1
10
18
-
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
-
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/3/492/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/3/493/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/3/494/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/3/495/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/3/496/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/3/497/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/3/498/GGLP-Loch-Ken-Fishery-Study-Final.pdf
79d85c3da211bc8e2b38ddb3cd18ceef
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Galloway Glens – Fish, Fisheries and Angler Survey in Loch Ken
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Reports
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
GCAT
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
A Scottish Registered Charity
No. SC 020751
Commissioned Report No. – JRRMCAD10
GALLOWAY GLENS - FISH, FISHERIES AND
ANGLER SURVEY IN LOCH KEN
For further information on this report please contact:
Name of GFT Project Manager – Jamie Ribbens
Galloway Fisheries Trust
Fisheries House
Station Industrial Estate
Newton Stewart
DG8 6ND
Telephone: 01671 403011
E-mail: jamie@gallowayfisheriestrust.org
This report should be quoted as:
Galloway Fisheries Trust. 2017. Galloway Glens - Fish, fisheries and angler survey in Loch
Ken, Dumfries and Galloway Council Commissioned Report
Galloway Fisheries Trust Report No. – JRRMCAD10
This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of Galloway Fisheries Trust. This
permission will not be withheld unreasonably.
© Galloway Fisheries Trust Year – 2017
Summary
Galloway Glens - Fish, Fisheries and Angler Survey in
Loch Ken
Commissioned Report No.: Report No. - JRRMCAD10
Contractor: Dumfries and Galloway Council
Year of publication: 2017
Keywords
Loch Ken; coarse angling; seine netting; crayfish; pike; citizen science.
Background
This study was commissioned by the Galloway Glens Partnership Project. Finance for the
study was provided by Galloway Glens Partnership Project, Scottish Natural Heritage and the
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, and was managed by a steering group of these
funders and Dumfries and Galloway Council.
Loch Ken in South West Scotland is a popular angling venue, particularly for coarse fish with
competition and recreational anglers fishing for the diverse fish community present. This
fishery has been important to the local economy for many years. During the mid-1990’s North
American signal crayfish were identified within the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee catchment and in
Loch Ken itself. These non-native crayfish are now firmly established within Loch Ken and
have had, it has been suggested, an adverse impact on fish within the system, and hence the
value and quality of the fishery. However, such adverse impacts have not been quantified or
robustly assessed. Based on current technologies and methods there is no prospect of
eradicating North American signal crayfish from Loch Ken or the wider catchment of the
Kirkcudbrightshire Dee.
The main objective of this study was to undertake an assessment of the condition of the fish
stocks within Loch Ken, and the overall status of Loch Ken as an angling venue. Information
i
and data was collected via open, public stakeholder events, the distribution of an angler
questionnaire, interviews with anglers fishing (creel surveys), seine netting and through catch
sampling at angling matches. These data collection techniques were developed during the
recent pilot project undertaken on Loch Ken in 2016.
Using the data collected, recommendations for the future management, monitoring and
development of Loch Ken as a coarse fishery have been made.
Main findings
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Loch Ken continues to be a popular fishery particularly for visiting anglers from out with
Dumfries and Galloway, with most anglers stating they are ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’
with their angling experience on the loch.
The loch is a popular venue for match anglers providing good catches over much of
the year. Many match anglers feel that if further additional access opportunities to the
loch were available, then more matches could be held.
There is a concern amongst anglers that North American signal crayfish are negatively
impacting on their angling particularly through interference with their baits. Many
anglers report adapting their fishing techniques to minimise these problems.
The main fish species targeted by anglers on the loch are bream, roach, pike, perch
and to a lesser extent dace and ruffe. Consideration of the overall health of these fish
populations including growth rates suggested all were healthy. Limited samples were
collected from pike and these suggested a low growth rate which should be
investigated further.
Anglers feel that the population of large perch in Loch Ken has increased in recent
years due to their feeding on juvenile signal crayfish. Examination of perch growth
rates found a large increase in growth rates in perch over four years old which is
consistent with this view.
At present it appears that the coarse fish population in Loch Ken is able to support a
viable and sustainable fishery in spite of the presence of a significant North American
signal crayfish population. Ongoing monitoring is required to assess fish populations
over time and to identify change and trends.
Some biosecurity measures are undertaken by over half the anglers on the loch to help
reduce the risk of transfer of invasive non-native species to or from the site.
A number of recommendations are provided regarding understanding the fish
populations in the loch and the future maintenance and development of Loch Ken as
an important coarse fishery. These include - Future Monitoring of Fish Populations;
Governance - Management and Planning of the fishery; Fishery Protection - Access
and Local Management; Development - Promotion and increasing accessibility;
Biosecurity; and Education and Research.
ii
For further information on this project contact:
Name of Project Manager - Jamie Ribbens
Tel No. of Project Manager - 01671403011
iii
Table of Contents
Page
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Location and management
1.2
The fishery
1.3
North American signal crayfish
1.4
This study
1
1
2
3
3
2.
METHODOLOGY
2.1
Public engagement
2.2
Loch Ken angling record
2.3
Loch Ken creel record
2.4
Seine netting
2.5
Angling matches
5
5
5
6
6
6
3.
RESULTS
3.1
Public engagement
3.2
Loch Ken angling record
3.2.1
Angler profiles
3.2.2
Biosecurity
3.2.3
Catch returns
3.3
Loch Ken creel record
3.3.1
Angler profiles
3.3.2
Creel specific returns
3.3.3
Biosecurity
3.4
Seine netting
3.4.1
Netting undertaken
3.4.2
Fish species sampled
3.4.3
Condition factor
3.5
Angling matches
3.5.1
Angling matches attended
3.5.2
Further analysis of match data
3.5.3
Bag weights of coarse fish captured during matches on Loch Ken
3.6
Fish scale data
8
8
8
9
9
10
14
15
16
19
21
21
25
25
32
32
41
51
54
4.
DISCUSSION
4.1
Public engagement
4.1.1
Fishery and fish protection, legal access and the right to fish
4.2
Loch Ken angling record
4.3
Loch Ken creel record
4.4
Seine netting
4.5
Angling matches
4.6
Fish scale data
4.7
Conclusions
4.7.1 – 4.7.6
60
60
60
61
62
63
64
65
65
65
5.
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
Monitoring of Loch Ken fish populations
5.2
Governance, Management and Planning of the fishery
5.3
Fishery Protection, Access and Local Management Capacity
5.4
Development: Promotion and increasing accessibility
5.5
Biosecurity
5.6
Education and Research Opportunities
67
67
67
68
68
69
70
6.
REFERENCES
71
ANNEX 1: LOCH KEN ANGLING RECORD
72
iv
ANNEX 2: LOCH KEN CREEL RECORD
74
ANNEX 3: ANGLING MATCH STRATEGY
78
ANNEX 4: TABLE IDENTIFYING LOCATION BY SECTION NAME, PEG NUMBER
AND GRID REFERENCE WHERE FISH WERE SAMPLED DURING THREE LOCH
KEN MATCHES
80
ANNEX 5: MAP OF LOCATIONS WHERE ANGLER RECORDS WERE
UNDERTAKEN ON LOCH KEN
81
ANNEX 6: MAP OF LOCATIONS WHERE CREEL SURVEYS WERE UNDERTAKEN
ON LOCH KEN
82
ANNEX 7: MAP OF LOCATIONS WHERE SEINE NETTING SURVEYS WERE
COMPLETED ON LOCH KEN
83
v
Acknowledgements
The following individuals are acknowledged for their time, local knowledge and expertise which
assisted with the delivery of this project:
Ronald Woods, Tim Ewing, Mark Trueman, Steve Woods, Andrew Struthers, John Reid,
John McCubbing, John Barker, Stuart Ferns, Peter Wilson, Gareth Lambert, Wayne
Bartholemew, Nigel Spencer and Andy Gowans.
The numerous anglers who kindly completed Loch Ken Angling Records, participated in the
Loch Ken Creel Surveys and input to discussions during the stakeholder engagement
events.
We would like to acknowledge the important role that the Project Steering Group played in the
successful delivery of the study and reviewing the final report. The membership of the Group
included McNabb Laurie (Galloway Glens Partnership Project), Karen Morley (Dumfries and
Galloway Council), Callum Sinclair (Scottish Natural Heritage) and Anne Connick / Jackie
Galley (Scottish Environmental Protection Agency).
vi
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Location and management
Loch Ken is a 14.5 km long freshwater loch situated in Dumfries and Galloway, South West
Scotland (see Map 1). The flow of the loch is dominated by two inflowing river channels; the
Black Water of Dee from the west and the Water of Ken from the north. The river leaving the
loch is known as the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee which flows for nearly 15 km before entering the
Solway Firth near the town of Kirkcudbright. In 1929 the Galloway Water Power Act authorised
the construction of The Galloway Hydro-electric Energy Scheme. The scheme was built
between 1932 and 1936, which included the construction of Glenlochar Barrage. While the
loch feature was part of the natural form of the river, the construction of the Glenlochar Barrage
significantly increased the overall size of Loch Ken and nearly doubled its length.
Map 1: Location map of Loch Ken
The control barrage at Glenlochar allows water to be stored in Loch Ken to assist with power
generation further downstream at Tongland Power Station. There are long-standing operating
procedures for the barrage which manage water levels in the loch. These procedures have
been established to meet and accommodate a range of interests not solely related to power
generation. For example, the barrage gates are closed when the loch level drops to a specified
height in order to protect the ecology of the wetlands and the amenity value for the many users
of the loch. There are no specific provisions for compensation flow volumes below Glenlochar.
Under increased flow conditions the gates will typically be fully open allowing water to flow unimpeded through Loch Ken.
The villages around Loch Ken include Glenlochar at the south, Laurieston and Mossdale on
the west bank, and Crossmichael and Parton on the east bank. The village of New Galloway
lies immediately to the north.
