, good instream vegetation and large rocks.  Data recording During the electrofishing survey, habitat survey data is collected on the following to obtain a full review of the suitability of fish habitat along a river system:       Water depth Water flow type Instream characteristics Bankside characteristics Riparian vegetation Surrounding land use Information may also be collected on potential causes of unsuitable habitat, particularly with a view to taking action against further degradation. Characteristics are collected such as:  Bankside fencing and grazing  Bankside erosion and collapse  Pollution sources  Method The habitat survey is undertaken after electrofishing the site has been completed.  o General definitions Instream cover At each site a subjective assessment was made of the instream habitat available for older (parr-aged) fish. This assessment graded instream cover present as none, poor, moderate, good or excellent.  None - No cover; stream bed composed entirely of fine uniform particles (e.g. silt, sand, gravel, pebbles) or continuous hard surfaces (bedrock, concrete).  Poor - Little cover; stream bed composed predominantly of fine to medium particles (e.g. gravel, pebbles and cobbles), little or no cover from aquatic vegetation.  Moderate - Moderate cover; stream bed composed of a mix of substrate sizes (e.g. gravel to boulders) and/or with some areas of Good cover (e.g. pebbles, cobbles, boulders), which may or may not have some aquatic vegetation cover.  Good - Good cover; stream bed composed predominantly of medium to large size substrate (e.g. pebbles, cobbles, boulders) and/or with some aquatic vegetation cover.  Excellent - Excellent cover; stream bed composed predominantly of large size substrate (e.g. cobbles and boulders) and/or with extensive aquatic vegetation cover. o Site area The site length is taken along with wetted width, bed width and bank width at a representative number of points within the site. This gives a value for the area fished in order to calculate the Zippin (1958) estimate (number of fish per 100 m2). 76 o Water depths The survey stretch wetted are is recorded as percentage depths in six categories:       <10cm 11-20cm 21-30cm 31-40cm 41-50cm >50cm o Substrates In each survey stretch the percentages of each substrate type is recorded. Substrate is always recorded from the point of view of fish cover.          High organic Silt Sand Gravel Pebble Cobble Boulder Bedrock Obscured - Very fine organic matter - Fine, sticky, mostly inorganic material - Fine, inorganic particles, <=2mm diameter - Inorganic particles 2-16mm diameter - Inorganic particles 16-64mm diameter - Inorganic particles 64-256mm diameter - Inorganic particles > 256mm diameter - Continuous rock surface - Something obscuring substrates that cannot physically be moved o Flows Flow percentages of the survey stretch wetted are recorded. Table B: Flow percentages and descriptions Flow type Still marginal Deep pool Shallow pool Deep glide Shallow glide Run Riffle Torrent Description <10cm deep, still or eddying >=30cm deep, water slow flowing, smooth surface appearance <30cm deep, water slow flowing, smooth surface appearance >=30cm deep, water flow moderate/fast smooth surface appearance <30cm deep, water flow moderate/fast, smooth surface appearance Water flow fast, unbroken standing waves at surface, water flow silent Water flow fast, broken standing waves at surface, water flow audible White water, chaotic and turbulent flow, noisy and difficult to distinguish substrates o Bankside cover For each bank the percentage of bank length creating physical cover for fish in the site is recorded under the following categories:  Undercut - Fish cover provided by undercut banks.  Draped - Fish cover provided by vegetation rooted on the river bank and draping on to the water surface.  Bare - No cover for fish, or fish cannot get to the cover due to lack of water. 77  Marginal - Fish cover provided by plants rooted in the stream bed (includes tree roots). Fully aquatic vegetation is excluded from this category. o Bank face vegetation For each bank the predominant vegetation structure on each bank face. Vegetation must be rooted on the bank face and/or overhanging the bank face. Information is characterised in the following categories:  Bare - Predominantly bare ground (or buildings/concrete), <50% vegetation cover.  Uniform - Predominantly one vegetation type, but lacking scrub or trees.  Simple - predominantly 2-3 vegetation types, with or without scrub or trees, but including tall and short herbs (e.g. nettles and grasses).  Complex - Four or more vegetation types which must include scrub or trees. Vegetation type does not refer to which species of plant are present. Reference is made primarily to structural complexity (e.g. short grasses versus long grasses/nettles versus taller trees). o Overhanging boughs For each bank the percentage of bank length is recorded where there are branches from trees and shrubs rooted in the riparian zone overhanging the site. o Canopy cover The percentage of the site (wetted area) which is covered by overhanging branches is estimated. 78  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 Restoration of salmon in the upper River Dee (Kirkcudbrightshire) Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_35 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 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/493/GGLP-5-Year-Biosecurity-Plan-for-the-Kirkcudbrightshire-Dee-Catchment-2020-2024.pdf e8f3395e38dd2b7c58a03cffe1f48953 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 5 Year Biosecurity Plan for the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee Catchment 2020-2024 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 PUBLIC A Scottish Registered Charity No. SC 020751 Commissioned Report No. – 080120VSAD 5 Year Biosecurity Plan for the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee Catchment 2020-2024 Supported by Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership For further information on this report please contact: Name of GFT Project Manager – V Semple Galloway Fisheries Trust Fisheries House Station Industrial Estate Newton Stewart DG8 6ND Telephone: 01671 403011 E-mail: victoria@gallowayfisheriestrust.org This report should be quoted as: Galloway Fisheries Trust. January 2020. 5 Year Biosecurity Plan for the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee Catchment 2020-2024. Galloway Fisheries Trust Report No. – 080120VSAD 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 – 2019 PUBLIC PUBLIC Table of Contents Page 5 YEAR BIOSECURITY PLAN FOR THE KIRKCUDBRIGHTSHIRE DEE CATCHMENT 2020-2024 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 OBJECTIVES 2 3 THE CONTEXT 3.1 Invasive non-native species: The nature of the problem 3.2 Policy and legislation 3 3 4 4 CATCHMENT OVERVIEW 4.1 Geography and land use 4.2 Galloway Hydro Scheme 4.3 Recreation 6 6 6 7 5 CURRENT INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECIES ISSUES 8 6 CURRENT AND PAST INNS MANAGEMENT 6.1 Invasive plant species 6.2 American mink 6.3 North American signal crayfish 12 12 12 12 7 RISKS WITHIN THE CATCHMENT 7.1 Potential biosecurity issues 7.2 Pathways of introduction 7.2.1 Intentional introduction 7.2.2 Gardens and garden centres 7.2.3 Tourism/leisure 7.2.4 Angling 7.2.5 Kirkcudbright Marina 13 13 16 16 16 16 16 17 8 STAKEHOLDERS 18 9 STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSIONS 9.1 SNH 9.2 SEPA 9.3 National Trust Scotland 9.4 Forest and Land Scotland 9.5 Solway Firth Partnership 9.6 Drax 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 10 FIVE YEAR MANAGEMENT PLAN 10.1 Objectives and outputs of the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee biosecurity plan 10.2 Actions and timeframes 22 22 31 11 MONITORING 34 12 REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS 35 PUBLIC PUBLIC 1 INTRODUCTION Non-native species are any animal or plant that has been introduced by human activity to an area in which they do not naturally occur. Only a small proportion of non-native species have the ability to spread rapidly and cause significant problems to the environment, economy or human health. These are called invasive non-native species (INNS), and are recognised as one of the greatest threats to biodiversity globally. INNS can prey on, outcompete and displace native species and also spread disease. They can be damaging to recreational activities such as angling and boating through the clogging up of waterways. Once INNS are established, for many species there are no effective techniques available to eradicate them, so preventing introduction and spread is the most effective way to protect the environment. Prevention minimises the impacts and costs of tackling established populations. It is therefore vital that biosecurity is brought to the frontline and implemented across the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee area. Biosecurity is about reducing the risk of introducing or spreading INNS in the countryside (SISI, 2019). This biosecurity plan is intended to be accessible by all, acting as a guidance document for all those who take part in activities across the catchment and its watercourses. The actions suggested within this plan are dependent on sufficient funding, and if adequate funding is not available (particularly for third sector organisations) work will need to be prioritised. This plan is phase two of a three phase project driven by the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership (GGLP). Phase one assessed the current distribution of INNS within the River Dee catchment. Building on this knowledge, the purpose of this plan is to focus efforts at a catchment scale, assessing the risks and detailing what needs to be done to support and promote biosecurity. This plan contains: • • • • An overview of the catchment alongside an overview of current INNS that pose a threat to the region. Considerations of the potential pathways of INNS into and out of the catchment. An overview of past and current INNS management. A five year biosecurity management plan (2020-2024). PUBLIC PUBLIC 2 OBJECTIVES This plan describes the INNS issues within the River Dee catchment and presents actions for the prevention, early detection, control and mitigation of the introduction and spread of selected INNS. The vision of this plan is: ‘To encourage a sustainable framework to prevent, detect, control and eradicate invasive non-native species within the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee through the coordination of data collection, management, liaison, and education’ The ultimate key to the effectiveness of this plan is the building of local awareness, capacity and partnerships to ensure the success and long-term sustainability of the actions presented throughout this plan. This plan focusses on six key species which are present within the River Dee catchment. These are North American signal crayfish, American mink, American skunk cabbage, Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and Giant hogweed. The implementation of this biosecurity plan will bring socio-economic and environmental benefits such as those described below; • • • • • • Protection of native ecology from American mink. Prevention of the spread of North American signal crayfish. Improved stability of riverbanks through the removal of annual, non-native plant species. Maintenance of access to riverbanks for recreation and angling through the removal and control of invasive plant species such as Japanese knotweed, Giant hogweed, Himalayan balsam and American skunk cabbage. Prevention of economic losses that INNS could cause. Conservation and increased amenity value of local landscapes. There are three main objectives that this plan will focus on; Objective 1: Prevent the introduction and spread of INNS within the Dee catchment. Output 1.1 – Raising awareness of: • • • The ecological and economic impacts of INNS. The potential pathways for introduction and spread of INNS. Management best practices to prevent introduction and spread of INNS. Objective 2: Establish a framework for the detection and surveillance of INNS, linked to a protocol to ensure a rapid management response. Output 2.1 – ‘Reporting system’ established for INNS within the River Dee catchment. Output 2.2 – Develop strategic monitoring of INNS within the River Dee catchment. Objective 3: Develop coordinated control and eradication programme for INNS. Output 3.1 – Rapid response mechanism established for new INNS which pose significant threats to local biodiversity and economy. Output 3.2 – Coordinated control, eradication and habitat restoration programme established. PUBLIC PUBLIC 3 THE CONTEXT 3.1 Invasive non-native species: The nature of the problem INNS issues are of increasing economic and ecological significance. Globalisation has expanded the extent and complexity of world trade and the growth of the tourism market has expanded the number of destinations for activity holidays and travellers. These trends have led to the increased probability of the unintentional as well as intentional introduction, establishment and spread of INNS, parasites and diseases in Scotland and the UK. According to CBD (2006)1, INNS are the second greatest threat to biodiversity, being capable of rapidly colonising a wide range of habitats and excluding the native flora and fauna. Furthermore, over the last 400 years INNS have contributed to 40% of the animal extinctions where the cause of extinction is known. As water is an excellent transport medium for the dispersal of many of these species, rivers and lochs and their banks and shorelines are amongst the most vulnerable areas to the introduction, spread and impact of these species. The ecological changes wrought by INNS can further threaten already endangered native species and reduce the natural productivity and amenity value of riverbanks, shorelines and their waterbodies (CBD, 2015a). The threat from INNS is growing at an increasing rate assisted by climate change, pollution and habitat disturbance with a correspondingly greater socio-economic, health and ecological cost. Many countries including Scotland are now facing complex and costly problems associated with invasive species. According to a study carried out by Roy et al (2014), more than 2,000 non-native species are recorded in Great Britain; of which 237 established species have a negative impact on biodiversity. Among the 1,161 non-native species established in Scotland, 183 (16%) have negative ecological impacts. Environmental impacts include disrupting habitats and ecosystems, outcompeting native species for space and food, spreading disease and interfering with the genetic integrity of native species. All these impacts lead to a reduction in biodiversity (CBD, 2015a). The total annual cost of INNS to the British economy is estimated at approximately £1.7 billion. This is said to be a conservative figure and does not include indirect costs which could be substantially higher. Estimated total annual costs of invasive non-native species to Scotland is £244,736, 000 (Williams et al, 2010). Japanese knotweed alone is estimated to cost the British economy around £166 million per year (NNSS, 2015). Zebra mussels blocks water pipes and outlet pipes from power stations; in England the estimated cost to the water industry is more than £0.5 million a year for control of this species alone. Invasive species have already changed the character of iconic landscapes and waterbodies in Scotland reducing the amenity value of those areas. Some species also have a social impact, whether it is risk to human health (e.g. the harmful sap from Giant hogweed) or those which are considered a nuisance to landowners or recreational users (e.g. Japanese knotweed preventing access to watercourses, or floating pennywort clogging watercourses and preventing angling or boat navigation). The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) focusses on protecting biodiversity through a tenyear framework for action by all countries. The plan provides a set of twenty targets, a collectively known as the Aichi Targets (CBD, 2015b). Aichi target 9 is focused on Invasive Non-Native Species and this target sets out action to control the most problematic non-native invasive species (SNH, 2016). 