1
1.2
The fishery
The Kirkcudbrightshire Dee was known historically for supporting excellent runs of salmon of
which high numbers were caught by a combined rod and net fishery. Andrew Symson in 1823
wrote in the ‘A large description of Galloway’ that ‘This river [Dee] is abundantly plenished with
excellent salmon’. In 1909, William L Calderwood wrote in his book ‘The salmon rivers and
lochs of Scotland’ that Loch Ken was only about four miles long and the ‘sluggish stream that
flow from it’ formed a confluence with the Blackwater below Parton. ‘The slack loch-like water
between Parton and Crossmichael is a stronghold of pike …. A systematic war should be
waged against these wretched fish when they spawn amongst the weeds in the spring, and
all the little boys in the neighbourhood might set pike trimmers with advantage’. In 1774 it is
reported that a huge 72 lb pike was caught by John Murray in Loch Ken. There are various
accounts of the bait used with some suggesting a large fly made out of peacock feathers, live
bait or spinning. One record even suggests the bait used was a dead duck! Another large
pike was recorded in 1904 which was found emaciated and dying at the edge of the loch but
still was weighed in at 39 lb.
The increased size of Loch Ken following the construction of the Glenlochar Barrage would
have made the water even more suitable for the resident pike population. The Dee District
Salmon Fishery Board (DDSFB) and Dee Fishery Association supported a gill netting
programme in Loch Ken aimed at reducing predation of salmon and trout. Many large pike
were culled including one just over 35 lb in 1935. The Board ceased netting many years ago.
As interest in pike angling grew and became more accessible and affordable for anglers, Loch
Ken became a popular venue for pike anglers who could easily fish the loch from both the
shore and boats. In 1972 a visiting German Kurt Vogel caught a pike of 40 lb 4oz while
spinning for salmon in Loch Ken. It was weighed officially on post office scales. The loch
continues to be recognised as a venue for catching good sized pike and is considered to be
the second most popular pike fishing water in Scotland after Loch Lomond. In Dumfries and
Galloway, Loch Ken is recognised by anglers as the prime location for pike angling of the
region both due to the quality of its pike catches and angler accessibility.
Although the loch lacks some migratory fish (eels and lamprey species) due to Tongland fish
ladder being designed for salmon only, it holds one of the most diverse fish populations of any
river system in Scotland. Many of the species present are not considered native to Scotland
and appear to have been introduced as unused pike baits.
Easy access and affordable fishing is offered at various points around Loch Ken and this has
made it popular for anglers fishing for many of the species present - anglers report catching
good numbers of pike, perch, dace, roach, ruffe and bream. Match angling has been popular
on the loch for many years and historically it was known as a renowned roach fishery which
was particularly popular with English anglers. As additional fish species have been introduced
to the loch, such as dace and ruffe, the fish species caught during matches has changed over
time and although the roach population appears to have reduced the catches of bream have
grown and in ideal conditions bags of 80 lb are reported in the angling press.
The importance of the fishery to the local economy is significant. In a 2009 Dumfries and
Galloway Council study it was found that ‘Loch Ken and the angling it supports’ was worth
between £273,321 and £553,651 per annum (Cameron 2010). The protection and
enhancement of the economic value of the fishery to the local economy is, therefore,
important.
2
1.3
North American signal crayfish
In Dumfries and Galloway the first record of the non-native invertebrate North American signal
crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) (referred to as signal crayfish in the rest of the report) was
made in two tributaries of the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee in 1996 (Maitland 1996; West Galloway
Fisheries Trust 1996 and Sinclair & Ribbens 1999). By 2004 signal crayfish were present in
the Water of Ken (between Loch Ken and Glenlee) and were starting to be reported as a
nuisance by anglers in Loch Ken (Ribbens & Graham 2004). In recent years, particularly since
the mid 2000’s, there has been an increasing number of complaints made to Galloway
Fisheries Trust (GFT), Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and Scottish Natural
Heritage (SNH) from anglers stating that they were catching numerous signal crayfish as bycatch when pike angling in Loch Ken. These fishermen also reported that it was becoming
increasingly difficult to successfully pursue their activities due to bait interference from signal
crayfish.
In 2009 the Scottish Government funded a five month trapping project on Loch Ken which
examined the practicality and success of large scale signal crayfish trapping on a large water
body, detailed the crayfish distribution within the loch and gathered a range of information on
the population present (Ribbens & Graham 2009). The study confirmed both that large
numbers of signal crayfish could be trapped in Loch Ken but also that this was expensive and
could not eradicate signal crayfish from the loch.
Distinct from angling, it is unclear if and how the signal crayfish population has impacted upon
the fish populations in or ecology of Loch Ken. There are, however, many documented
concerns relating to their potential impact on fish species in particular due to: their burrowing
activity in banksides, competing for habitat, grazing pressure on aquatic plants and predation
on invertebrates, fish and fish eggs (Maitland et al. 2001, Maitland 1996, Sibley in Rogers &
Brickland 2000).
Angling is affected by the presence of the signal crayfish, largely through interference with
fishing baits. A Dumfries and Galloway Council (DGC) study conducted in 2009, found that
‘50% of the anglers surveyed felt that less signal crayfish in the loch would improve their
experience’ and rated it their top priority to improve the fishery (Cameron 2010). In the same
study, New Galloway Angling Association (NGAA) reported a significant fall in the value of
Loch Ken ticket sales between 2002 and 2009 due to the negative publicity surrounding the
presence of signal crayfish in the loch.
In 2016 SNH and SEPA commissioned a study on Loch Ken to investigate the practicality of
using a range survey options (including angler interviews) which could be deployed to gather
information on fish populations present (Galloway Fisheries Trust 2016). Within that work, of
35 anglers interviewed, eight stated they felt the signal crayfish were a negative aspect of the
fishery and 14 stated that removing the signal crayfish would improve the fishery.
It is not possible to eradicate signal crayfish from Loch Ken.
1.4
This study
This study was commissioned by the Galloway Glens Partnership Project (GGPP). Finance
for the study was provided by GGPP, SNH and the SEPA, and was managed by a steering
group of these funders and DGC.
The main objective of this study is to undertake an assessment of the condition of the fish
stocks within Loch Ken, and the overall status of Loch Ken as an angling venue deploying
specified data and information collection methods. These data collection techniques were
developed during the 2016 pilot project undertaken on Loch Ken (Galloway Fisheries Trust
3
2016). Using the data collected, recommendations for the future management of Loch Ken
as a coarse fishery have been made.
The study also considered the current extent of deployment of angler biosecurity measures
and makes recommendations as to how biosecurity actions could be enhanced and developed
on the loch.
4
2.
METHODOLOGY
2.1
Public engagement
To establish links with relevant stakeholders that would have an interest in the fishery of Loch
Ken, GFT attended the Loch Ken Management Advisory Group on 5th October 2016, where
they delivered a presentation to introduce the Loch Ken Fisheries Study and gathered contact
details from individuals interested in inputting to the project. Thereafter, contact was initiated
by email with these individuals.
To seek public involvement in the study, two public drop-in events were arranged and these
were publicised with an advert in the Galloway News (issue 03/11/2016) and through posters
which were distributed widely in the local area and electronically via the GFT website and
social media pages. Email contact was made with all angling interests identified within the
pilot study (NGAA, Dalry Angling Club (DAC), members of the DDSFB, members of the
Scottish Coarse Fishing Federation). The poster was shared on the Loch Ken Match Banter
page – a Facebook page with 391 members, which details Loch Ken coarse fish matches and
results – and once invited to join the page, a personal introduction to the project and a request
to seek assistance from match organisers was posted by GFT.
Two fliers were produced and approved by the Steering Group in advance of the open events
– an information leaflet and a feedback form. The events took place on Wednesday the 16th
and Wednesday the 23rd November in and around New Galloway. The first event was held
during the day at CatStrand in New Galloway. The second event was held during the evening
at the Ken Bridge Hotel, New Galloway.
Fliers were distributed to recognised ticket outlets around the loch, McCowans angling shop
in Castle Douglas and to match officials during attended matches on the 3rd December 2016,
31st March 2017 and 14th April 2017. Anglers engaged during the Creel Surveys were
encouraged to complete the Loch Ken Angling Record (see 2.2), which were available on the
Loch Ken Fisheries Study page of the GFT website.
GFT attended a further Loch Ken Management Advisory Group on 1st March 2017, and
delivered an update on the Loch Ken Fisheries Project within the main agenda on Galloway
Glens Landscape Partnership Projects. Attendees were encouraged to participate in the
project if they had not done so to date.
2.2
Loch Ken angling record
In order to establish a citizen science recording scheme for anglers on Loch Ken to report
details of their catches, an angler questionnaire, composed during the pilot study, was revised
to include information on participating outlets where records could be returned to. These were
Loch Ken Holiday Park (Parton), The Post Office (New Galloway) and J R Hopkins
Newsagents (New Galloway) and a postal return and email address for GFT (see record sheet
in Annex 1). During the stakeholder engagement events, all anglers in attendance were given
the Angling Record and requested to complete it on every occasion they fished the loch.
McCowans Fishing Tackle Shop in Castle Douglas and Mossdale Village Shop also agreed to
distribute and collect records.
A downloadable version of the Angling Record was made available from the ‘Loch Ken
Fisheries Study’ page on the GFT website. Match organisers were supportive and the record
was distributed to anglers at the three matches GFT attended as well as matches they did not.
Finally, the survey was sent out with an introductory letter to all boat users on Loch Ken via
the DGC boat license registration service in February 2017. Altogether, it was felt that by the
means described previously, most avenues for distributing the Angling Record had been
utilised.
5
During this time, ticket outlets were encouraged to inform anglers of the incentive scheme,
whereby completed and returned records would be entered into a monthly draw for a £50
angling tackle voucher. This incentive was displayed on all records distributed throughout the
project.
Outlets where the record was placed were visited on most occasions when the creel surveys
were being undertaken. In total, 68 completed records were received during the project.
2.3
Loch Ken creel record
It was identified that a more in-depth angler and catch survey could take place via individual
angler interviews conducted at Loch Ken. These interviews, undertaken on an ongoing basis
throughout the project, would have three main purposes.
Firstly, to gather information on fish species present, their whereabouts, sizes and catches to
better inform management of the fishery, secondly, to provide a more detailed profile of current
anglers and of their opinions and perceptions on the quality of the fishery, its viability and
future development and, thirdly, to allow for relevant information on biosecurity measures,
knowledge and awareness to be collected.
Annex 2 shows the Loch Ken creel survey used. In total, 110 interviews were completed using
this method across 18 days (8.5 weekend days and 9.5 week days).
2.4
Seine netting
It is standard protocol when sampling fish populations in still waters to utilise nets. There are
various types which can be used including gill nets, fyke nets and seine nets. Following a
protocol developed during the 2016 pilot study, seine netting was identified as the most
appropriate, and non-lethal, method for gathering fish population information and data on Loch
Ken.
Three days of seine netting were undertaken at Mains of Duchrae (in the vicinity of GR:270470
568770) which was identified as the most suitable seine netting location on Loch Ken, after
consideration of various parameters such as site access, water depth and substrate type.
When netted, captured fish were processed on site and then returned to the water alive. A
record of site conditions (weather, wind direction, water depth, water temperature and grid
reference from the mid-point of net landing) were noted and fish caught were processed for
species mix, length and weight before their return to the loch. A representative sample of
each species was also sampled for scales. Data was collected from 248 coarse fish during
the three netting events.
2.5
Angling matches
In the pilot and this study, angling matches were identified as having the potential to provide
an important source of coarse fish and fishery data due to the quantity of fish being landed
and held during a single match. To understand the potential of utilising angling matches for
collecting fisheries data, the match organisers from NGAA and DAC were approached to
consider GFT involvement during a match and discuss potential match dates.
Both organisers were supportive of GFT involvement and three dates were agreed which met
the study requirements to access larger matches (including the Easter Festival) so as to gain
access to a larger fish sample. These dates were Saturday 3rd December 2016, Friday 31st
March 2017 and Friday 14th April 2017.
6
Two GFT staff attended each match from the opening of the competition and were joined by
a further two staff at the competition close to undertake the fish sampling process. A match
protocol was developed and revised following attendance at match 1 (Annex 3) in order to
maximise data collection on fish health (length and weight) and age (scale data).
In total, data was gathered from 2618 coarse fish during the three match days attended.
7
3.
RESULTS
3.1
Public engagement
The first public engagement event was held during the afternoon at CatStrand in New
Galloway. The event was staged as a drop-in event, where members of the public were free
to come and go as they pleased between 12:00 and 17:00. Thirteen people attended the
event including representatives of the main angling interests on the loch – the NGAA and the
DAC, their match organisers, coarse and trout fishing interests, members of the DDSFB and
a member of the Federation of Coarse Anglers Scotland – and residents of New Galloway.
Lengthy discussions took place with those present and both general and specific issues
recorded. Comments raised included shifts in fish species in relation to crayfish presence,
angling match popularity and a need to improve access for bank fishing. All comments were
recorded for consideration within the recommendations section of the report.
Seven people attended the second event, held during the evening at the Ken Bridge Hotel.
Again, this event attracted NGAA members and boat and pike anglers from the loch. Amongst
some lengthy discussions, one individual referenced the control of crayfish being the main
priority of any management plan for the loch. These views were not shared by others present
and in general, across the two events most accepted that crayfish were now an established
and non-removable, if undesirable, part of the lochs ecology and that some fish populations
were benefitting from the food source they provided.
Most attendees at the open events were present as a result of personal invites by email or by
viewing the posters. Only one individual said they attended due to the advert in the Galloway
News.
A final project event was advertised and held on 19th July at the CatStrand in New Galloway
and attended by 22 people where the Steering Group and GFT were able to present draft
findings and recommendations from the report. Attendees included members of all interested
groups present at the earlier open events in November, an established coarse fish biologist
and author and members of the general public.
3.2
Loch Ken angling record
GFT received 68 Loch Ken Angling Records (Annex 1) completed by 46 different anglers (11
anglers being repeat visitors to the loch). Match organisers were quickly identified as being
pivotal to higher return rates of the record and many of the records came via this means (78%
of anglers who participated in the voluntary questionnaire were match attendees). Ticket
outlets produced very few completed angling records during the project. Nine records came
directly to GFT via email. This line of communication proved useful to a few key anglers
engaged in the project from the start.
Completed records were returned during eight of the nine months that the survey was in
operation (October 2016 to June 2017). During the months of October, November, March,
April, May and June – numbers of completed records received was as few as two and at most
nine. December and January provided the best returns of 18 and 15 records – with match
anglers making the greatest contribution during these months. Eleven records did not include
a fishing visit date and so could not be accountable to any month.
The Angling Record surveys responses are summarised below.
8
3.2.1 Angler profiles
Of the Angling Records completed, 43 (63%) of anglers gave an indication of where they were
fishing the loch by circling on the map provided. 39 bankside and four boat locations where a
grid reference could be established from the maps are shown in Annex 5. Anglers covered
an area on the banks along the upper West side of the Loch and down the middle to lower
East side of the loch from Glenlaggan to Crossmichael.
All anglers who completed the survey gave their name. 11 anglers were repeat visitors to the
loch of between one and five times. The age of anglers were; 1 (2%) were <18, 1 (2%) were
18-24, 3 (7%) were 25-34, 5 (11%) were 35-44, 16 (35%) were 45-54, 14 (30%) were 55-64
and 4 (9%) were >65 years old and 4% did not provide an age.
A total of 36 (78%) respondents provided a home address with 33 (71%) providing a telephone
number and 24 (52%) an email address. Where an address was not provided, a general home
location was given with only one angler refusing to provide any such detail. Most anglers (28
(61%)) were found to come from northern or central England, eight (17%) from Dumfries and
Galloway, five (11%) from central Scotland and two (4%) from both Ayrshire and Ireland.
The duration that each angler spent fishing the loch was recorded as: < half a day, half a day
or full day. Of the 68 fishing visits recorded; 46 (68%) of anglers reported they spent the day
fishing, 17 (25%) a half day and only one (1%) for less than a half day on the loch. Four
anglers did not fill in their fishing trip duration.
When asked if anglers had a fishing permit, 37 (54%) anglers said ‘yes’, which, after
accounting for repeat visiting anglers, came to 25 anglers in total from the 46 who completed
a survey. Permit issuers were noted as Glenlaggan Marina (7 permits), Match organisers (27
permits), NGAA tickets (5 permits including one member) and “the gentleman at Shirmers”
(one permit). 17 (25%) anglers said ‘no’ and 14 anglers declined to comment. From the 68
angler surveys completed; 50 anglers fished from the bankside and 12 from boats. Six anglers
did not specify this detail.
Anglers were given a choice of target fish species. All 46 anglers responded to this question
and answers fell into two groups. Of those fishing at matches (36 anglers), 31 anglers targeted
bream, roach, perch and dace, three anglers – bream only and two anglers did not respond.
From the non-match anglers (10 anglers), most targeted larger and predatory fish with five
anglers targeting pike only, two anglers perch only, two anglers pike and perch and the one
angler pike, perch and bream.
From the 68 fishing events detailed, 27 anglers (40%) fished a single rod; 3 (2%) fished two
rods and 7 (10%) fished three rods. The remaining 48% of anglers made no comment on this
section.
Anglers were asked whether they used methods to avoid contact with signal crayfish. A total
of 19 records (representing 13 different anglers) said ‘yes’, and 42 records said ‘no’. Methods
adopted for avoiding signal crayfish included the use of float, trolling or paternoster, floating
maggots, pop-ups, lure fishing and avoiding baits that attract signal crayfish. Seven anglers
left no response in this section.
3.2.2 Biosecurity
Anglers were asked to comment on levels of biosecurity awareness and their use of
biosecurity measures.
9
When asked ‘Do you undertake any biosecurity measures, actions or precautions’ an answer
was provided by 42 respondents; 24 (35%) anglers answered ‘yes’ and 18 (26%) answered
‘no’. A total of 26 (39%) records, did not respond to this question. The 24 positive responses
to this question were provided by 13 (28%) individuals (many of which were repeat visitors).
From these responses angler suggestions of biosecurity measures to be undertaken included
cleaning and checking boats and equipment after usage on the loch and visual checks of
tackle and drying with a dehumidifier. Five anglers left nets to dry in sunlight after use, three
anglers only used their equipment on Loch Ken and one angler applied a ‘check, clean, dry’
policy.
A final question was asked: ‘Would you use disinfection stations if these were available next
to the loch with clear instructions for use?’ 25 (54%) of the 46 anglers responded ‘yes’ and
the remainder left no comment.
3.2.3 Catch returns
From the 68 individual records received, 65 (96%) contained catches. Catches could be
displayed by two means; fish species mix as a total bag weight or as individual fish species
by length and/or weight. Table 1 and Table 2 show the species mix and bag weights or
individual fish length/weight of fish returned per angler event.
Table 1: Details of individual fish species recorded within the Loch Ken Angling Record
Record
No.