1 http://www.cbd.int/gbo2 PUBLIC PUBLIC Without a coordinated and systematic approach to the prevention of introduction and control of the spread of INNS, it is likely that the ecological, social and economic impacts and the costs for mitigation, control and eradication of these species and diseases will continue to increase. This plan is the first step to set out and implement such an approach at a local level for selected species that significantly impact the environment. This local plan will provide a structure for future projects in the catchment, helping them to demonstrate strategic planning to support future funding applications. Given the high costs for the mitigation, control and eradication of INNS once they are established this plan emphasises the need for prevention and rapid response to the introduction of INNS before they become established. Furthermore, the host of pathways for entry and spread as well as the persistence of many of these species means that a partnership approach to prevent introductions and involving diverse stakeholders is essential. The partnership approach encapsulated in this plan is a key requirement for increased public awareness and engagement, optimisation of the use of resources and the provision of clear guidance for inter-agency working necessary to address the biosecurity issues of the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee region. These approaches are consistent with, and support, the GB Invasive Non Native Species Framework Strategy and the Species Action Framework both of which have been approved by the Scottish Government. “Addressing the direct and underlying drivers of biodiversity loss will ultimately require behavioural change by individuals, organisations and governments. Understanding, awareness and appreciation of the diverse values of biodiversity, underpin the willingness of individuals to make the necessary changes and actions and to create the “political will” for governments to act” (CBD, 2013). 3.2 Policy and legislation The actions presented in this plan will conform to, and be supported by, UK and Scottish Government legislation associated with the prevention, management and treatment of invasive non-native species: • • • • • 2 Section 14 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981)2 (as amended in Scotland by the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act3 2011) makes it an offence to release an animal, allow an animal to escape from captivity or otherwise cause an animal not in the control of any person to be at a location outside its native range, or to plant or otherwise cause to grow a plant in the wild at a location outside its native range. Code of Practice on Non-Native Species4 was issued in 2012 by the Scottish Government. The Code sets out guidance on how you should act responsibly within the law to ensure that non-native species under your ownership, care and management do not cause harm to our environment. Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 19975 empowers local authorities to serve notice requiring an occupier to deal with any land whose condition is adversely affecting the amenity of the other land in their area. The Possession of Pesticides (Scotland) Order 20056 regulates the use of pesticides and herbicides for the control and eradication of INNS. Environmental Protection Act 19907 contains a number of legal provisions concerning “controlled waste”, which are set out in Part II. Any Japanese knotweed or Giant hogweed contaminated soil or plant material discarded is likely to be classified as controlled waste. www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1981/cukpga_19810069_en_1 3 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2011/6/part/2/crossheading/nonnative-species-etc/enacted https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0039/00398608.pdf 5 www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/ukpga_19970008_en_1 6 www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2005/20050066.htm 7 www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/ukpga_19900043_en_1 4 PUBLIC PUBLIC • • This means that offences exist with the deposit, treating, keeping or disposing of controlled waste without a licence. The Waste Management Licensing Regulations 19948 define the licensing requirements which include “waste relevant objectives”. These require that waste is recovered or disposed of “without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment”. Controlled Waste (Registration of Carriers and Seizure of Vehicles) Regulations 1991 9 and the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 199110 provide guidance for the handling and transfer of controlled waste. 8 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1994/uksi_19941056_en_1.htm www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1991/Uksi_19911624_en_1.htm 10 www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1991/uksi_19912839_en_1.htm 9 PUBLIC PUBLIC 4 CATCHMENT OVERVIEW 4.1 Geography and land use Overall the River Dee catchment covers approximately 1,020 km2 and the river itself runs for 78.5 km. The geology and landscape of the River Dee catchment is typical of other river catchments in the south west of Scotland. The catchment rivers flow over a mix of rock types, dominated by sedimentary rock in the lowland areas. The catchment lies in a part of the country which supports moorland, commercial forestry plantations, hill farming and arable farming. The land on the west side of the catchment is dominated by the Glenkens, a range of hills including the Merrick and Corserine, rising to over 800 m above sea level. Cairnsmore of Carsphairn on the east side of the catchment is almost as high (797 m) but in general this side is not as high or as steep as the west. Downstream of Dalry the countryside is flatter being a wide glaciated valley. In the north and west of the catchment the land is predominantly used for commercial conifer forestry with rough grazing occupying the highest parts. The middle areas of the catchment are used as pastures supporting sheep and beef cattle with some dairy farming and forestry. Below Loch Ken there is also some ground which is cultivated and cropped. 4.2 Galloway Hydro Scheme The Galloway Hydro Scheme was the first integrated scheme developed in the UK; its viability arose following the 1926 Electricity (Supply) Act which led to the creation of the National Grid. Figure 1 shows the layout of the Galloway Hydro’s Scheme. It encompasses two major storage reservoirs – Loch Doon which diverts water from the River Doon into the Dee catchment and Clatteringshaws which diverts water from the Black Water of Dee to the Ken at Glenlee. There are three reservoirs in the Ken valley, Kendoon, Carsfad and Earlstoun, a control weir at Glenlochar (Glenlochar Barrage) creating storage in Loch Ken, and a reservoir at Tongland. There are power stations at Drumjohn, Kendoon, Carsfad, Earlstoun, Glenlee and Tongland. The power station at Drumjohn was commissioned in 1984 but all of the other installations date from the period between 1931 and 1935 when the scheme was built and they remain largely in the form of their original construction. PUBLIC PUBLIC Figure 1: Map of the Dee catchment showing dams and intakes of the Galloway Hydro Scheme 4.3 Recreation Angling is potentially the most common recreational activity seen around the River Dee Catchment. Loch Ken is hugely popular for coarse fish anglers and matches are held on a regular basis. People come from far and wide to fish the waters of the River Dee. Much of the non-angling recreation which takes place on the River Dee catchment is focused around Loch Ken. Water sport activities such as boating and sailing, canoeing, wind surfing and water skiing all take place on the loch with the main period of activity between Easter and October. Water sport activities are centred around the Galloway Activity Centre, Crossmichael Marina, Loch Ken Marina and Loch Ken Holiday Park. The Dee catchment, especially around Loch Ken is a focus for bird watchers. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) run the popular Dee-Ken Marshes bird reserve on the south west bank of Loch Ken. Although walking is not common around the perimeter of Loch Ken itself, there are many walks in the surrounding area including the Southern Upland Way, which runs through Dalry. PUBLIC PUBLIC 5 CURRENT INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECIES ISSUES A number of invasive non-native species are established in River Dee catchment. Their known distribution, impacts and potential means of spread are discussed below. Distributions are based on the best information available, but since few systematic studies have been undertaken, it is likely many species are more widespread than is indicated. Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) This species is present widely across the catchment. The discontinuous nature of this species’ distribution likely results from numerous separate introductions. Knotweed spreads quickly through the vegetative reproduction of cut plants and disturbed rhizomes. In earlier years at the beginning of GFTs’ work with INNS there were surveys conducted and exact locations were mapped. As a result of reduced funding in recent years surveying has stopped, and efforts have been directly allocated to treatment in priority areas. There have been successful treatment efforts within the catchment however it is highly likely that there are infestations in areas not known to GFT. Dense stands of knotweed suppress riparian woodland regeneration and outcompete native vegetation, resulting in vulnerable bare banks when the plants die back in winter. The banks of some local rivers and tributaries are largely composed of soft sediment and prone to erosion in flood events. The presence of Japanese knotweed will exacerbate these problems. Knotweed also restricts access to the river for anglers. In other areas knotweed is currently not as widespread and its present impact is more limited. Awareness of the damage that knotweed can cause has increased dramatically in recent years. That coupled with the legislation governing the species greatly reduces the risk of deliberate planting in the future. The main risk is from the spread of existing stands. Floods, trampling and wind damage could all break stems of the plant and allow it to spread naturally. Inappropriate cutting and dumping speeds the colonisation of new areas. Cut fragments of plants along riverbanks are transported downstream by the river. Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) Records of this plant in the River Dee catchment have been limited to date. A clump of Himalayan balsam is present below Glenlochar barrage however the source of these plants has not been identified. SEPA also recorded a population on Kirkgunzeon Lane (a tributary of the River Urr). The rivers to the east – River Nith and Annan – are plagued by extensive balsam stands and in 2019 GFT discovered a few strands on the River Urr however not in dense populations. The Water of Fleet also has a known population and this is being treated on an annual basis. Himalayan balsam grows quickly and excludes native plants. It is an annual and dies back in winter leaving bare banks vulnerable to erosion. The present population on the River Dee is currently causing little impact due to its small size. However, the extensive areas of bare soil exposed on the Nith and Annan demonstrate the problems this species could cause if left to spread unchecked across local waters. The seeds of Himalayan balsam remain viable in the banks for approximately two years. This species has a very efficient mode of seed dispersal, with exploding seed pods sending seeds up to 7 m away from the plant. The presence of balsam (albeit in small clumps at present) in the catchment and in similar densities in two neighbouring mean there is the potential for this species to become a region-wide problem if left unchecked. Giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) 8 PUBLIC Giant hogweed has recently been reported in the River Dee catchment, along the coastline of St Marys Isle. This is the first known population and appears relatively contained and has been treated by the land owner. Giant hogweed also spreads through seed dispersal and the movement of soil contaminated by its seeds. Giant hogweed out competes native vegetation for space and resources shading out desirable vegetation which can result in a loss of plant and invertebrate diversity. Winter dieback increases exposed bare soil to direct rainfall and floods. The death of the plant stems loosen the surrounding soil that can result in whole sections of riverbank being eroded and washed out. It is well documented that Giant hogweed is a public health risk. The sap of Giant hogweed is phototoxic and causes phytophotodermatitis in humans and animals, resulting in blisters and scars. Considering this current population resides along a public footbath and in a residential area, there is cause for concern and needs to be monitored. It is likely that this is an isolated population, introduced via seed dispersal from the sea or as a result of the area previously being an ornamental garden. American Skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus) There is currently a population of American skunk cabbage within the Aquavitae Burn, which has accumulated at the outflow just downstream of Loch Ken. This population was introduced upstream decades ago, before its invasive status was known. This species has been introduced to the wild by gardeners and although it can be invasive, it remained popular and sold locally until recently. It is found in pond margins, riparian and boggy areas and can grow to over 1 m in height (Sanderson, 2013). Due to the waxy nature of its leaves, the effectiveness of foliar spray is questionable. GFT are currently trialling various methods to determine the most effective treatment. North American Signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) The River Dee catchment is home to the largest known population of North American Signal crayfish in Scotland – Loch Ken. This population is believed to originate from deliberate introductions to two separate ponds which have outflow tributaries which connect ultimately to the River Dee catchment. Since the introduction, believed to be in the late 1980s, the crayfish population has hugely expanded to inhabit all of Loch Ken and numerous surrounding tributaries. Crayfish have spread throughout the lower catchment easily and are now present as far down as Tongland Power Station. North American Signal crayfish can feed vigorously on aquatic vegetation, invertebrates, juvenile fish and eggs, de-stabilise river banks by burrowing and exclude salmonids from their preferred habitats. They are a fecund species with the ability to make use of many different habitats. Efforts have been made in the past to manage this species which will be discussed in section 6.3. Since this time, it has been questioned as to whether trapping is an effective method of reducing the population due to trapping targeting primarily larger crayfish. Crayfish are notoriously cannibalistic and older crayfish will prey on smaller crayfish which provides a level of internal population management. If large scale trapping events occur, this may remove this predatory effect and allow the population density to increase further. The presence and availability of crayfish in the catchment is also encouraging another invasive species, American mink, to utilise the area. With such an abundant food source, mink are now a common sight along the riverbanks. American Mink (Mustela vison) 9 PUBLIC Mink are present throughout the whole length of the River Dee catchment. Mink are opportunistic predators and they will kill spawning salmon and trout on spawning beds. Research from the Western Isles also showed that mink can significantly reduce salmon and trout parr numbers. They can depress fish stocks and are capable of decimating water vole and ground-nesting bird populations. The original mink populations were the result of deliberate and accidental escapes from farms. Extensive trapping was undertaken in the past however is limited at the time of writing this plan. Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) Sitka spruce and other non-native conifers have been planted for commercial forestry or shelter belts. In most cases the conifers are restricted to areas where they have been planted and ground conditions and grazing levels are limited to promote growth. However, Sitka spruce is able to seed out of plantations and establish in riparian areas, particularly onto bare banks following the clear felling of conifers during the restructuring process. Most self-seeded Sitka is close to forestry plantations, although records of the species in river headwater areas away from plantations indicate its ability to spread greater distances. There are some impacted watercourses within forestry plantations affecting the Dee catchment. Sitka are fast growing, resistant to browsing and capable of outcompeting natural vegetation. They are capable of shading watercourses and preventing access to banks. Forestry guidance advise up to a 20 m buffer zone free of conifers along larger watercourses. The ability of Sitka to naturally seed into such a buffer zone reduces the effectiveness of these guidelines to protect watercourses from over shading problems. Forestry plantations will remain the most likely seed source of invasive Sitka. The edges of forestry tracks seem to provide ideal conditions for seedlings and it is likely Sitka will spread along these corridors. The presence of isolated Sitka trees in remote places suggest seeds can be dispersed for many miles so there is some potential for Sitka to spread over greater distances. Grazing and browsing by livestock and deer will prevent Sitka seedlings establishing and fenced areas close to existing plantations will be the most vulnerable to invasion. Rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum) Popular in the gardens of large Victorian houses and soon spread beyond the garden wall. The west coast of Scotland seems to provide ideal growth conditions and various woodlands in Galloway have abundant rhododendron stands. While a major problem in many areas of Scotland, rhododendron problems for water habitats in Galloway is limited. The plant regenerates from seed and the widespread presence of small plants in some areas indicates that natural regeneration is occurring readily. Rhododendron forms a closed canopy and acidifies the surrounding soil preventing other plants establishing. Its presence will destroy the native ground flora of woodlands and prevent tree regeneration. The rapid growth of rhododendron along watercourses can lead to shading and reduced nutrient input. Rhododendron continues to be sold and planted as an ornamental garden plant. However, the present wide distribution and abundance of rhododendron ensures that there is already sufficient seed and plant material to allow its potential further natural spread into suitable habitats across the River Dee catchment. Canadian pondweed (Elodea canadensis) Canadian pondweed was recorded by SEPA at a number of locations throughout the River Dee. The NBN Gateway website also suggests the plant to be present in Woodhall Loch & Carlingwark Loch. Elodea can grow very quickly and totally dominate native macrophyte communities which may lead to local extinctions and can make angling impossible. The plant 10 PUBLIC is spread easily via plant fragments and has found its way into watercourses and stillwaters via ponds and anthropogenic disposal. Impacts on invertebrates have also been recorded and Elodea is known to absorb metals from sediments and transfer them into their water environment (CEH, 2004a). Nuttalls pondweed (Elodea nuttallii) Nuttalls pondweed has been recorded by SEPA to be present within the Dee catchment, found at Loch Ken outlet to Tongland. This waterweed threatens local biodiversity through shading and outcompeting local plants as well as potentially changing its surroundings nutrient cycle and water quality. Curly waterweed (Lagarosiphon major) Has been identified in the Stewartry area so risk of translocation to other catchments. Sold for the aquaria trade so could become established through intentional/unintentional introductions. Can also be spread by fragmentation via wind dispersal, boat movement, angling equipment and, possibly waterfowl. Capable of forming very dense infestations in suitable habitats and occupying the full water column in waters up to 6 m deep with significant impacts on native plants, insects and fish (CEH, 2004b). Rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) There is one operational rainbow trout farm on Kendoon Loch, which uses floating cages on the loch. Mostly stocked fisheries are well screened or isolated to ensure that no stocked trout can escape into the wider aquatic environment. Anglers used to report regular catches of rainbow trout of various sizes. Rainbow trout may predate young fish and smolts and can also compete with native salmonids for food and shelter. Escapees from this farm may have been the original source of the rainbow trout in this catchment. Only a few of the many rainbow trout escapees in Britain have ever resulted in self-sustaining breeding populations, and no evidence of spawning has been recorded in the River Dee. Non-native fish (various species) Present in many still and running waters in the River Dee catchment. Some of these have been deliberately introduced; others have been introduced when discarded after using as bait by anglers. Until recently the stocking of coarse fish was unregulated and, due to the high number of stillwaters across the region, this has resulted in species such as tench, rudd, roach and bream becoming established in some Galloway waters. Some of these species are native to the UK but have been translocated to Galloway which is outside their natural range. Many non-native fish species have become established in Loch Ken. Loch Ken is frequented by many coarse fish enthusiasts and over the years has become popular due to the many nonnative species available for angling. These fish can have ecological impacts on various native species through predation, competition for resources or habitat change. Giant rhubarb (Gunnera tinctoria) Giant rhubarb, a large leaved plant from Chile growing up to 2 m in height, became a very popular ornamental species in gardens and parks in temperate areas from the middle of the nineteenth century (NNSS, 2011b). The species can spread from rhizomes discarded from gardens and from seed disseminated by birds and is a threat to native vegetation. It is mostly present in large gardens and estates and its presence along river banks and waterways is currently unknown in the Dee catchment however isolated populations have been recorded in estates and gardens within the overall catchment. 11 PUBLIC 6 CURRENT AND PAST INNS MANAGEMENT 6.1 Invasive plant species GFT have been working to manage and control INNS of plants since 2008. A four and a half year project titled ‘Controlling priority invasive non-native riparian plants and restoring native biodiversity’ was completed in 2012. The GFT was one of five Scottish partners (GFT, Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland (RAFTS), Ayrshire Rivers Trust, Argyll Fisheries Trust and the Tweed Forum) that secured EU Interreg support to control Japanese knotweed on a catchment scale. In Galloway, the GFT was focused on eradicating Japanese knotweed from across six catchments; Water of App, Water of Fleet, River Luce, River Bladnoch, Urr and the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee. Though this project, the River Dee was surveyed and controlled for Japanese knotweed. Since this project, funding has been significantly reduced and as a result treatment has been prioritised and limited. No catchment wide surveys have been carried out since, other than at the beginning of this biosecurity project where specific sites were surveyed to confirm presence or absence following reports. Through funding previously provided by SEPA and then in recent years the Stewartry Area Committee, GFT continued to treat a prioritised section of the River Dee for Japanese knotweed and also American skunk cabbage on the Aquavitae Burn. However, 2019 has seen the complete loss of funding limiting treatment to private contracts. This work has no catchment wide effect and only covers very small areas. 6.2 American mink A trapping project of American mink began in early 2009 across the catchments of the River Dee and Water of Fleet, coordinated by GFT. The project involved training, coordinating and providing trapping equipment to volunteers across both catchments, where mink predation is believed to be an issue. Mink rafts and traps (designed by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust) were given to volunteers which use a clay tray to record tracks of mink prior to the setting of a cage trap. GFT and GWCT held a training day for all participating in the project. In recent years the only trapping of Mink carried out within the Dee catchment has been done by keen individuals. 6.3 North American Signal crayfish The exact distribution of the two Galloway crayfish populations (Dee and Skyre Burn catchments) were mapped in 2009 by GFT as part of a Scotland wide RAFTS / SNH survey using agreed protocols. In 2009 Marine Scotland funded a five month research study to look at the crayfish population in Loch Ken and investigated the possibility of large scale (using ~ 600 traps) trapping to control their numbers and spread. The study recommended a further three year trapping study on the loch. A Loch Ken Council Ranger has been undertaking limited trapping (when he had time available) for crayfish on various tributaries around Loch Ken in 2009 / 2010. The aim of the trapping was to reduce the densities of crayfish in important salmonid spawning and nursery burns. Since this trapping program it has been widely accepted that the problem is far worse than can be managed. Focus has been directed onto reducing the spread as opposed to active trapping programs. A recent discovery of crayfish in Tongland fish pass has highlighted that the population has spread further than previously thought. 12 PUBLIC 7 RISKS WITHIN THE CATCHMENT There are two directions of risk within the River Dee catchment, introduction of new INNS species from other areas, and the spread from the catchment to other catchments. Whether the risk is spreading from or introducing to the catchment, the problem remains the same. It is an important aspect of a management plan to consider potential pathways in and out of the catchment which pose a risk and determine which biosecurity actions could be introduced to reduce the risk. It is also key to consider species which pose a risk to the region. 7.1 Potential biosecurity issues The INNS listed below in Table 1 are believed not to be currently present within the River Dee catchment. They have been classified as High or Medium level threats depending on their likely impact on the local economy and biodiversity in combination with the likelihood of their introduction. The level of risk of introduction was based on the pathways for the introduction of INNS, their current geographic proximity and land use within the catchment. High Threat: Species with Severe consequences for local biodiversity and economy and a High to Medium risk of introduction Medium Threat: Species with Moderate consequences for local biodiversity and economy with a Low to High risk of introduction 13 PUBLIC Table 1: The risk of introduction of threat species SPECIES Gyrodactylus salaris (Freshwater external parasite of salmon) Killer Shrimp (Dikerogammarus villosus) Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) Chinese mitten crab (Eriocher sinensis) Resides in freshwater but migrates to the sea for breeding Parrot’s feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) RISK OF INTRODUCTION High – Through unintentional introduction from anglers and water sport enthusiasts through: ▪ Contaminated fish ▪ Clothing/equipment which has been in contact with infected water including canoesBallast water High – Species was first confirmed in 2010 in England (Cambridgeshire) and Wales (Cardiff Bay and Port Talbot). Unintentional introduction can be from anglers, water sport users, ballast water and through contaminated equipment. IMPACTS Predicted catastrophic impact on salmon (Salmo salar) populations throughout Scotland (it has largely exterminated S. salar in 41 Norwegian rivers). Medium – A population has been recorded in the Nithsdale/Annandale area. The plant can spread by asexual means. Stems are brittle and it can also spread via fragments of plants. Can shade out native flora. In coastal or brackish water it has been observed to displace native species. In Guernsey, a reduction in native biodiversity has occurred; it is a major problem and has eliminated many native species and impacted fisheries in South Africa. Has caused major problems for hydroelectric power production in Argentina. Can quickly dominate and block watercourses (NNSS, 2011a). The killer shrimp is an omnivorous predator native to the Steppe region near the Black and Caspian Seas. It can feed on a variety of macroinvertebrates, including other gammarid species, and exhibits an important biotic potential and ecological plasticity. It has had major impacts in lowland Europe, particularly Holland where it has destroyed local ecology by wiping out native shrimps and small fish species. Medium - through unintentional introduction from Major economic impact on all subsurface water structures e.g. contaminated boat/canoe hulls and engines and blocking pipes and impacting upon hydro-electric schemes. bilge water. Varied and unpredictable ecological impacts including changes to freshwater nutrient cycles, extinction of local mussels and changes to stream substrate affecting spawning areas (NNSS, 2011). Medium - through unintentional introduction from Burrowing in high density populations damages river banks boat hulls and live food trade. Concern over impacts on local species Intermediate host for the mammalian lung fluke Paragonimus ringer, known to infect humans. 14 PUBLIC Slipper limpet (Crepidula fornicata) Floating pennywort (Hydrocotyle ranunculoides) Fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana) Low – A marine INN species which has been recorded as present in coastal waters off the central belt in Scotland. Can be introduced on ship hulls. Low – Not known to be present in Scotland and has mostly been recorded in south east England. Has become established through the trade/disposal of garden pond plants. Dispersed by water flow and flood events. Care should be taken to remove all cut plant material from the waterbody as rapid re-growth can occur from a single node. Low – Known to be present in Dumbartonshire. Popular as an aquarium plant and introductions may occur through inappropriate disposal of the plant. Spreads primarily by stem fragments by also by seed dispersal. 