1
2
3
4
32
33*
36
44*
Fish
Date
Species
03/11/2016 Pike
Pike
12/11/2016 Pike
Pike
Pike
Pike
22/10/2016 Pike
Bream
Perch
23/10/2016 Pike
Pike
Bream
Roach
17/01/2017 Perch
Dace
Pike
Pike
22/01/2017 Pike
27/01/2017 Pike
Pike
Pike
Pike
Pike
Pike
30/01/2017 Roach
Length
(cm)
Weight
(lb/oz)
4lb
3lb
22.2lb
19.8lb
2lb
2lb
11lb 8oz
<3lb 8oz
2lb 8oz
12lb 8oz
18lb 8oz
<2lb
<4oz
1lb 6oz
4oz
3lb 8oz
6lb 8oz
19lb 08oz
6lb 2oz
4lb 8oz
5lb 8oz
3lb
8lb 2oz
8lb
4oz
32
21
62
76
104
66
59
63
54
70
76
16
10
Comments
Fish captured 2 weeks previously
Lean
Skinny
46
Pike
Pike
Pike
Pike
Pike
20/06/2017 Perch
Perch
Perch
Perch
Perch
Bream
47
21/06/2017 Perch
Perch
Perch
Perch
48
21/05/2017 Perch
Perch
Perch
Perch
Perch
Perch
Perch
49
50
20/05/2017 Perch
Perch
Perch
Perch
Bream
17/05/2017 Pike
61
64
59
59
50
5lb 8oz
5lb 10oz
5lb
4lb 2oz
4lb
2.09
2.04
2.02
5 @ 1lb-1.10
9 @ 4-12oz
5 @ 1.5lb 3.02
2.06
2.02
4 @ 1lb1.12
9 @ 4-12oz
2.12
2.06
2.02
4 @ 1lb 1.12
8 @ 4-12oz
5lb
2 @ 1.5lb
2.08
2.04
4 @ 1.00 1.12
10 @ 4-12oz
2 @ 1lb
2lb
Perch
2.08
Perch
2.02
3 @ 1lb 1.08
10 @ 4 12oz
1.08
11 @ 4oz 12oz
1lb 8oz
1lb 4oz
3lb
2lb
Perch
51
52*
55*
Perch
17/04/2017 Perch
Perch
21/05/2017 Perch
Bream
14/04/2017 Bream
Bream
11
Caught at mouth of River Ken
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
Caught at mouth of River Ken
As above
As above
As above
Caught at mouth of Blackwater of
Dee
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
Caught at North end of loch
As above
As above
As above
As above
Spawned out. Caught just North of
Glenlaggan viaduct.
Spawned out. Caught at north end
of loch.
Most spawned out. Location as
above.
Caught near Glenlaggan viaduct and
north end of loch.
Appeared to be spawn-filled.
Captures in 18-25ft of water at north
end of loch.
57*
58*
59*
60*
61*
62*
63*
66
67
68
14/04/2017 Bream
Roach
Perch
Dace
Pike
14/04/2017 Dace
Perch
Roach
15/04/2017 Bream
Dace
14/04/2017 Roach
Dace
Perch
14/04/2017 Roach
Dace
Perch
Ruffe
40
14/04/2017 Roach
Bream
Perch
Pike
14/04/2017 Perch
Roach
Dace
20
4-8
6
5-8
60
8oz
1-3oz
1oz
1-2oz
3.5lb
2oz
2oz
2-3oz
4-15oz
1oz
5-8oz
2-0oz
10oz
1-4oz
1-4oz
1oz
<1oz
10-30
5
5-15
5-15
5-15
6-15
6-12
5
3
Some rough, ready to spawn.
Small roach
8oz
2 @ 4oz
2-3
2-3
2
2-3oz
2-3oz
2oz
Several jacks also. Females
29/03/2017 Pike
13lb
spawned out.
13/03/2017 Pike
57
6.5lb
Good condition
18/03/2017 Pike
88
14lb
Heavily gravid
Pike
60
6.5lb
Skinny
Pike
55
5lb
Scarred (half tail)
Pike
48
5lb
Record No.- underlined represent match data.
Record No.* - data can also be found as total bag weight within Table 2
Table 2: Details of total bag weight by fish species mix recorded within the Loch Ken
Angling Record
Record
No.
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date
03/12/2016
03/12/2016
03/12/2016
03/12/2016
03/12/2016
04/12/2016
Species Mix or Match tally
2 Bream, 10 Ruffe, (2 SC˜)
3 Bream, 1 Roach, (3 SC˜)
10 Bream, 1 Ruffe, (6 SC˜)
Bream, Dace, Perch, Ruffe
9 Bream, 2 Roach
4 Bream, (1 SC˜)
12
Bag
weight
(lb/oz)
1lb 15oz
7lb
5lb
5lb 12oz
3lb 10oz
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
03/12/2016
03/12/2016
03/12/2016
03/12/2016
03/12/2016
03/12/2016
03/12/2016
03/12/2016
04/12/2016
03/12/2016
03/12/2016
03/12/2016
03/12/2016
04/12/2016
04/12/2016
04/12/2016
03/12/2016
08/01/2017
31
33*
15/01/2017 15 Bream, 2 Roach, 1 Perch & Ruffe
22/01/2017 Pike
Perch
22/01/2017 5 Bream, 1 Roach, (8 SC˜)
22/01/2017 11 Bream, Roach, Perch, 9 Dace, (6 SC˜)
27/01/2017 6 Pike
29/01/2017 1 Bream, 11 Roach, 20 Dace, (15 SC˜)
29/01/2017 11 Bream, 1 Roach, (18 SC˜)
29/01/2017 9 Bream, 2 Roach, 1 Perch, (2 SC˜)
29/01/2017 6 Bream, 1 Roach, 1 Perch, (11 SC˜)
29/01/2017 11 Bream,2 Roach, 3 Perch, (2 SC˜)
29/01/2017 5 Bream, 1 Roach, 1 Perch, (27 SC˜)
29/01/2017 1 Bream, (2 SC˜)
30/01/2017 Pike
Pike
Perch
Bream
Roach
Ruffe
21/05/2017 Perch
20/06/2017 Perch
14/04/2017 Bream, roach, perch
15/04/2017 Bream, roach, perch
16/04/2017 Bream, roach, perch
14/04/2017 Bream, roach, perch
15/04/2017 Bream, roach, perch
16/04/2017 Bream, roach, perch
34
35
36*
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44*
45
52*
53
54
55*
2 Bream, 2 Roach, 2 Perch, (5 SC˜)
Bream, (3 SC˜)
5 Bream, 1 Roach, 1 Perch, (14 SC˜)
20 Bream, 1 Perch, (3 SC˜)
6 Bream, 3 Perch, (3 SC˜)
9 Bream, 2 Roach, (6 SC˜)
5 Bream, 2 Roach, 3 Dace, (1 SC˜)
9 Bream, 1 Roach, 1 Perch
1 Bream, 2 Hybrids, (3 SC˜)
12 Bream, (1 SC˜)
2 Bream, 14 Roach, (4 SC˜)
3 Bream, 1 Perch, (3 SC˜)
1 Ruffe
1 Bream, 1 Roach, (6 SC˜)
4 Bream, (1 SC˜)
5 Bream, 1 Roach, (1 SC˜)
30 Roach, 3 Perch
6 Roach, 2 Perch, 16 Dace & Ruffe
13
2lb 8oz
1lb 2oz
2lb 14oz
18lb
15lb 2oz
6lb 4oz
6lb
1lb 2oz
6lb 14
1lb 13oz
1oz
1lb 14oz
2lb 2oz
2lb
2lb
5lb
11lb
10oz
30lb
6lb
4lb 14oz
9lb 2oz
35lb 4oz
3lb 8oz
11lb
6lb 4oz
3lb 8oz
8lb 8oz
3lb 8oz
1lb 4oz
27lb 8oz
26lb 7oz
1lb 4oz
1lb 6oz
1lb
2oz
6lb
10lb
2lb 13oz
0lb 8oz
4lb
4lb 6oz
0lb 4oz
10lb 8oz
56
14/04/2017 Bream, roach, perch
9lb 2oz
57*
14/04/2017 1 Bream, 25 Roach, 1 Perch, 8 Dace
3lb 2oz
58*
14/04/2017 9 Roach, 4 Perch, 1 Dace
1lb 4oz
59*
15/04/2017 12 Bream, 1 Dace
7lb 9oz
60*
14/04/2017 40 Roach, 3 Perch, 20 Dace
8lb 2oz
61*
14/04/2017 60 Roach, 1 Perch, 10 Dace, 1 Ruffe, (4 SC˜)
8lb 4oz
62*
14/04/2017 1 Bream, 40 Roach, 2 Perch, 5 Dace,10 Pike, (20 SC˜)
4lb 10oz
63*
14/04/2017 1 Bream, 20 Roach, 6 Perch, 10 Dace
4lb 6oz
64*
14/04/2017 16 Bream, (50 SC˜)
9lb 6oz
65*
14/04/2017 80 Roach, 10 Perch, 1 Dace
6lb 8oz
Record No.- underlined represent match data. Record No.* - data can also be found as
individual fish species within Table 1
˜signal crayfish recorded for information and as it indicates interaction with angling activities
3.3
Loch Ken creel record
The Loch Ken creel survey (Annex 2) was completed on 110 occasions by 105 different
anglers (two anglers were repeat visitors) across 8.5 weekend days and 9.5 week days
between the months of October 2016 and June 2017. Participation in these surveys by
anglers was not compulsory and respondents were able to decline to provide information to
any section(s) of the survey they did not wish to answer.
Graph 1 gives a breakdown of number of anglers recorded on each visit. At most, 11 anglers
were interviewed in one day (28/10/2016 – a Friday) and at least, zero anglers were
interviewed (08/06/2017 – a Thursday). In general, angler presence and numbers were found
to be similar during week and weekend days (weekends accounted for 47% of survey time
and produced 50 records, whilst week days accounted for 53% of survey time and produced
60 records).