15 Can occur in high densities (1000s per m 2) in marine and estuarine waters. Can form dense rafts and outcompetes native plant species. Reduced light levels below the rafts can cause die off of waterweeds and algae and reduce water oxygenation levels. This can kill fish and other fauna. Originally found in South America. Forms dense stands that exclude native flora and clog watercourses. PUBLIC 7.2 Pathways of introduction • • • • • • • • Intentional introduction or planting Fouling and ballast water of marine vessels Fouling and ballast water of freshwater vessels Escapes from garden ponds Contaminated water sports equipment (e.g. from anglers, canoeists) Movement of contaminated soils or vehicles Improper control and disposal measures e.g. cutting and dumping without treatment Natural dispersal by seeds, vegetative spread or migration 7.2.1 Intentional introduction Unfortunately, it is believed that people are still intentionally planting invasive species in their gardens, knowingly letting them spread and actively moving species between catchments. 7.2.2 Gardens and garden centres It is estimated that nationally, 60% of invasive plants have been introduced through horticultural use (Plantlife/Royal Horticultural Society, 2010). In 2014, five non- native invasive aquatic species were banned from sale in the UK (Brockman and Holden, 2015). The spread of invasives from private gardens can be a result of direct or indirect dispersal. It is common for gardeners to dump cuttings, and often this occurs along riverbanks, aiding the transport of these cuttings downstream. 7.2.3 Tourism/leisure The River Dee catchment, primarily Loch Ken, is a hub of activity during summer months as a result of its recreational attractions. Invasive species can be inadvertently spread by people using the catchment for general leisure and tourism purposes, including activities such and walking and cycling (Brockman and Holden, 2015). By highlighting attractions and locations which may pose a risk of spreading INNS, it allows for considerations to be made regarding potential biosecurity procedures which could be adhered to, to reduce the risk. National Trust for Scotland is a key partner in this task considering the wide range of sites they cover in the region. Visitors are known to visit several sites across Galloway in one trip which could transfer seeds or vegetation on shoes and clothes between sites. Hosting beautiful scenery and water sport activity opportunities, many people visit on an annual basis. Water sports are a popular activity within the River Dee catchment and it is important that users of the water are aware of the risks associated with INNS and know how to reduce the risk of spread. 7.2.4 Angling Angling is a potential route of introduction as a result of anglers traveling from catchment to catchment and reusing equipment that may not have been cleaned properly. Nets are an easy place for young crayfish to catch onto and hide. Angling also occurs regularly in areas where there are INNS of plants present, potentially transporting seeds and plant matter across catchments. 16 PUBLIC 7.2.5 Kirkcudbright Marina Harbours, marinas and ports are high risk areas for introducing new INNS to the catchment. The risk is dependent on where the boat traffic is from and also the location of the harbour. Kirkcudbright marina on the River Dee is the main base for scallop fishers in south Scotland. Recreational boat users also pose a risk with activities such as sea angling, scuba diving, sea kayaking, jet skiing, wind and kite surfing popular in the area. These factors mean that there is an increasing probability that certain INNS are likely to arrive in the Solway (SFP, 2017). Discussions with the Harbour Master confirmed there are no biosecurity measures currently in place to tackle the risk of INNS being transported into the catchment from other areas. However, it was also discussed that the risk is very low in comparison to larger, more commercial ports due to the limited area where boats are moving to and from. Discussions are in place further considering risk at this location and potential biosecurity measures that could be implemented if required. 17 PUBLIC 8 STAKEHOLDERS There are a number of organisations and individuals with an interest in INNS in the River Dee catchment. The engagement of key stakeholders is imperative for the success of this plan. Regulatory agencies and other bodies with an interest in INNS can be found in Table 2. Table 2: Regulatory agencies and other bodies with an interest in INNS Policy and Legislation • Scottish Government • SNH • SEPA • Marine Scotland • Fisheries Management Scotland Fisheries Management Land Resources • Forest and Land Scotland • D & G Council • Landowners Association • NFU Recreation • Dee District Salmon Fishery Board • Ramblers Association • Galloway Fisheries Trust • Local Angling Associations • Commercial Fisheries Industry • Activity centres Water Resources • Scottish Water • Drax Conservation and Biodiversity • NTS • Scottish Wildlife Trust • RSPB • Solway Firth Partnership • Plant Life • Dumfries & Galloway Environmental Resources Centre The plan also seeks to engage with all members of the community who have an interest and/or a role to play in preventing the introduction or spread of INNS. These include: local garden centres; landowners, local water sport organisations; local angling clubs; local quarries; farmers and members of the public. Stakeholders have been identified from an analysis of possible routes of introduction, spread or control of non-natives presented in Table 3. 18 PUBLIC Table 3: Pathways and stakeholder groups Pathway Intentional introduction or planting Fouling and ballast water of marine vessels Fouling and ballast water of freshwater vessels Escapes from garden ponds, gardens Contaminated water sports equipment (e.g. from anglers, canoeists Movement of contaminated soils or vehicles Improper control and disposal measures e.g. cutting and dumping without treatment Groups or Stakeholders at Risk Plantlife, riparian landowners, public, local councils, planning department, anglers Local harbour authorities, Marine Scotland Port Authority, SEPA, UK Government; local canoe and water sports organisations Horticultural Trade Association, SNH, SEPA, Plantlife, public, planning authorities, riparian owners DSFB’s, local canoe/water sports organisations, anglers, angling clubs D & G Council, SEPA, quarries, building contractors, landscape contractors, Drax Local councils, SEPA, environmental health, Plantlife, riparian owners/members of the public This plan identifies key actions required to change the behaviour and practices of the above groups so as to reduce the opportunities for the introduction and spread of INNS. Key stakeholders have been contacted regarding this plan to discuss potential action points and to identify gaps in biosecurity protocol within the region. It should be noted that discussions with local stakeholders and groups were very positive and it was pressed that any action points that are put forward need to be realistic and applicable catchment wide. This plan needs to be accessible and available to relevant organisations and needs to take into consideration individual circumstances. It is key that the plan is commented on and can be altered following the circulation of the draft version. 19 PUBLIC 9 STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSIONS 9.1 SNH SNH are the lead body for INNS on land in Scotland. They are currently embarking on a fouryear Scottish Invasive Species Initiative in the north of Scotland, tackling INNS on a large scale. Within the River Dee catchment there is currently no INNS management being carried out, however SNH are willing to support GFT’s actions and comment on potential biosecurity procedures that could be implemented in the region. 9.2 SEPA SEPA are the lead body for INNS in standing and running freshwater habitats in Scotland. SEPA regulates activities affecting the water environment, and are incorporating biosecurity requirements into General Binding Rules and license conditions where possible. 9.3 National Trust Scotland NTS have numerous sites across Galloway. By identifying risks and potential pathways of invasion and spread, we can consider actions to be put forward to tighten up biosecurity in the region. NTS are now working on protocol and procedures to be put in place at Threave Castle to ensure boats leaving site have been checked, cleaned and dried and it will be mandatory for the presented method statement to be followed by all staff. Signs are going to be erected throughout the region, including sites out with the Dee catchment. Fishing permits will highlight biosecurity procedures to be followed within the NTS’ land. GFT and NTS have formed a partnership and will continue to work together. 9.4 Forest and Land Scotland FLS are committed to completing INNS work to ensure they comply with their UKWAS accreditation. Individual foresters are encouraged to be vigilant for any INNS within their beats. There is an internal system in place used to map work due within their land and this continues to be a useful tool for managing INNS control. From this, specific INNS work is prioritised so that even with budget cuts, key invasive control work is still completed. 9.5 Solway Firth Partnership GFT work closely with Solway Firth Partnership (SFP), and both organisations have a key interest in INNS within the region. SFP were contacted in relation to the risk of INNS introduction through the Kirkcudbright Marina. A recent study ‘Marine Invasive Non-Native Species in the Solway Firth11 ’ was carried out by SFP using settlement panels concluded that due to location of the marina being tidal but primarily freshwater, it was unlikely that many marine INNS would pose a risk of introduction from this pathway. 9.6 Drax Drax recently bought over Scottish Powers’ Gas and Hydro stations. The Dee catchment as detailed in section 4.2 is host to a series of hydro’s which link different catchments. The importance of biosecurity in this instance is clear and Drax have a stringent biosecurity risk 11 https://solwayfirthpartnership.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Marine-INNS-in-Solway-20182021.pdf 20 PUBLIC assessment in place. All staff are trained in biosecurity before being allowed on site and know the procedures to follow if invasive species are present. 21 PUBLIC 10 FIVE YEAR MANAGEMENT PLAN 10.1 Objectives and outputs of the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee biosecurity plan The objectives of this plan are based on three elements: • • • Prevention Early detection, surveillance, monitoring and rapid response Mitigation, control and eradication The involvement and participation of stakeholders will be essential to achieve the objectives of this plan. This section describes the expected outputs from implementation of the three plan objectives and the actions required for their realisation. Agreed actions for prevention are focussed on the disruption of the pathways for the introduction and spread of INNS, translocated species and fish diseases and include a mixture of awareness raising and practical measures. Awareness activities take note of the GB Awareness and Communication Strategy. Increased probability of early detection of the introduction or spread of INNS is realised through surveys to establish the location of existing populations, establishment of a coordinated local surveillance and reporting system supported by routine monitoring of established populations or sites vulnerable to the introduction and spread of these species. Control activities will be undertaken in a coordinated and systematic manner to eradicate identified INNS where feasible. Objective 1: Prevent the introduction and spread of INNS within the River Dee catchment. Key Actions A. Establish programme to raise awareness with stakeholders B. Encourage use of good practice within key stakeholder groups C. Establish and extend disinfection programme to cover likely pathways of entry The River Dee catchment contains various INNS and stopping the further spread of these species and preventing the colonisation of new INNS offers the most efficient and effective means of control. Awareness-raising activities will be focussed on addressing local priorities as well as supporting the GB Awareness and Communication strategy and its key messages to the general public. The key stakeholders, the identified areas of priority and the proposed mechanisms for delivery are presented in Table 4. The roles and actions of key government agencies and non-government bodies in promoting awareness of INNS issues is presented in Table 5. 22 PUBLIC Table 4: Priority areas for awareness and delivery mechanisms according to stakeholder group Stakeholders Priority Areas Mechanism of Delivery Local fish farm - Inform fish farms of the impact of INNS and how they spread - Dangers of importing from contaminated areas - Use of proper screens and other biosecurity measures - Need for controls on movement of stock and water - Educate trade buyers to avoid stocking invasive species - Promotion of existing codes of practice covering the security and disposal of INNS to all garden centres - Target gardeners to dispose plant material and/or soils in a responsible manner - Promote code of practice to all pet shops and suppliers of ornamental fish - Target aquarists and pond keepers to dispose of unwanted animals or plants in a responsible manner - Promote awareness to clubs and participants of the dangers arising from INNS - Identification of suitable people to act as monitors for GFT to watch for any INNS species in their activity area - Promote knowledge of biosecurity issues amongst all tenants and resource users - Identification of suitable persons to act as monitors for GFT - GFT to liaise with local industry and trade associations to advise members regularly of best practice in respect of INNS - Invasive Species Scotland website - Marine Scotland Fish Health Inspectors to discuss with fish farms during audits Local garden centres Local Aquarium and pond stockists Water user associations (canoeists, sailing clubs) Riparian landowners 23 - GFT to work with garden centres to encourage distribution of codes and posters (available from Plantlife) and to advise the general public of INNS issues - GFT to work with retailers to encourage distribution of codes and posters (available from Plantlife) - GFT to work with associations to promote check clean dry for equipment. - DSFB’s and Improvement Associations to work with GFT to ensure dissemination of best practices and appropriate signage to reduce threats from INNS - GFT to offer training for monitors PUBLIC Stakeholders Priority Areas Angling clubs - Promote knowledge of biosecurity issues amongst all members and visiting anglers - Ensure the distribution of information and erection of signage in fishing huts and recognised car parks - Recommend suitable members to act as monitors - General awareness of impacts and measures to prevent/control INNS General public Mechanism of Delivery Contractors / Ground maintenance workers - General awareness of impacts and measures to prevent/control INNS Schools - General awareness of impacts and measures to prevent/control INNS 24 - Local AC’s work with GFT to ensure dissemination of best practices and appropriate signage to reduce threats from INNS - GFT to work with clubs to promote check clean dry for equipment - GFT to offer training for monitors - Local Media Campaigns - Use of social media - GFT to develop a leaflet to promote the biosecurity plan, the dangers arising from INNS and the reporting system - Promote the biosecurity plan to all retail outlets who deal with NNS e.g. pet shops, garden centres - GFT to work with industry bodies to ensure dissemination of best practices - GFT to offer training for monitors through industry bodies - School visits focusing on key species and explaining the problems associated and what they can do to help PUBLIC Table 5: Roles and/or actions of key government and non-government agencies in promoting awareness of INNS issues Organisation GFT Role and/or action - Promote awareness to general water users promoting the biosecurity plan and highlighting the dangers from INNS DSFBs - Continue to promote awareness to anglers and angling clubs of the dangers arising from INNS - Promote use of codes of best practice for construction, haulage, horticulture, aquaculture amongst local business and relevant departments particularly construction, garden and pet trade - Encourage responsibility within Local Authorities for the control of all INNS on public land D&G Council SEPA - Clarify SEPA responsibilities for INNS to both staff and customers - Incorporate INNS issues into relevant authorisation and guidance documents (as they are developed or updated) SNH - Promotion of good practice in the prevention, control and eradication of INNS - Provision of funding for local INNS initiatives - Promotion of good practice in the prevention, control and eradication of INNS NTS Delivery Mechanisms - Promote and launch of biosecurity plan -Distribute information leaflets to stakeholders and members of the public -Promote reporting system - Highlight potential risks of fish movements between catchments - continue to promote check clean dry for equipment - Councils to promote codes of best practice at every opportunity e.g. including INNS guidance with planning applications and building warrants - Holding of awareness event/open days to promote biosecurity issues - Issue INNS ID and guidance cards to appropriate council staff - Display posters (Check, Clean, Dry) in council offices, libraries and other public places - maintain page on website with links to relevant SEPA information and other sites e.g. Non-Native Species Secretariat - Ensure relevant documents available for download on SEPA website - Holding of SNH Sharing Good Practice events. - Grant funding may be available for some projects -Producing method statement for removal of boats and engines from the water surrounding Threave Castle -Erecting signs around NTS visitor attractions -Fishing permits will promote biosecurity -Partnering with GFT to carry out school projects and information events. 25 PUBLIC Objective 2: Develop systems to ensure the detection and surveillance of INNS and rapid response to the threat. Key Actions A. Establish an ‘early warning system’ for detecting new threats B. Develop strategic monitoring of INNS in Galloway C. Develop rapid response protocols for new significant threats to local biodiversity and economy Early Warning System The monitors of the early warning system will be trained members of the public, anglers, bailiffs, ghillies, canoeists and walkers, with reported sightings verified by trained GFT personnel. A sighting of a GB or local high priority species (Table 6) will be verified if possible by appropriate personnel. If confirmed, it will initiate the appropriate GB or local high priority response. Reports of priority species will be verified as time permits. All verified sightings will also be entered onto the GFT Geographic Information System (GIS) database to monitor INNS distributions within the region. INNS Reported by Monitors Verification by GFT Report to NNSS Portal Appropriate Response Activated Establish rapid response mechanism for new high-risk INNS The type of response will depend on the severity of the species detected (Table 6) and is proportionate to the threat posed. There are three levels of response: • • • a GB level response that will be undertaken by national governmental institutions as part of the GB INNS strategy a high priority local rapid response a priority local rapid response 26 PUBLIC Table 6: Response level for the invasive non-native species GB Response Gyrodactylus salaris Asian top mouth gudgeon Water primrose Wireweed High Priority Local Response Killer shrimp North American signal crayfish Chinese mitten crab Zebra mussel Priority Local Response American Mink Parrot feather Canadian pond weed Japanese knotweed Water primrose Himalayan balsam Water fern Large flowered waterweed Rhododendron Anasakis sp Australian swamp stonecrop Slipper limpet Common cord grass Fanwort Curly waterweed Floating pennywort Escaped farm salmon Sitka spruce regen Giant hogweed American skunk cabbage A confirmed sighting of a GB priority species will trigger the GB contingency plan for that species e.g. Gyrodactylus salaris. However, there is still a need for local level protocols to link with the GB response as well as for local level contingency plans for local priority species. The elements to be included in the response to detection of a GB priority species or the contingency plans for local priority species are outlined in Table 7. Table 7: Elements of contingency plans or protocols for response to GB priority, local high priority and priority species GB Response Report to local and GB institutions - Determine the extent of infestation - Isolation of area where practicable Local High Priority Response Report to local and GB institutions - Determine the extent of infestation - Isolation of area where practicable - Establish source and check related sites - Closure of all pathways - Decision on appropriate action eradication/containment. - Approved eradication methodology - Monitor 27 Local Priority Response Report to local and GB institutions - Determination of the extent of infestation - Surveys in course of normal work to establish and map distribution - Inclusion of new areas in existing eradication/control programmes - Identification and closure all pathways - Monitor as part of planned catchment monitoring programme PUBLIC Objective 3: Develop effective control and eradication programmes for INNS present in the River Dee catchment. Key Actions A. Collect data on distribution and abundance of existing threats B. Develop and initiate control and eradication programmes to tackle threats C. Coordinate partnerships with other organisations to source future funding and develop projects to ensure long-term control and eradication A. Collect data on distribution and abundance For effective INNS control and eradication programmes, it is essential that the current distribution and abundance of INNS is known. To collect accurate and up-to-date on INNS distribution, the following actions are required: • • • Continue and expand specific surveys for INNS to address the question of INNS within the River Dee catchment Liaison with SNH, D & G Council, SEPA and other groups to standardise survey methods and combine current knowledge of distribution and abundance of existing INNS in the area Work with South West Scotland Environmental Information Centre to collect reports and survey data B. Develop and initiate control and eradication programmes As surveys continue to reveal the distribution and extent of INNS in Galloway, control and eradication programmes will be considered in conjunction with key stakeholders using up-todate NNSS advice on good practice for each INNS present. The GFT will liaise with the NNSS for current good practice and with other specialists on their practical experiences with control and eradication programmes. Control and eradication programmes will depend upon the nature of the INNS threat and different stakeholders will be involved in and lead different programmes depending on the threat. A combination of specialist contractors, volunteers, river managers, local estate staff and GFT staff forum will be used depending on the management requirements of the area involved. STEP 1 • Survey of river catchments STEP 2 • Initial treatment of affected areas STEP 3 • Follow up control and monitoring STEP 4 • Habitat restoration and monitoring Figure 2: Flow chart detailing program structure Envisaged mitigation, eradication and control measures for the some of the INNS present in the River Dee catchment are presented in Table 8. 28 PUBLIC Table 8: Invasive Non-Native Species control and Eradication in the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee catchment Species Japanese knotweed / Himalayan knotweed Action Control/eradication Identify and close pathways Rhododendron At key riparian locations control / eradicate Survey for problem areas Control/eradication Identify and close pathways Himalayan balsam Sitka spruce regeneration Remove naturally seeded conifers in riparian buffer zones (as defined in Forest and Water Guidelines) American mink Control Rainbow trout Monitor angler catches Giant Hogweed Canadian Pondweed Control/eradication Identify and close pathway Monitor distribution and consider risk of spread to other catchments Eradication and monitor distribution American Skunk cabbage Eradication, identify and close pathways Giant rhubarb Curly water weed Escaped salmon Monitor distribution Monitor distribution Eradicate North American signal crayfish Treatment/post treatment Undertake control (through glyphosate spraying and injecting) on riparian areas across all main river systems and their tributaries. Map, quantify and control knotweed on coastal burns Undertake control (through cutting followed by herbicide treatment) in identified riparian areas Undertake control (by glyphosate spraying, strimming or hand pulling) in all areas where Balsam identified Control regeneration Sitka spruce trees by strimming, hand cutting or chain sawing – depending on size – within 20 m of all burns over 1 m width, on a 10 year rotation Continue and expand catchment co-ordinated trapping programmes Encourage anglers to kill all rod- caught rainbow trout present in running waters Spray with glyphosate up to three times a year Trial eradication methods at two important fishery waters (Ornockenoch Loch and Black Loch). If successful roll out into other affected waters Appears to be in low numbers so control with glyphosate Circulate advice on recognising fish farm escaped salmon. Ensure all anglers kill any rod caught escape salmon 29 PUBLIC C. Coordinate partnerships to source future funding and develop projects Any progress made in the control of INNS can be quickly undermined and resources wasted if continued, long-term commitment is not present. There are many organisations with a remit and desire to control INNS. The GFT will seek to form and coordinate partnerships with these organisations and neighbouring fisheries trusts to identify funding sources and potential projects that ensure sustainable control of INNS in Galloway. Such partnership working will be essential to bring about large-scale resource-intensive projects. 30 PUBLIC 10.2 Actions and timeframes The table below presents the actions required to realise the objectives and outputs described in Section 10.1 along with the lead agency, key partners and timeframe required for their implementation. Key: Solid line indicates continuous action Action Lead Dotted line indicates ongoing / wide timescale effort Partners TIMEFRAME 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Objective 1: Prevent the introduction and spread of INN species Launch of Galloway biosecurity plan through national and local press release Produce leaflet on legislation including waste management & planning regulations Produce leaflet(s) on biosecurity issues and the reporting system Produce posters on biosecurity issues and distribute to the general public Develop good practice protocol with Harbour Authority Distribute Codes and posters to relevant retail outlets and clubs at open days and events such as agricultural shows Engage with Landowners and angling clubs to promote awareness of measures to tenants, resource users, members and visitors Work with environmental groups and local schools to enhance awareness of INNS GFT GGLP, SEPA, NTS, SNH D & G Council SNH GFT SNH GFT NTS SEPA GFT Port Authorities GFT SEPA, GFT, SNH GFT DSFB’s SEPA, SNH,NTS GFT SNH, NTS, SEPA Objective 2: Establish framework for the detection and surveillance of INN species, linked to a protocol to ensure a rapid management response. Output 2.1 - ‘Reporting system’ established for INN species in Galloway. Train GFT personnel in GFT SNH the identification of INNS Work with user and GFT NTS, SEPA, GGLP interest groups to identify monitors 31 PUBLIC Action Lead Partners Training of monitors GFT SNH SEPA FLS NTS HES SEPA SWSEIC NTS TIMEFRAME 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Establish, test and refine GFT communication mechanisms within surveillance system Monitor and periodically GFT & other RAFTS evaluate efficacy of partners surveillance system Output 2.2 – Develop strategic monitoring of INN species in district. Training of Trust and GFT SFCC other agency staff in SEPA monitoring methods D & G Council Develop monitoring SFCC SEPA (National) manual Output 2.3 – Rapid response mechanism established for new INN species which pose significant threats to local biodiversity and economy. Formulate contingency GFT D & G Council, SEPA, plans for key species SNH, NTS Identification of personnel GFT and SNH D & G Council, SEPA for response teams Training of personnel to GFT and SNH D & G Council, SEPA execute contingency plans Refresher training GFT Monitor GFT SNH, SEPA, populations/treated areas D & G Council, NTS Objective 3: Develop coordinated control and eradication programmes for INNS Output 3.1- Collect data on the distribution and abundance of existing threats Complete catchment GFT and other wide surveys by trained partners personnel Objective 3.2 – Develop and initiate control and eradication programmes Implementation of GFT Local volunteers, control/ eradication DSFB’s, SNH, SEPA, programme for riparian FLS, RSPB, NTS INNS plants (Knotweed, rhododendron, skunk cabbage, balsam, giant hogweed, Sitka spruce regeneration) Implementation of mink GFT/DSFB/NTS Volunteers, SNH trapping programme Survey of screening GFT DSFB’s, MS facilities on stillwaters containing non-native fish Monitor distribution of DGERC SNH, Solway Partnership curly waterweed, common cord grass and wireweed Monitor the effectiveness GFT of control programmes Various Objective 3.3 – Coordinate partnerships to source future funding and develop projects 32 PUBLIC Action Lead Partners Complete draft biosecurity plan Consultation with all stakeholders to agree biosecurity plan Identify and develop opportunities for future funding of eradication projects GFT SEPA, SNH GFT GFT SEPA, SNH,NTS 33 TIMEFRAME 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 PUBLIC 11 MONITORING To ensure the effective implementation of this plan, it is vital that the outcomes and impacts of the actions are monitored and reviewed to ensure that the objectives are being met. Thus a fully coordinated monitoring programme must be established to ensure efficacy and sustainable treatment initiatives and include: • • • • • • Assessment of efficacy of surveillance and rapid response systems Occurrence and distribution of the selected INNS within the district Effectiveness of control/eradication programme Assessment of the ability to close established pathways of transmission Monitoring the effectiveness of all legislation and codes of practice especially those which are aimed at restricting/closing pathways Monitoring general activities within the district and assessing them in terms of risk for the introduction of INNS A monitoring programme will be developed based on the agreed objectives and outputs of this plan. Monitoring activities will be undertaken by GFT staff in conjunction with stakeholder representatives who by virtue of their work are out in the catchment on a regular basis e.g. roads department and access officers employed by local councils. 