08/06/2017
04/06/2017*
29/05/2017
17/05/2017
13/05/2017*
30/04/2017*
12/04/2017
08/04/2017*
16/03/2017**
03/03/2017
26/02/2017**
10/12/2016*
24/11/2016
03/12/2016*
19/11/2016*
06/11/2016*
02/11/2016
28/10/2016
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
25/10/2016
Number of anglers
Creel Survey: Number of anglers interviewed by
date
Week Day, Weekend* or Half Day**
Graph 1: Number of anglers interviewed using the Creel Survey during the study period
The survey responses are summarised below.
14
3.3.1 Angler profiles
The locations where surveys were conducted are shown in Annex 6. The majority of anglers
were located on the banks along the upper West side of the Loch and down the middle to
lower East side of the loch from Glenlaggan to Crossmichael. Whilst the bankside anglers
could be interviewed throughout the day, boat anglers were much harder to locate and meet.
In total, 98 anglers were interviewed on the bankside and 12 anglers when they returned with
their boat to the bankside.
102 (97%) of 105 anglers interviewed were male whilst three (3%) were female. Each angler
gave an indication of their age. 2 (2%), were <18, nine (9%), were 18-24, 22 (21%), were 2534, 19 (18%), were 35-44, 21 (20%), were 45-54, 18 (17%), were 55-64 and 14 (13%), were
>65 years old.
A small number of anglers 5 (<5%) were prepared to provide a home address.
Due to the high proportion of non-paying, and potentially non-permitted, anglers involved in
the interview, it is possible that anglers did not want to be contacted or identified beyond the
interview process and were happier to share a council area or city in which they resided rather
than a home address. As a result, most anglers (61 (58%)) were found to come from England,
14 (13%) from Dumfries and Galloway, 12 (11%) from the Central Belt of Scotland, 10 (10%)
from Ayrshire, two (2%) from North Scotland, two (2%) from the Borders and one (1%) from
Wales. Three anglers (3%) would not provide their residency.
This corresponded to a distance travelled to reach Loch Ken with 4 (4%) anglers travelling 010 miles, 8 (8%) anglers travelling 10-30 miles, 6 (6%) of 105 anglers travelling 30-50 miles
and 87 (83%) anglers making a journey of >50 miles to reach the loch.
32 (30%) anglers visited the loch on a day trip basis with 76 (70%) anglers staying overnight.
Of the anglers making an overnight stay that responded when questioned about the length of
their stay (out of 73 responses); 53 (73%) stayed for more than two nights, 12 (16%) stayed
for two nights and 8 (11%) stayed for one night. 76 anglers gave a response to where they
were staying; 28 (37%) anglers stayed in a campsite, 24 (32%) wild camped by the loch side,
12 (16%) stayed in self-catering accommodation, 6 (8%) stayed in a hotel, 4 (5%) of in B&B
accommodation, 1 (1%) on their boat and 1 (1%) with friends. When asked if anglers would
be happy leaving a contact detail; 12 out of 105 anglers (11%) obliged with a telephone
number and 17 out of 105 anglers (16%) gave an email address.
Anglers were able to confirm their target fish species. A total of 102 (97%) of 105 anglers
responded and answers ranged from a single fish species to five.
58 (57%) of respondents confirmed a single species target with pike (55 anglers (95%), trout
(two anglers (3%) and bream (one angler, <2%) the target species.
18 (17%) of respondents confirmed two target species with perch most commonly targeted
alongside pike (8 (8%) anglers), bream (1 (1%) angler) and roach (3 (3%) anglers). Bream
and roach were targeted by 5 anglers and perch and trout by a single angler (1%).
12 (12%) of respondents confirmed three target species with; bream, roach and perch the
most common combination (9 (9%) anglers).
10 (10%) of respondents confirmed four target species; perch, roach, bream and pike were
the most frequently selected fish species.
15
And finally, 4 (4%) of respondents confirmed 5 target species; pike, bream, roach and perch
were selected in equal measure ahead of trout and dace.
Of the 105 anglers, 86 (82%) had visited Loch Ken previously and 19 (18%) reported this as
their first visit to the fishery. Of those 86 anglers that were repeat visitors, when asked to
estimate the number of annual visits each had made to Loch Ken, 78 anglers responded and
over half (42 (54%)) would make 1-5 visits annually, 14 (18%) anglers would make 5-10 visits
annually, 6 (8%) anglers would make 10-15 visits annually, 3 (4%) would make 15-20 visits
annually and 13 (17%) would make upwards of 20 visits including three anglers that estimated
visiting Loch Ken 50-100 times annually.
Considering specifically their fishing trips to Loch Ken, anglers were asked to rate their fishing
experience on a scale of 1-5 (1 being least satisfied and 5 being most satisfied). The large
majority of anglers were either very satisfied (56 (56%) of 101 anglers), or satisfied (35 (35%)
of 101 anglers). Seven (7%) anglers remained neutral in their evaluation of their fishing
experience and three (3%) bordered into un-satisfied. Four (4%) anglers did not comment.
Anglers were asked to provide positive and negative feedback to support their angling
satisfaction score. Almost all (104 (99%) of 105) anglers answered this question.
Positive feedback was received from 93 (89%) anglers and included comments on the wildlife,
nice scenery, peacefulness, good campsites and good fishing opportunities for big fish. Other
comments included the clean and tidy location, friendliness of locals and good opportunity for
a variety of fishing methods and mixed species catch.
Negative feedback was received from 33 (31%) anglers and included comments on signal
crayfish by 15 (14%) of all respondents whilst other issues raised included concerns on the
need for overall water management needing reviewed, access being difficult especially for the
elderly, poor fishing, some angling groups killing too many fish and litter. A single angler
referenced poor toilet facilities, hotels and too many children as negatively impacting on their
experience of the loch.
A record of the date and time that each angler was interviewed was made, with duration of the
fishing trip being recorded as < half a day, half a day or full day. Of the 107 anglers who
provided an answer; 72 (67%) anglers spent the day fishing, 30 (28%) - a half day and 5 (5%),
less than a half day fishing upon the loch.
When asked if anglers had a fishing permit, 54 (50%) of 107 anglers said ‘yes’, including two
anglers from NGAA, six anglers with boat licences, four with Loch Ken Holiday Park permits
and two who had paid a farmer (though one gave no tickets). 53 (50%) anglers said ‘no’ and
three (3%) anglers declined to comment. From the 110 angler surveys completed; 99 (90%)
anglers fished from the bankside and 11 (10%) from boats – two (2%) of which had no fishing
permit.
3.3.2 Creel specific returns
From the 110 interviews completed, fish were only available to process on the bankside from
two anglers, as a consequence of anglers immediately returning most fish as soon as they
had been unhooked. However, many more anglers were able to provide an estimation of the
number of fish species caught and their weights. Table 3 shows the species and weights of
fish returned per angler event.
16
Table 3: Details of fish species recorded during Loch Ken creel survey
Date
Location
25/10/2016 Bankside
28/10/2016 Bankside
28/10/2016 Bankside
28/10/2016 Bankside
25/10/2016 Bankside
26/10/2016 Bankside
25/10/2016 Boat
25/10/2016 Boat
25/10/2016 Boat
25/10/2016 Boat
25/10/2016 Bankside
25/10/2016 Bankside
25/10/2016 Bankside
28/10/2016 Bankside
02/11/2016 Boat
02/11/2016 Boat
02/11/2016 Bankside
06/11/2016 Bankside
06/11/2016 Bankside
06/11/2016 Bankside
06/11/2016 Bankside
19/11/2016 Bankside
10/12/2016 Boat
10/12/2016 Bankside
24/11/2016 Bankside
Grid
reference
270812
569229
270812
569229
270812
569229
270812
569229
268761
570054
270812
569229
265768
573458
265768
573458
265768
573458
265768
573458
268761
570054
268761
570054
268761
570054
263898
575039
265284
572853
283284
572858
272641
566261
271092
569085
264249
574560
264249
574560
264249
574560
263897
575034
271428
568214
268052
571270
264717
574008
Fish
caught
17
Weight(lb/oz) Processed
and/or length
by GFT
(cm)
(Y/N)
Dace
4oz/20 cm
Y
Roach
39g/14cm
Y
Roach
51g/15cm
Y
Perch
34g/13.5cm
Y
Dace
<1oz/8cm
Y
Pike
3-4lb
N
Pike
6-7lb
N
Pike
6-7lb
N
Pike
5-6lb
N
Pike
5-6lb
N
Dace
1oz
N
Dace
1oz
N
Dace
1oz
N
Pike
3lb
N
Perch
2lb
N
Pike
6lb
N
Pike
10lb
N
Pike
5-6lb
N
Pike
8lb
N
Pike
7lb
N
Pike
4lb
N
Pike
3.5lb
N
Pike
3lb
N
2 roach
2oz
N
Pike
8-10lb
N
263875
16/03/2017 Bankside 574999
263883
08/04/2017 Bankside 575056
268731
08/04/2017 Bankside 570156
268731
Bankside 570156
264947
08/04/2017 Bankside 573577
264947
Bankside 573577
264947
Bankside 573577
264947
Bankside 573577
264947
Bankside 573577
264947
12/04/2017 Bankside 573577
264947
Bankside 573577
264947
Bankside 573577
263883
12/04/2017 Bankside 575056
268194
30/04/2017 Bankside 570942
268194
Bankside 570942
268600
30/04/2017 Bankside 570253
268194
30/04/2017 Bankside 570942
268194
Bankside 570942
268145
30/04/2017 Bankside 570986
268145
Bankside 570986
268634
17/05/2017 Bankside 570148
268581
17/05/2017 Bankside 570280
268680
17/05/2017 Bankside 570197
268035
17/05/2017 Bankside 571274
268573
17/05/2017 Bankside 570277
268010
17/05/2017 Bankside 571310
268010
Bankside 571310
18
Pike
14lb
N
Pike
4lb
N
Pike
3.5lb
N
Pike
7lb
N
Bream
2.5lb
N
Roach
n/a
N
Perch
n/a
N
Dace
n/a
N
Ruffe
n/a
N
Bream
Around 5lb
N
Roach
n/a
N
Perch
n/a
N
Pike
7lb 2oz
N
Roach
1.5lb
N
Ruffe
n/a
N
Pike
n/a
N
Dace
8-10lb
N
Roach
8-10lb
N
Roach
6oz
N
Skinner
n/a
N
Roach
n/a
N
Roach
n/a
N
Pike
16lb
N
Perch
n/a
N
Perch
3/4lb
N
Perch
2-3lb
N
Roach
2-3lb
N
264944
17/05/2017 Bankside 573602
264944
Bankside 573602
268212
04/06/2017 Bankside 570915
268212
Bankside 570915
268070
04/06/2017 Bankside 571144
268070
Bankside 571144
268094
04/06/2017 Bankside 571112
268094
Bankside 571112
Bankside 268610
28/10/2016 and Boat 570237
268761
25/10/2016 Bankside 570054
268761
25/10/2016 Bankside 570054
Pike
10lb
N
Pike
14lb
N
Roach
n/a
N
Bream
n/a
N
Roach
2oz
N
Perch
4oz
N
Roach
4oz
N
Perch
4oz
N
Pike
8lb
N
Roach
2oz/12.5cm
N
Dace
1.5oz/12cm
N
3.3.3 Biosecurity
As part of the creel survey, anglers were asked to comment on biosecurity and their use of
biosecurity measures. This was felt to be an important feature of angler behaviour given the
heightened protocols that should be adopted due to the presence of signal crayfish within the
loch and the impact signal crayfish is reported to have had on angler success and perception
of Loch Ken.
Of the 105 anglers surveyed, 93 (89%) were aware of invasive non-native species (INNS),
with 92 (88%) anglers referring to signal crayfish presence in Loch Ken. In addition to crayfish,
one angler noted dace, bream and Japanese knotweed as INNS and the final angler singled
out fish ‘hybrids’ as notable INNS within the loch. When asked if anglers had come across
any evidence of INNS during their current fishing trip, 25 said they had – all of which related
to signal crayfish. When asked if signal crayfish had affected their current fishing experience;
64 (58%) of 110 anglers said ‘no’ and 38 (34%) of 110 anglers said ‘yes’. Eight anglers did
not comment. When asked if anglers were using a particular fishing method to avoid crayfish;
68 (64%) of 105 said ‘yes’ and 33 (31%) of 105 said ‘no’. Of those that said ‘yes’, 61 anglers
provided a range of techniques including the use of pop-up dead baits (technique used by
>63% of respondents), float fishing (used by 18% of respondents), lure fishing (used by 8% of
respondents). A few anglers also used trolling, spinning, fly fishing, rapid fishing as techniques
to evade crayfish. One angler described feeding signal crayfish and then fishing outside the
feeding area.
Questions were also set in the creel survey in relation to the application and awareness of
biosecurity measures and issues. 68 (65%) of 105 anglers said they did perform some sort of
biosecurity checks on their fishing tackle and equipment whilst 33 (31%) recorded that they
did not. Four (6%) anglers refused to comment. For anglers that did carry out biosecurity
checks, they were asked ‘how often’. 62 (91% of those practicing biosecurity measures)
anglers responded with ‘always’, four (6%) anglers undertook measures ‘sometimes’ and one
angler (1%) answered ‘only if moving between waterbodies/catchments’.
19
For anglers who did not carry out biosecurity measures, they were given a series of options
as to why they did not. From the prescribed answers, only 7 (19%) of 37 anglers chose to
select an option whilst 9 anglers gave an alternative answer. From the prescribed answers,
three anglers noted a lack of disinfecting facilities, two stated they did not know what to do,
one stated they did not visit waters with INNS species and one reporting that undertaking
biosecurity was inconvenient and they did not have time. From the nine alternative answers;
six anglers noted that their equipment was only used on Loch Ken. ‘Equipment is always
clean’, ‘only if they see crayfish’ and ‘I was not aware of biosecurity issues’ were the other
answers provided.
Concerning
the
‘Check,
Clean,
Dry’
(CCD)
campaign http://nonnativespecies.org/checkcleandry/, 78 of 105 anglers had not heard of the
campaign and four anglers refused to comment (together 78% of those surveyed). Using four
prescribed answers, anglers were asked which means should be adopted to raise awareness
of biosecurity on Loch Ken. 94 (90%) anglers responded and selected between one and four
of the options offered. ‘Erect information panels’ was selected by 84 (>89%) anglers, ‘provide
basic information on permits’ was selected by 58 (>61%) anglers, ‘distribute leaflets’ by 14
(14%) anglers and ‘run events for loch users to provide information’ by four (4%) anglers.
Two anglers provided their own ideas which were to inform loch users via angling forums.
Similarly, in addition to the prescribed answers, five anglers suggested using social media
(Facebook), radio stations, Trout and Salmon magazine and tackle shops to disseminate
information. Two anglers suggested including information in the Loch Ken Holiday Park
information packs.
When asked if anglers would use disinfecting stations at Loch Ken if they were made available;
94 (89%) anglers responded positively and 7 (6%) responded negatively. Four anglers gave
no response. When asked ‘where would you suggest disinfectant stations be positioned to
encourage usage’, 98 (93%) of anglers responded by providing at least one of the three
prescribed answers. 92 (93%) anglers favoured the positioning of disinfectant stations ‘on
banksides, within 100 m of popular fishing locations, 10 (10%) anglers selected ‘in villages,
e.g. New Galloway or at entry points to the loch e.g. marina’ and only four (4%) anglers
selected ‘at ticket outlets’.
Finally, the 105 anglers were asked to answer the question ‘Are there any ways Loch Ken
fishery and fishing experience could be improved’ using a series of prescribed answers which
they could also provide comments on. 90 (85%) anglers selected between one and four of
the prescribed answers. For those anglers who provided only a single response: 30 (55%)
stated ‘No, leave water/fishery as it is’, 14 (25%) with ‘Yes – make a crayfish control plan’, 8
(15%) with ‘Yes – undertake bankside management’ and 3 (5%) with ‘Yes, construct a fishery
management plan’. 10% of anglers responded with the option of ‘Yes – all of the above
suggestions’.
Of those that responded with multiple answers, collectively ‘No – leave the fishery as it is’ was
selected by 35%, ‘Yes – make a crayfish plan’ by 35%, ‘Yes – undertake bankside
management’ by 27%, ‘Yes – construct a fishery management plan’ by 20%, ‘Yes – run a
hatchery programme’ by 13% and ‘Yes – carry out predator control’ by 4%.
In addition, 54 (>51%) of the 105 anglers wished to comment further and provide additional
management suggestions.
Suggestions made were: 13 anglers (24% of respondents) who considered signal crayfish
control/eradication as being important for improving fish numbers in the loch (one angler went
as far as suggesting the introduction of an invasive species like Wels catfish could help control
the crayfish population); 10 (19%) anglers wanted to see better access which related to
20
improving parking facilities, more swims and launch areas for boats and increasing boat hire;
nine (17%) anglers considered improving bin facilities a priority and tackling litter created by
wild campers. Managing poaching was seen by six anglers (11%) as a problem, particularly
concerning the killing of coarse fish by anglers originally from outside the UK. General policing
of the loch was raised by some anglers who felt there was a need for better information on
permits and signage surrounding the loch. Concerning predatory species, two anglers (4%)
felt there was a need to prohibit the killing of pike. Better flow management was mentioned
by three (6%) anglers; increasing awareness of other loch users, by two anglers (including the
introduction of speed restrictions for boat users near Loch Ken Holiday Park), more camping
spaces by three anglers, better toilet facilities by one angler and a request for less
competitions on the loch by another. Three anglers (6%) said to leave the loch as natural as
possible, with one (2%) reasoning that managing banksides only increased littering.
3.4
Seine netting
3.4.1 Netting undertaken
Three days of netting were undertaken, each within the bay near Mains of Duchrae on the
West side of the loch. On each occasion, fish caught were processed for length and weight
and a scale sample was taken where possible. As a measure of fish health; the condition
factor (K) was calculated for all fish captured during each netting event.
3.4.1.1 Netting on 29 September 2016
On the 29 September 2016, netting was undertaken six times in the vicinity of Mains of
Duchrae (Table 4).
Table 4: Details of the netting undertaken near Mains of Duchrae on 29 September 2016
Location
Grid Ref
Netting
attempt
Successful
Successful
Successful
Successful
Water
depth
(m)
0.9
1.2
0.9
0.9
Water
temperature
(oC)
14.0
14.0
13.9
13.9
Inner Bay
Inner Bay
Inner Bay
Side Bay
270437 568776
270470 568776
270491 568778
270541 568758
Side Bay
270584 568778
Inner Bay
270419 568771
Total netted fish
Successful
Successful
1.2
0.8
14.5
14.4
Fish caught
4 Roach, 3 Perch
5 Roach, 2 Perch
2 Dace
2 Dace, 1 Roach, 1
Perch
3 Dace, 1 Roach
10 Roach, 1 Pike
35 (1 Pike, 6
Perch, 7 Dace, 21
Roach)
Weather conditions on the day of netting were mostly cloudy with a south westerly wind. The
inner bay was netted four times and the net was successfully set and landed each time. Water
depths, slope of the bed and substrate type (largely silt) were all suitable and no obstructions
caused any problems. A total of 27 fish were caught (19 roach (Rutilus rutilus), five perch
(Perca fluviatilis), two dace (Leuciscus leuciscus) and a pike (Esox lucius)).
The edge of the bay was netted twice. Rain fell during the netting of site 5 within this side of
the bay. Some snagging experienced during the landing of the net on this side of the bay,
may have led to the escapement of some fish. A total of eight fish were caught (five dace, two
roach and a perch).
Three signal crayfish were also captured.