34 PUBLIC 12 REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation GGLP NTS DSFBs FLS DGERC GFT MS NNSS SEPA SFCC SNH Organisation Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership National Trust of Scotland District Salmon Fisheries Boards Forestry and Land Scotland Dumfries and Galloway Environmental Resources Centre Galloway Fisheries Trust Marine Scotland Non Native Species Secretariat Scottish Environment Protection Agency Scottish Fisheries Co-ordination Centre Scottish Natural Heritage Brockman, R. and Holden, M. (2015). River Stour Biosecurity and Invasive Non-Native Species Control Action Plan. Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Beauty & Stour Valley Project. Available: http://www.dedhamvalestourvalley.org/assets/River-Stour-Projects/Stand-AloneStour-Biosecurity-Plan-V2-10-06-2015.pdf. Last accessed: 9th Nov 2019. CBD. (2013). Quick guides to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Convention on Biological Diversity. Available: https://www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/targets/compilation-quick-guideen.pdf. Last accessed: 9th Nov 2019. CBD. (2015a). What are Invasive Alien Species? Convention on Biological Diversity. Available: https://www.cbd.int/invasive/WhatareIAS.shtml. Last accessed: 5th Nov 2019. CBD. (2015b). Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Convention on Biological Diversity. Available: https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/. Last accessed: 8th Nov 2019. CEH. (2004a). Information Sheet 7: Canadian Waterweed. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Available at: http://www.ceh.ac.uk/sci_programmes/documents/canadianpondweed.pdf. Last accessed: 9th Nov 2019. CEH. (2004b). Information Sheet; Lagarosiphon major, Curly water Thyme, Curly Waterweed. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Available at: http://www.ceh.ac.uk/sci_programmes/documents/curlywaterthymecurlywaterweed.pdf. Last accessed: 31st October 2019. CRF, (2014). Chinese mitten crab: update. Clyde River Foundation. Available: http://www.clyderiverfoundation.org/chinese-mitten-crab-update/. Last accessed: 28th Oct 2019. NNSS. (2011a). Parrot's Feather, Myriophyllum aquaticum. Non-Native Species Secretariat. Available: http://www.nonnativespecies.org/factsheet/factsheet.cfm?speciesId=2285. Last accessed: 25th Oct 2019. NNSS. (2011b). Giant Rhubarb, Gunnera tinctoria. Non-Native Species Secretariat. Available: http://www.nonnativespecies.org//factsheet/factsheet.cfm?speciesId=1647. Last Accessed: 25th Oct 2019. NNSS. (2011c). Zebra Mussel, Dreissena polymorpha. Non-Native Species Secretariat. Available: http://www.nonnativespecies.org/factsheet/factsheet.cfm?speciesId=1250. Last accessed: 25th Oct 2019. 35 PUBLIC NNSS. (2015). GB INNS Strategy 2015. Available: http://www.nonnativespecies.org/index.cfm?sectionid=55. Last accessed: 7 th Nov 2019. Plantlife and Royal Horticultural Society. (2010). Gardening without harmful invasive plants. Available at: http://www.plantlife.org.uk/publications/gardening_without_harmful_invasive_plants. Last accessed: 9th Nov 2019. Roy, H.E., Preston, C.D., Harrower, C.A., Rorke, S.L., Noble, D., Sewell, J., Walker, K. Marchant, J., Seeley, B., Bishop, J., Jukes, A., Musgrove, A., Pearman, D., Booy, O. (2014) GB Non-native Species Information Portal: documenting the arrival of non-native species in Britain. Biological Invasions. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-0140687-0. Last accessed: 9th Nov 2019. Sanderson, N. (2013). New Forest Non-Native Plants Project, Research on the impact of Skunk Cabbage Lysichiton americanus on native vegetation. New Forest Non-Native Plants Project. Available: http://www.nonnativespecies.org/index.cfm?pageid=413. Last accessed: 26th Oct 2019. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (2006) Global Biodiversity Outlook 2. Montreal, 81 + vii pages. SNH. (2016). Scotland’s Biodiversity Progress to 2020 Aichi Targets. Available: https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2017-11/Aichi-Targets-Interim-Report-September2016-A2098126.pdf. Last accessed: 9th Nov 2019. Solway Firth Partnership. (2017). Marine Invasive Non-Native Species in the Solway Firth. Available: https://solwayfirthpartnership.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Marine-INNS-inSolway-2018-2021.pdf. Last accessed: 9th Nov 2019. Solway Firth Partnership. (2019) Invasive Non Native Species. Available https://www.solwayfirthpartnership.co.uk/environment/invasive-non-native-species/. accessed: 25th Oct 2019. from: Last Williams, F., Eschen, R.,Harris, A.,Djeddour, D.,Pratt, C., Shaw, R.S., Varia, S., LamontagneGodwin, J.,Thomas, S.E., Murphy, S.T. . (2010). The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain. Available: https://www.cabi.org/VetMedResource/ebook/20123122024 . Last accessed: 9th November 2019. 36  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 5 Year Biosecurity Plan for the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee Catchment 2020-2024 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_34 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 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Commissioned Report undertaken by Galloway Fisheries Trust environment GGLP https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/492/GGLP-Biosphere-Ex-Legacy-Pk.pdf 8028350ebda6467e5a1ee21e4683012f 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 Biosphere Explorers – A Sense of Place, a teacher guide for Curriculum for Excellence Second Stage (P5-7) 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. 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 Biosphere Explorers – A Sense of Place, a teacher guide for Curriculum for Excellence Second Stage (P5-7) Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_33 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 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Commissioned Report written by Shalla Gray, Biosphere Explorers Project for the Crichton Carbon Centre children GGLP https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/491/GGLP-Kirkcudbrightshire-Dee-Salmon-Migration-Study-2021-summary-BIG.pdf 9ae8cad11772fd702490d843138ea5fb 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 Kirkcudbrightshire Dee Salmon Migration Study 2021 Non-technical summary 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 PUBLIC Kirkcudbrightshire Dee Salmon Migration Study 2021 Non-technical summary • • • To address a series of questions around the migration of Atlantic salmon smolts migrating to sea in the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee a tracking study was conducted in 2021. 50 salmon smolts were captured in a trap and fitted with a tag (a transmitter) that emits a unique acoustic signal. These fish were then released in the Polharrow and Coom Burns in April 2021 during the normal migration period. Sixteen fixed receivers (listening stations) were deployed throughout the river (see map). These were placed to be able to measure smolt migration success and speed through: o hydropower impoundments (Earlstoun Dam, Glenlochar Barrage and Tongland Dam) o lochs (Loch Ken, Earlstoun Loch) o the river channel o the upper estuary • The main finding of this study were: • Overall, migration success rate of salmon smolts from release site to inner estuary was 58%. However, migration success varied between habitat types and river section. Migration success though: o river sections - was high at 97.5% successful passage. o lochs - was also high with losses of 0 & 1.5% of fish per km in Earlstoun and Loch Ken respectively. o dams - was lower (81% and 88% for Earlston and Tongland Dams respectively). Successful smolt passage through dams occurred almost solely when power was being generated and turbines turning. Successful migration through a dam also coincided with higher water flow rates. This, and the pattern of passage at the dams, strongly point to the conclusion that smolts are migrating through the turning turbines even when alternative passage routes are available. Overall, the pattern of migration success is broadly in line with that expected in naturally draining rivers elsewhere, however, this study only provides a single snapshot of migration in a single year where migration success elsewhere was known to be high. We conclude that more information on smolt passage would be of value. This work should focus on migration success around the dams and on possible manipulation of dam flow rates to maximise successful and timely salmon migration. • • • • • • • • The work was undertaken by Galloway Fisheries Trust and SCENE (Glasgow University). Funding was provided by Drax, GFT and Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership. PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC  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 Kirkcudbrightshire Dee Salmon Migration Study 2021 Non-technical summary Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_32 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 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Commissioned Report undertaken by Galloway Fisheries Trust and SCENE (Glasgow University) environment GGLP https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/490/GGLP-Loch-Ken-Strategic-Visitor-Infrastucture-Framework-FINAL-110422.pdf 0debdc27557bf2723d4cae618a9575e0 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 Ken Strategic Visitor Infrastructure Framework 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 Loch Ken Strategic Visitor Infrastructure Framework April 2022 1 Acknowledgements The Strategic Visitor Infrastructure project has been led by a partnership of: Front Cover photograph credit: VisitScotland OS Paper Map Copying License No: 100064783 This document has been developed and compiled by authors from One Planet Consulting and Blue Sea Consulting. James.Stuart@oneplanet.consulting 2 Contents Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................................2 Contents ......................................................................................................................................................3 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................4 Framework Purpose .....................................................................................................................................5 Strategic context ..........................................................................................................................................6 National Tourism Strategy ....................................................................................................................................6 STERG and Pandemic response ............................................................................................................................6 Megatrends ..........................................................................................................................................................7 National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan ............................................................................7 South of Scotland Destination Alliance ................................................................................................................8 Loch Ken Plan........................................................................................................................................................9 Development of the Framework ................................................................................................................. 10 Networked Solutions ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Pressures ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 Road and water safety....................................................................................................................................... 14 Responding to visitor pressures .................................................................................................................. 15 Activity Zones .................................................................................................................................................... 15 Signage and identity .......................................................................................................................................... 17 Behaviour Change.............................................................................................................................................. 20 Opportunities ............................................................................................................................................ 22 Wildlife and the environment ........................................................................................................................... 22 Built and cultural heritage ................................................................................................................................. 22 Cycling and adventure ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Accessibility ....................................................................................................................................................... 24 Policies and principles Summary ................................................................................................................. 25 3 Introduction Loch Ken is a jewel in the Galloway Landscape. Nine miles in length, running from the Glenkens to the outskirts of Castle Douglas, it constitutes the largest body of freshwater in Southern Scotland. Southern Scotland Project Area Map 1: Location of Loch Ken project area within Southern Scotland. In recent years, the Loch has witnessed a low level of investment in visitor infrastructure, with a constraint developing on the number of visitors that can be appropriately hosted. This came to a peak in the summers of 2020 and 2021 when spikes in visitor related access issues were recorded, particularly connected with wild camping and access rights being exercised irresponsibly. While there was certainly a link to the pandemic, there is an underlying longer-term trend of increasing visitor management challenges. 