21
Figure 1: A roach being weighed during netting on 29/09/16
3.4.1.2 Netting on 4 October 2016
On the 4 October 2016, netting was undertaken seven times in the vicinity of Mains of Duchrae
(Table 5).
Table 5: Details of the netting undertaken near Mains of Duchrae on 4 October 2016
Location
Inner Bay
Grid Ref
270473
568760
Inner Bay
270482
568775
Inner Bay
270444
568779
Side Bay
270594
568787
Side Bay
270610
568796
Inner Bay
270422
568771
Inner Bay
270446
568778
Total netted fish
Netting
attempt
Successful
Water
depth
(m)
1.1
Water
temperature
(oC)
13.1
Fish caught
Successful
1.2
13.1
4 Dace, 2 Perch, 2
Pike
None
Successful
0.8
13.9
1 Perch
Successful
1.4
13.2
1 Roach, 1 Pike
Successful
1.5
13.0
1 Dace
Successful
0.5
14.6
Successful
0.5
13.3
11 Roach, 1 Perch,
1 Pike
9 Roach, 4 Perch,
1 Dace
39 (4 Pike, 8
Perch, 6 Dace, 21
Roach)
Weather conditions on the day of netting were dry, overcast with a north-east wind. The inner
bay was netted five times and the net was successfully set and landed each time. Water
depths, slope of the bed and substrate type were all suitable and no obstructions caused any
problems. A total of 36 fish were caught (20 roach (Rutilus rutilus), eight perch (Perca
fluviatilis), five dace (Leuciscus leuciscus) and three pike (Esox lucius)).
22
The edge of the bay was netted twice. Some difficulties with dragging in the net (created by
a silt shelf and some rocks) meant that the net had to be lifted and this is the likely reason that
only three fish were caught (one roach, one pike and a dace).
Ten signal crayfish were also captured, all but one of which were captured during the two
nettings on the side bay.
Figure 2: A perch caught during the netting on 04/10/16
3.4.1.3 Netting on 20 June 2017
On the 20 June 2017, netting was undertaken six times in the vicinity of Mains of Duchrae
(Table 6).
Table 6: Details of the netting undertaken near Mains of Duchrae on 20 June 2017
Location
Grid Ref
Inner Bay
Netting
attempt
270465 568778
Water
depth
(m)
Successful 1.1
Water
temperature
(oC)
20.7
Inner Bay
270438 568780
Successful 0.8
21.3
Inner Bay
Inner Bay
Side Bay
270418 568772
270487 568776
270605 568798
Successful 0.8
Successful 1.2
Successful 1.6
23.4
24.2
20.5
Side Bay
270544 568760
Successful 1.3
23.4
Total netted fish
Fish caught
30 Dace, 2 Roach, 1
Ruffe, 1 Perch
8 Dace, 5 Roach, 2
Ruffe, 1 Bream
9 Dace
2 Roach, 3 Ruffe
52 Roach, 1 Pike, 1
Bream, 1 Ruffe
46 Roach, 4 Ruffe, 2
Perch, 2 Dace, 1 Pike
174 (107 Roach, 49
Dace, 11 Ruffe, 3
Perch, 2 Pike, 2
Bream)
Weather conditions on the day of netting were hot with bright sunshine, clear skies and a slight
East/North-East breeze. The inner bay was netted four times and the net was successfully
set and landed each time. Water depths, slope of the bed and substrate type were all suitable
and no obstructions caused any problems. Landing the net within site 3 which was positioned
23
most westerly in the bay, produced most silt. A total of 64 fish were caught (nine roach (Rutilus
rutilus), one perch (Perca fluviatilis), 47 dace (Leuciscus leuciscus), six ruffe (Gymnocephalus
cernua) and one bream (Abramis brama)).
Figure 3: Landing the net within the inner bay on 20/06/17
The edge of the bay was netted twice. Some difficulties with snagging (created by a silt shelf
and some rocks) meant that the net had to be lifted to release drag (Figure 4). Despite the
potential loss of fish on this occasion, 110 fish were caught between the two nettings (98
roach, five ruffe, two perch, two dace and one pike).
22 signal crayfish were also captured distributed equally between the two bays netted.
Figure 4: Landing the net within the side bay on 20/06/17
24
Figure 5: A pike caught during the netting on 20/06/17
3.4.2 Fish species sampled
In total, 248 fish were sampled during the three seine netting activities and six coarse fish
species were identified. Graph 2 shows species composition across the three nettings.
160
140
Number of fish
120
100
Netting 3
80
Netting 2
60
Netting 1
40
20
0
Roach
Dace
Perch
Pike
Bream
Ruffe
Graph 2: Numbers of fish caught by species mix and netting event
Of the 248 fish netted; 35 fish (14%) were captured during Netting 1 on 29/09/16, 39 fish (16%)
were captured during the second netting on 04/10/16 and 174 (70%) were captured in the final
netting on 20/06/17. Regarding species mix; roach accounted for 60% of the total catch
recorded across the three nettings, dace – 25%, perch – 7%, ruffe – 4%, pike – 3% and bream
– 1%.
3.4.3 Condition factor
All fish captured during each seine netting event were sampled for length and weight. These
measurements were used to calculate the condition factor or health of each individual fish as
a basis for comparison between species and within species netted at different times of year.
25
Generally, fish that are heavier than the standard weight for their length are considered
healthier, having more energy reserves for normal activities, growth and reproduction. Whilst
this is a useful metric and indicator if fish health it should be noted that it can be highly variable
for example across seasons and dependent on feeding habits of the species being assessed.
The standard Fulton Condition Factor formula was used on this occasion. This formula
assumes that the standard weight of a fish is proportional to the cube of its length:
K = 100(Weight/Length)3
where weight is the whole body weight of the fish in grams and length is the fork length of the
fish in centimetres. The factor 100 is used to bring K close to a value of one. Fish with a
condition factor of greater than one are considered to be in better condition than those fish
with condition factors less than one.
Condition factors for individual fish species were calculated and are shown in the graphs
below, with separate graphs representing each fish species sampled per netting event.
3.4.3.1 Condition factor: Roach
In total, 149 roach were sampled during the three seine netting events, (21 during nettings 1
and 2 and 107 during netting 3). The condition factor of each individual fish was calculated
and can be seen plotted in Graphs 3, 4 and 5 below.
Seine Netting 1 - Roach: Condition factor (K) -vLength
Condition factor (K)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 3: Condition factor of roach captured during seine netting on 29/09/2016
From the 21 roach sampled during the seine netting at the end of September 2016; only one
(amongst the very smallest roach sampled) produced a condition factor of <1.
26
Condition factor (K)
Seine Netting 2 - Roach: Condition factor (K) -vLength
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 4: Condition factor of roach captured during seine netting on 04/10/2016
From the 21 roach sampled during the seine netting at the beginning of October 2016; all were
found to display condition factors greater than K=1.2.
Condition factor (K)
Seine Netting 3 - Roach: Condition factor -v- Length
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 5: Condition factor of roach captured during seine netting on 20/06/2017
From the 107 roach sampled during the seine netting on 20 June 2017; all were found to
display condition factors greater than K=1.2.
3.4.3.2 Condition factor: Dace
In total, 62 dace were sampled during the three seine netting events, (seven during netting 1,
six in netting 2 and 49 in netting 3). The condition factor of each individual fish was calculated
and can be seen plotted in Graphs 6, 7 and 8 below.
27
Seine Netting 1 - Dace: Condition factor (K) -vLength
Condition factor (K)
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 6: Condition factor of dace captured during seine netting on 29/09/2016
From the seven dace sampled during seine netting on 29/09/16, none displayed a condition
factor of <1.
Seine Netting 2 - Dace: Condition factor -v- Length
1.4
Condition factor (K)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 7: Condition factor of dace captured during seine netting on 04/10/2016
From the six dace sampled during seine netting on 04/10/16, one was measured as having a
condition factor <1 and 5 fish had a condition factor >1 (maximum k=1.25). Two recorded K
less than 1.2 and the further three fish produced a condition factor close to 1.2.
28
Seine Netting 3 - Dace: Condition factor (K) -vLength
Condition factor (K)
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 8: Condition factor of dace captured during seine netting on 20/06/2017
From the 49 dace sampled during seine netting on 20/06/2017, none were recorded as having
a condition factor <1.
3.4.3.3 Condition factor: Perch
In total, 17 perch were sampled during the three seine netting events, (six during netting 1,
eight in netting 2 and three in netting 3). The condition factor of each fish was calculated and
can be seen plotted in Graphs 9, 10 and 11 below.
Seine Netting 1 - Perch: Condition factor (K) -vLength
Condition factor (K)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
4.6
5.8
6.1
6.4
9.8
11.4
Fork length (cm)
Graph 9: Condition factor of perch captured during seine netting on 29/09/2016
From the six perch sampled during seine netting on 29/06/2016, only one was recorded as
having a condition factor below 1. Within this small sample, the highest condition factor was
K=1.27.
29
Seine Netting 2 - Perch: Condition factor (K) -vLength
Condition factor (K)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 10: Condition factor of perch captured during seine netting on 04/10/2016
From the eight perch sampled during seine netting on 04/10/2016, one was recorded as
having a condition factor below 1. Within this small sample, condition factor peaked at K=1.27.
Seine Netting 3 - Perch: Condition factor (K) -vLength
Condition factor (K)
1.5
1.45
1.4
1.35
1.3
1.25
Fork length (cm)
Graph 11: Condition factor of perch captured during seine netting on 20/06/2017
From the three perch sampled during seine netting on 20/06/2017, each was calculated as
having a condition factor >1, with the highest at 1.46.
3.4.3.4 Condition factor: Ruffe
In total, 11 ruffe were sampled during the three seine netting events – all during the final netting
on 20/06/2017. The condition factor of each individual fish was calculated and can be seen
plotted in Graph 12 below.