4 Framework Purpose The Loch Ken Strategic Visitor Infrastructure Framework (SVIF) establishes a set of policies and principles that will inform and guide the long-term development of visitor infrastructure across the area. This includes guiding the development of the Loch Ken Strategic Visitor Infrastructure Plan (SVIP) and informing the position Loch Ken Trust will adopt when responding to other potential developments by the public, private and third sector in the area; developments that are aligned to the framework will be looked on favourably. The SVIF aims are: • • • To respond to current and emergent visitor pressures To support the development of a high quality, integrated and seamless visitor experience across the Loch Ken areas Support the delivery of the Loch Ken Plan. The SVIF will also nest within and support the delivery of the broader Biosphere and South of Scotland approaches and ambitions. The plan does not carry the status of a Local Development Plan but does provide potential developer a clear sense of the ambition and direction of development the communities around Loch Ken seek to follow. It should therefore offer a firm anchor point for developers to build their approaches from. 5 Strategic context For the Framework to work as effectively as possible it must draw from, support, and align with the national and regional strategic contexts and the major trends influencing Scottish Tourism. These are explored in brief below. National Tourism Strategy Scotland Outlook 2030 is the national tourism strategy and aims to establish Scotland as the world leader in 21st Century tourism. It was developed through an equal partnership between the Scottish Tourism Alliance, Scottish Government, VisitScotland, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland. The strategy development was guided by a steering group and built on a robust evidence base and engagement with over 2500 tourism leaders and stakeholders. The Strategy was launched on the 4th of March 2020. Outlook 2030 – A summary The Vision – We will be the world leader in 21st century tourism. The Mission – Together we will grow the value and positively enhance the benefits of tourism across Scotland by delivering the very best for our visitors, our businesses, our people, our communities and our environment. Key Priorities – Our passionate people, our thriving places, our diverse businesses, our memorable experiences. Our Commitments – For each of the key priorities there are an agreed set of commitments. These commitments will ensure delivery on the vision to be the world leader in 21st century tourism. Download a copy of the strategy: STERG and Pandemic response The Scottish Tourism Emergency Response Group (STERG) was established as part of the response to the COVID-19 crisis in March 2020. The work of this group has enabled tourism industry bodies from across Scotland to respond in a coordinated manner to the problems which have resulted from the pandemic. The group’s work has also supported the recommendations of the Scottish tourism Recovery Task Force, which was set up to look at what measures the Scottish and UK Governments could take to bolster recovery. 6 Megatrends Megatrends describe the global shifts in views and behaviours displayed by our visitors. The Scottish Tourism Alliance grouped and characterized the most relevant of these global trends in the Scottish context as: Experience More Limitless Discoveries Evolving Traveler Technology to Stimulate and Inform offering more genuine experiences and helping visitors to be more than “tourists”. marketing the whole of Scotland not just the favourite places. recognising the many different types of visitors, both culturally and demographically using widely available technology to improve and influence the customer experience. Table 3 – Scottish tourism mega trends, source: Scottish Tourism Alliance/ Scottish Enterprise Further work by VisitScotland Insights department published in Feb 2020 noted the specific trends that would characterize the 2020’s including: • • • • • • Loco-mational Travel and the Eco-Drive – the rise of the green and low carbon agenda. Transforming the Typical – disrupting the market through product development. Solivagant Spirits and the March of the Global Nomad – the importance of the individual traveller. Rise of the Reviewistas – advocates, ambassadors and referrals. Pre-crastination – getting everything done in advance. Water-ways – capitalizing on the appeal of Scotland’s coasts and waters. These trends were described prior to the COVID 19 pandemic. Euromonitor1 research suggests that the trends have endured. The pandemic also saw several other trends emerge which are of note; especially the shift to “staycation”, the drop-off of the international visitor market, increases in cycling and other adventurous activities and a continuation in the shift towards more ethical and environmentally conscious decision making. National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan The National Planning Framework (NPF) is part of the statutory development plan and directly influences planning decisions and Local Development Plans adopted by each Planning Authority. The current framework (NPF3) is soon to be replaced by NPF4. The new framework sets out a vision for how Scotland will change in the future. It reflects priorities from across Scottish Government portfolios and brings together a wide range of plans, programmes and policies. 1 Insert reference to Euromonitor briefing 7 The framework establishes several spatial principles and action areas that seek to build a climateconscious and nature-positive future and respond to the needs of communities across Scotland. The south of Scotland including the Loch Ken area are identified in one of the main actions areas: Southern Sustainability. Four actions are also noted including: • • • • (22) Create a low-carbon network of towns. (23) Support sustainable development. (24) Innovate to sustain and enhance nature capital. (25) Strengthen resilience and decarbonize connectivity. Download a draft copy of NPF4 The Dumfries and Galloway Local Development Plan (LDP2) sets out how and where land and property will be used in Dumfries and Galloway to realise the vision for the next 20 years. The written policies give guidance on all aspects of development, when it will be supported and when it won’t. The current LDP was adopted on 3 October 2019 and replaces the previous plan adopted in 2014. The overarching principle of the plan is that all development proposal should support sustainable development, including the reduction of carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. The following broad principles have also been used to identify sites for development: • • • • • reduce overall flood risk by avoiding areas at risk of flooding and erosion; where possible, avoid the use of prime quality agricultural land; consider reusing brownfield, vacant and derelict land and buildings instead of greenfield land; maximise the use of existing infrastructure including public transport; consider opportunities to develop mixed communities Download a copy of Dumfries and Galloway LDP2 South of Scotland Destination Alliance The South of Scotland Destination Alliance (SSDA) is the strategic Destination Management and Marketing Organisation for the South of Scotland, encompassing Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. Their ambition is to transform the South of Scotland not a year-round world class destination, growing tourism spend in the region to £1Bn by 2030 and creating an additional 6500 jobs. Their key priorities are: • Establishing ‘Scotland Starts Here’ as the destination brand for the region, developing short and long term marketing plans targeting both domestic and international visitors. This is on the 8 • • • • back of the MBTAG activity delivered to date through Midlothian and the Scottish Borders and will now also include Dumfries and Galloway Engaging members on a local level and working closely with the industry on recovery, product development, business readiness and future workforce education Strategic destination development planning, focused on understanding the region’s longer term needs to inform capital and infrastructure investments Working actively with local communities to demonstrate the value of the tourism sector and to cement its part in the place-making activity of the South Working closely with South of Scotland Enterprise and representing the needs of the industry amongst local and national governments Loch Ken Plan This framework is intended to support the achievement of the aims, actions and ambitions committed to in the Loch Ken Plan. The Loch Ken plan is framed using the United National Sustainable Development goals and highlights three major themes: People, Prosperity and Planet. Across these areas and the sixteen goals that sit behind them, the aim is to nurture Loch Ken and the surrounding area into a thriving set of sustainable communities. Download a copy of the Draft Loch Ken Plan 9 Development of the Framework In keeping with the UNSDGs and the aims of the Loch Ken Plan, the dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss and the importance placed on the natural capital of the Loch Ken area by visitors and residents alike it is right to establish policies that ensure those elements are carried forward into the Strategic Visitor Infrastructure Framework (SVIF). Policy 1 – to enhance, protect and restore the natural capital of the Loch Ken area as part of visitor infrastructure developments wherever possible Policy 2 – to consider alternatives to new or additional capacity ahead of committing to infrastructure development. Policy 3 – to refresh, extend or repurpose existing capacity in preference to brand new developments. Infrastructure development has several inherent impacts on the environment that cannot be avoided including the footprint of the development itself and the resultant impact of the functioning site. The intent of these policies is to ensure that a “build first” approach to infrastructure is avoided, to ensure other measures like education or behaviour change are considered ahead of infrastructure development and to embed a bias towards reuse and repurposing of existing infrastructure. These principles help to ensure the additional burden of infrastructure on the environment is kept to a minimum. Networked Solutions Policy 4 – We will develop a networked infrastructure approach, considering Loch Ken as a destination rather than any single node, venue or community in isolation. There are multiple drivers of this policy, the first reflects the relationship of this policy to others operating at different scales. This policy is looking at the development of the overall destination of Loch Ken and not any one venue, node or community in isolation. This policy develops policies one and two, codifying the intent not to replicate the same piece of infrastructure in multiple locations and waste resources unnecessarily. This also links to the income 10 and use models for infrastructure; spreading income too thin will undermine the model to maintain the facility. An example of where this policy would have a notable impact is pump out and waste facilities for motor homes. Rather than adopt an approach that requires or encourages each facility in each community or at each node catering for Motorhomes to offer all of the services, one node could take the lead and host additional facilities (such as pump out and waste) but make it available to all those who stay overnight in one of the network of Aires. This policy also extends to positioning of Loch Ken as an Event destination, rather than see each separate venue developing a full suite of facilities, the networked approach would consider how best to develop capability across the whole area and to ensure public, private and third sector developments augment and support each other; growing the whole opportunity, improving resource efficiency and opening up a scale of potential activity that no one entity could manage individually. Pressures There are a mix of general and specific visitor pressures being experienced across Loch Ken and the immediate environs. The general pressures are experienced across the whole area and include littering, toileting, parking and increases in volumes of people taking access to the loch and the countryside. The increase in these pressures is consistent with numerous other areas across Scotland including the National Parks. Nationally these pressures have been increasing for many years, with the impact of the pandemic adding considerably to this underlying trend. In addition to these general pressures there are several more specific pressures, tensions and hot spots that have been identified and are illustrated in Map 2 and characterized in the Table 1 below Table 1: Specific visitor management pressures (see map on page 13 locations). West bank 1 • • • • Toilets Litter Multiple user groups Car parking The principal pressures on the West bank of the northern section of Loch Ken are from camping, toileting, litter, and car parking. – with many users showing limited regard to the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. The main user groups of the area include anglers – this area is leased for permit fishing by New Galloway Angling Association – and general recreational access – including camping - to the Loch shore. There is some cross over between these uses - with some campers also fishing – which complicates the management further. 11 High Speed Zone 2 • • Multiple user groups Water Safety Public slipway and viaduct 3 • • • • • • • Volume Toilets Litter Access Multiple user groups Water Safety Road Safety This informal designation has been operating with a high degree of success for decades. The zone seeks to support the management of high and low speed craft but has been put under additional pressure in recent years with greater numbers of low-speed pursuits (open water swimming, stand up paddle boarding etc.) and new access points for these activities in the centre of the zone. This not only creates a notable water safety issue but is also eroding the already limited space for high-speed craft and activity. The public slip way and environs have experienced some of the most concerning visitor management pressures of any part of the Loch. The access point is highly constrained, it coincides with the narrowest point of the Loch – which can have a notable flow rate and is used by multiple forms of powered craft as well as swimming, paddleboarding and a host of other non-powered watersports. The facilities on site are also limited to litter bins and car parking, with no public toilets and no water safety equipment. The site itself is on a 60mph A road. 12 5 1 2 3 4 Map 2: Location of specific visitor management pressure points on Loch Ken. 13 Road and water safety Road and water safety is a component of the broader visitor management challenge, both in terms of supporting the safety of visitors as they make use of various facilities in the area and in terms of the constraint or additional pressure that these issues can place on the use or development of facilities. There are two notable road safety challenges which currently constrain visitor management options and increase pressure on current visitor management facilities. These are illustrated on Map 2 and characterized in Table 2 below. Table 2: Road safety issues. 4 5 A 713 Castle Douglas to St John’s Town of Dalry A 712 Ken bridge to New Galloway The A713 is a major route through the areas linking Ayr and Castle Douglas. Much of the route along the eastern edge of Loch Ken is national speed limit (60mph) and is open meaning much of the traffic travels at those speeds. It is also heavily frequented by large vehicles and timber transport lorries. In practice this road is not suitable for bicycles and only has limited parts with any form of pedestrian walkway. This is a major constraint and means access to the East of the loch is effectively by motor vehicle only, putting more pressure on limited car parking facilities and putting many off from using active travel to explore the area. The A712 between the Ken Bridge and New Galloway is a short but challenging section of road. The sides of the road are mostly high hedge and there are a several tight bends – it is not suitable for pedestrian use and as there is no pedestrian walkway or alternative route access from New Galloway to Ken Bridge and the visitor facilities there are restricted to car and bus. The increase in visitor numbers and increasing likelihood of warmer summers and heat waves in future years will add further to this challenge with greater numbers of people spending time outside and a greater focus on water activities. Water safety has already been noted in the context of the high-speed zone (2) and the public slipway (3). Other potential areas of water safety risk include: high use access points, the Galloway Hydro Scheme2 infrastructures and high use areas of water. This list of pressures and safety concerns is not exhaustive. It does however offer an immediate frame of reference to respond to. In adopting a systems approach to this the response to specific issues will support the wider environs of Loch Ken too. 2 Galloway Hydro Scheme current operated by Drax. 14 Responding to visitor pressures Activity Zones Policy 5 – We will adopt the use of zoning to reduce pressures of multiple activities in one space and to support behaviour change. We will support differentiated infrastructure development across these zones. The use of informal zones for the waters and surrounding areas of Loch Ken, offers an opportunity to focus different types of development into different areas. This approach will build on the basic character of the typography, tuning future development towards the optimum use of each area. Whilst these zones are not exclusive and will in no way impede access rights or commercial activity, they are intended to help influence behaviours by encouraging newer, or less able participants towards parts of the loch and surrounding areas that better suit their capability. They are also intended to split activity uses in an area to reduce friction between different user groups. Table 3 Slow/soft adventure This zone is characterized by lower lying and less challenging topography. It lends to slower forms of activity including, open water swimming, paddle boarding, kayaking, angling, walking, wildlife watching, cycle touring and e-bikes, and engaging with heritage. Development in this area will be supported that support these forms of activity, develop new access points for slow adventure activities, enhance the visitor experience and encourage increased dwell time, are low impact and encourage the shifting of travel modes from high-carbon to lower carbon alternatives. This zone, covering the northern part of the loch and the major forests to the East and West, is characterized by the more rugged, higher and more challenging terrain. Hard/fast adventure High speed zone Development in this area is expected to be more restrained, maintaining the characteristics of the area and the “wilder” experience. Support will be given to low impact concepts that support the harder/faster forms of activity including mountain and gravel biking, sailing and long-distance trails on water and land. This zone is already in operation and is located just north of the viaduct at Parton. Developments in this area are expected to be very limited and to focus on the successful and safe operation of the zone, including the use of signage and buoyage. Access points for slower forms of activity will not be supported. 15 - - - - slow/soft adventure - - - - Hard/fast adventure - - - - High speed zone Map 3 – Loch Ken zones of activity 16 Signage and identity Policy 6 – We will seek to inform behaviours to address visitor pressures through the development of a strong area identity and the use a signage system. Visitor capacity in the area can be maximised by encouraging visitors to adopt low impact behaviours. Existing signage in the area is complex, aging, and does not support this broader intent. Images 1, 2, 3 and 4: Existing signage examples including a UNESCO Biosphere town sign To support this intent a signage system – see Image 6 example - with common brand elements will be adopted across the area. This approach will deliberately seek to work with the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere and other major designations and identities in the wider Dumfries and Galloway area. 1 - Gateway signage The top tier of signage, these markers announce your arrival to a special area. Modelled on the 17 National Parks, these markers offer an opportunity to develop the identity of the area and immediately set the expectation that behaviours appropriate to a special area are sought. Images 5 and 6: Example boundary signage at UK National Parks 2 - Zone boundaries This tier of signage indicate arrival to the main activity zones across the area, encouraging use of the area by those engaging in the compatible activities and indicating to others that another area is more suitable. 3 - Site and route specific – behaviour signage This tier of signage indicates desirable and undesirable behaviours particular to the place, providing key information to improve enjoyment and co-existence of multiple activities. This will include directions to different forms of activity, notes to indicate multiple uses of an area and reminders from the access code (fires, responsibilities etc.). 4 - Site specific – interpretation signage This tier of signage is intended to connect the visitor to the natural, built, and cultural heritage of the area. This will foster a connection, increase dwell time and encourage people to care for the area they are visiting. 18 Image 7: Example signage system 19 Behaviour Change Policy 7 – We will develop infrastructure and signage that encourages low carbon, low impact behaviours and increased dwell time. Effective visitor management is dependent on the behaviours adopted by the visitors. Visitor behaviour can be influenced and supported by the provision of access to services at key points in their journey. Low carbon, low impact behaviours allow much greater numbers of visitors to be accommodated by the area. To support and encourage more of these behaviours all development across the Loch Ken area will seek to embody this principle, which may include some or all of the following: Table 5 Low Carbon • • • • • • Park and ride facilities Reduced parking spaces Car Park Charging More active and accessible travel routes E-charging and greater access to electric or active modes of travel Public transport integration Low impact • • • • • Bin provision (all painted) Aires located in communities not out of town Area pump out facility Toilet provision at key nodes and signage to support good decision making in areas with no public toilet (What to do when you need a poo) Interaction with ranger or volunteer (on site ranger or volunteer) Increased dwell time • • • • • Car Park charging Switch to active travel Interpretation and viewing platforms Activities Food and drink It is important to note that infrastructure is only one part of the solution to visitor management challenges. The most effective responses around the UK and internationally blend an infrastructure, communication and in person (often ranger based) response together, with each supporting the other. Our intended response is based on this three-part model. 20 Case Study: What to do when you need to poo Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park is an extremely popular destination for visitors and has suffered from a series of visitor management challenges, including a buildup of human waste in some of the most popular locations. This not only causes a public health challenge but also undermines the visitor experience and can cause considerable harm to wildlife. It is impractical to provide toilets in every corner of the Park and nor is it in keeping with the wider aims of the Park to conserve the natural heritage of the area. As part of their work to address the issue they have developed a campaign to improve understanding of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code and to encourage more positive behaviours by visitors. The what to do when you need to poo campaign includes signage, mapping and provision of bags and trowels in targeted locations. The campaign, while still being refined and further developed, has had notable success. 21 Opportunities Loch Ken offers an impressive mix of experiences already and development of visitor infrastructure could open up many more. Not all these opportunities nor the visitor segments and services associated with them are fully compatible with the aims of the Loch Ken Plan and policies established earlier in the SVIF. The following principles seek to address this challenge and focus infrastructure development towards the most beneficial opportunities. Principle 1 – to target market segments that display low impact, low carbon and high dwell time behaviours. Principle 2 – to target developments and opportunities which enhance our natural capital, build on our strengths and focus on market segments with desired behaviours. Mindful of these principles, there are several areas of opportunity that are particularly relevant to Loch Ken. These are explored in brief below. Wildlife and the environment Loch Ken is in the UNESCO GSA Biosphere management zone and has a significant wildlife and nature offering across a wide range of habitats. Notable species include Red Kites, Osprey, Red Squirrels, Otters and Pine Martins among many others. This is a particular strength of the area and one to be built upon. The quality of the experience, the compact nature of the offering, the proximity and connection to nature that can be offered and the diversity of habitats all mark Loch Ken out as an ideal destination for nature focused and environmentally conscious visitors. The loch is already popular for bird watching and numerous other nature focused visitor activities. These activities are growth segments for visitors and Loch Ken is very well placed to benefit from that continued growth. The well-established Red Kite Trail offers a potential platform to develop a wider nature offering too. Built and cultural heritage Beyond nature, Loch Ken has a rich built and cultural heritage with Roman remains, pilgrim routes, castles and the 1930 hydro-scheme among many other notable elements. The Dark Skies designation further adds to this offering along with a considerable cultural programme of events at venues across the Loch Ken area. All of these elements equip the area well to respond to customer trends and expectations, offering numerous opportunities to have a deeper more engaging experience, to develop a connection to the 22 place and to afford the opportunity to visitors to have a personalised and highly authentic experience of the area. Cycling and adventure 2020 saw the highest levels of cycling on the public highway since the 1960’s3 with an over 47% increase in cycling between Mar 2020 and Mar 2021 reported by Cycling Scotland4. This trend was also reflected in other outdoor activities, with notable growth in open water/wild swimming, stand up paddleboarding and kayaking. All these trends have been experienced on Loch Ken over the last two summer periods. This trend and the low carbon and accessible nature of cycling, swimming and paddleboarding present a notable opportunity for Loch Ken, linking well to the two main zones of activity and existing strengths. Table 6 The zone is relatively flat with low gradients. The road network to the west of the southern zone is quiet and works well for cycle touring. There are already several core paths and numerous walks in the nature reserve. Slow/soft adventure The waters are more sheltered, shallower, and less prone to large waves or fast currents than the northern section of the Loch. The space is highly suited to open water swimming, paddleboarding, angling and kayaking and despite limited access points is already very popular. The zone would benefit from accessible off-road cycle routes to link existing provision and to encourage higher numbers of participants to park and ride. Improved access at the southern end of the Loch is also needed to reduce pressure on the public slip, to increase capacity and to support growth of swimming and triathlon events. The zone already boasts an extensive network of gravel paths through forests on the east and west of the loch as well as numerous mountain bike trails and access to two of the 7staines centres. Hard/fast adventure The offer is currently fragmented and targeted development of cycle and walking routes would unlock a huge network. This would support the development of these areas at a national level, a model already explored in Aberfoyle and the development of their tourism brand Gravelfoyle. 3 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/road-traffic-estimates-in-great-britain-2020 4 https://www.cycling.scot/news-and-blog/article/one-year-on-cycling-up-47-percent-in-scotland 23 Accessibility Accessibility is an important consideration in the development of infrastructure, especially as UN figures indicate that over 46% of people over the age of 60 have disabilities. The same group is also considered to comprise of “slow walkers” who also benefit from facilities made accessible for those with mobility needs.5 Planning for accessibility therefore allows access to a bigger market. In addition, the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) notes that “travellers with disabilities travel with an average of 1.9 other people, indicating that by accommodating the needs of one customer with disabilities a business obtains an average of about three customers” and further noted that “travellers with disabilities would increase their travel budget, either through more frequent or longer trips, by 34% if accessibility barriers were eliminated.”6 The development of the slow/soft adventure offering is well suited to this market. Case Study: Gravelfoyle Gravelfoyle is, as Visit Scotland puts it, ‘the heart of Aberfoyle’s new tourism brand’7. It has meant that small town Aberfoyle is the most well-known gravel biking destination and has gained national and international recognition. The brand was born out of the hugely successful and community backed Dukes Weekender, an annual family friendly weekend cycling festival based in Aberfoyle. The one-off pull of the event means that large volumes of visitors are activated to return multiple times after an exciting first visit to the event. 5 WTTC Inclusive and Accessible Travel Guidelines May 21 6 WTTC Inclusive and Accessible Travel Guidelines May 21 7 https://www.visitscotland.org/news/2021/gravefoyle 24 Policies and principles Summary Policy 1 – to consider alternatives to new or additional capacity ahead of committing to infrastructure development. Policy 2 – to enhance, protect and restore the natural capital of the Loch Ken area as part of visitor infrastructure developments wherever possible Policy 3 – to refresh, extend or repurpose existing capacity in preference to brand new developments. Policy 4 – We will develop a networked infrastructure approach, considering Loch Ken as a destination rather than any single node, venue or community in isolation. Policy 5 – We will adopt the use of zoning to reduce pressures of multiple activities in one space and to support behaviour change. We will support differentiated infrastructure development across these zones. Policy 6 – We will seek to inform behaviours to address visitor pressures through the development of a strong area identity and the use a signage system. Policy 7 – We will develop infrastructure and signage that encourages low carbon, low impact behaviours and increased dwell time. Principle 1 – to target market segments that display low impact, low carbon, and high dwell time behaviours. Principle 2 – to target developments and opportunities which enhance our natural capital, build on our strengths and focus on market segments with desired behaviours. 25  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 Ken Strategic Visitor Infrastructure Framework Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_31 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 2022 Description An account of the resource Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Commissioned Report developed and compiled by One Planet Consulting and Blue Sea Consulting environment GGLP