30
Condition factor (K)
Seine Netting 3 - Ruffe: Condition factor (K) -vLength
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
8
8.2
8.4
8.4
8.5
8.7
8.7
8.9
9
9
9.7
Fork length (cm)
Graph 12: Condition factor of ruffe captured during seine netting on 20/06/2017
From the 11 ruffe sampled during seine netting on 20/06/2017, all were calculated as having
a condition factor >1, with the highest at K=1.82.
3.4.3.5 Condition factor: Pike
In total, six pike were sampled during the three seine netting events. The condition factor of
each individual fish was calculated and can be seen plotted in Graph 13 below.
Condition factor (K)
Seine Netting 1,2 & 3 - Pike: Condition factor (K)
-v- Length
0.74
0.72
0.7
0.68
0.66
0.64
0.62
0.6
0.58
0.56
17.5
17.7
17.8
21.3
21.4
34
Fork length (cm)
Graph 13: Condition factor of pike captured during seine netting on 29/09/2016 (yellow
marker), 04/10/2016 (blue markers) and 20/06/2017 (red marker)
From the six pike sampled, all were found to have condition factors below 1 with the healthiest
individual (and largest individual – measuring 34 cm) recording the best condition of K=0.72.
This fish was the only pike sampled for length and weight during the third netting event on
20/06/2017.
31
3.4.3.6 Condition factor: Bream
In total, two bream were sampled during the three seine netting events – both during the final
netting on 20/06/2017. The condition factor of each individual fish was calculated and can be
seen plotted in Graph 14 below.
Seine Netting 3 - Bream: Condition factor (K) -vLength
Condition factor (K)
1.72
1.715
1.71
1.705
1.7
1.695
1.69
1.685
1.68
Fork length (cm)
Graph 14: Condition factor of bream captured during seine netting on 20/06/2017
From the two bream sampled during seine netting on the 20/06/2017, both fish displayed K
>1 with the juvenile fish peaking at K=1.71.
3.5
Angling matches
3.5.1 Angling matches attended
After discussion with coarse angling match organisers from NGAA, DAC and through the
Facebook Loch Ken Match Banter page; GFT attended a series of matches in order to gather
detailed coarse fish data. Of the matches available, two or three day matches, likely to be
attended by the greatest number of anglers, were chosen in preference to smaller one day
matches in order to maximise the number of fish caught and available for sampling in each
match day.
There are two main areas on Loch Ken where matches are held; on the upper West Bank
NGAA water and on the East Bank at Glenlaggan. These locations and the given section
names can be seen in Map 2 below.
32
Map 2: Location map of sections fished during Loch Ken matches
3.5.1.1 Match attended on 3 December 2016
Beginning at 08:00, two GFT staff attended this match, meeting anglers at the Lochinvar Hotel
in Dalry where they introduced themselves and the project to match officials and competitors,
and discussed what fish data they hoped to attain at the close of the match. Once entry was
complete and peg numbers drawn, anglers took up their fishing stations on the East
(Glenlaggan) and West (NGAA bank) side of the loch. Beginning on the West side of the loch,
GFT walked each of the match sections, to familiarise themselves with the match layout and
record section names and grid references at peg numbers at each section extent (see Annex
4). 36 anglers fished the competition between 10:30 and 15:30 (see Figure 6 showing angler
ready to start match).
33
Figure 6: A match angler positioned at their peg
Beginning at 14:00, working in pairs along the East and West bank; four GFT staff distributed
keep nets at each of section fished in the competition, without disturbing the anglers as they
fished. At 15:30, at the match closed and in place to begin weigh-in; GFT shadowed the
anglers as they transferred their day’s catch from a keep net into a weigh bag hooked onto a
tripod with scales (Figure 7). Once the total bag weight had been recorded for each angler,
GFT transferred all fish within the weigh bag into their own keep nets and secured these at
each match section.
Figure 7: Competition anglers transferring their day’s catch into the weigh bag
Having completed the weigh-in in each section GFT were able to process and sample the
catch. On this occasion, limited by light availability and having limited knowledge on how the
fish would respond to handling, it was decided that fish would be sampled for species and
34
length to limit handling time and stress on the fish. Sampling and processing was completed
within two hours of commencement.
In total, 302 coarse fish were processed for length: 172 bream, 55 roach, 15 perch, 15 dace
and 45 ruffe.
Bream lengths, which made up the majority of fish captured during match 1 (57% of total),
were plotted on a histogram (Graph 15) to both help identify bream age structure within Loch
Ken and to direct sampling for weight and scales at future matches (see Annex 3 – Match
Sampling Strategy).
The same was done for roach, perch, dace and ruffe (Graph 16).
Length samples ranged by species as follows - bream 17-40 cm; roach 9-20 cm; perch 9 -16
cm; dace 11-21 cm and ruffe 6-11 cm.
Following match 1 a sampling strategy for future matches was developed to maximise the data
collected but recognising the resource and time constraints of sampling at each match (see
Annex 3).
Number of fish
Match 1: Number of Bream -v- Length of Bream
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Fork length (mm)
Bream
Graph 15: Length histogram of bream sampled during match 1
35
16
Number of fish
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Fork length (mm)
Roach
Perch
Dace
Ruffe
Graph 16: Length histogram of roach, perch, dace and ruffe during match 1
3.5.1.2 Match attended on 31 March 2017
On the 31st March, GFT attended their second match on Loch Ken when 28 anglers competed.
Details of sections fished and corresponding peg grid references can be found in Annex 4.
Despite having fewer angler entries than match 1, a total of 827 fish were available for
sampling from 18:30. GFT completed processing this sample by 21:00.
In total, 604 length measurements were taken from 224 bream, 187 roach, 38 perch, 105 dace
and 50 ruffe. In addition, weights were obtained from 150 of these fish (55 bream, 35 roach,
26 dace, 17 perch and 17 ruffe) to help compile weight to length conversion charts.
To begin understanding age structure of coarse fish in Loch Ken, scale samples were taken
from 64 fish (31 bream, 14 roach, 10 dace and 9 perch). Scale samples were not taken from
ruffe (see Annex 4).
A further 223 fish had species recorded bringing the total number of fish handled during match
2 to 827.
Graph 17 shows the distribution of fish available for processing from match 2, with those
shown in blue all fish where species length and a proportion of weight was recorded and scale
samples taken. The proportion of the sample where a species count only was made is shown
in orange.
Length samples ranged by species as follows - bream 11-44 cm (Graph 18); roach 8-20 cm
(Graph 19); perch 9 -33 cm; dace 10-21 cm and ruffe 7-11 cm (Graph 20).
36
Match 2: Total catch
350
Number of fish
300
250
200
Count taken
150
Length taken
100
50
0
Bream
Roach
Perch
Dace
Ruffe
Fish species
Graph 17: Total fish captured in match 2 shown as number of fish where length (and a
proportion of weight and scale) sampling was completed and numbers of fish where only a
count of individuals was taken
Match 2: Number of bream -v- Length of bream
Number of fish
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fork length (mm)
Bream
Graph 18: Length histogram of bream sampled during match 2
37
Match 2: Number of roach -v- length of roach
Number of fish
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fork length (mm)
Roach
Graph 19: Length histogram of roach sampled during match 2
Match 2: Number of fish -v- length of fish
Number of fish
20
15
10
5
0
Fork length (mm)
Perch
Dace
Ruffe
Graph 20: Length histogram of perch, dace and ruffe sampled during match 2
3.5.1.3 Match attended on 14 April 2017
On the 14th April, GFT attended a third match on Loch Ken. This match was part of a three
day match, known as the Easter Festival and 45 anglers competed. Details of sections fished
and corresponding peg grid references can be found in Annex 4. Of the matches attended,
this provided the most fish for sampling (1489) from 18:30. GFT completed processing on the
East bank by 21:30 and West Bank by 22:30.
In total, 414 length measurements were taken from 79 bream, 202 roach, 71 perch, 46 dace
and 16 ruffe. In addition, weights were obtained from 123 of these fish (33 bream, 34 roach,
15 dace, 37 perch and 4 ruffe) to help compile weight to length conversion charts.
38
To help understand age structure of coarse fish in Loch Ken, scale samples were taken from
85 fish (26 bream, 17 roach, 14 dace and 28 perch). Scale samples were not taken from ruffe
(see Annex 4).
A further 1075 fish had just species recorded bringing the total number of fish handled during
match 3 to 1489.
Graph 21 shows the distribution of fish available for processing from match 3, with those
shown in blue all fish that were processed for lengths (including individuals where weights and
scale samples were taken) and the proportion of fish shown in orange, where only a count
was taken.
Length samples ranged by species as follows – bream 14-32cm (Graph 22); roach 8-23cm
(Graph 23); perch 9-28cm; dace 10-22cm; ruff 6-11 cm (Graph 24).
Number of fish
Match 3: Total catch
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Count taken
Length taken
Bream
Roach
Perch
Dace
Ruffe
Fish species
Graph 21: Total fish captured in match 3 shown as number of fish where length (and a
proportion of weight and scale) sampling was completed and numbers of fish where only a
count of individuals was taken
39
Match 3: Number of bream -v- Length of bream
8
7
Bream
Number of fish
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Fork length (mm)
Graph 22: Length histogram of bream sampled during match 3
Match 3: Number of roach -v- length of roach
Number of fish
25
20
Roach
15
10
5
0
Fork length (mm)
Graph 23: Length histogram of roach sampled during match 2
40
Match 3: Number of fish -v- Length of fish
Number of fish
12
10
Perch
8
Dace
Ruffe
6
4
2
0
Fork length (mm)
Graph 24: Length histogram of perch, dace and ruffe sampled during match 2
3.5.2
Further analysis of match data
3.5.2.1 Overall Species Composition
The total count of each fish species caught during the three matches is shown in Graph 25.
The total count over the three matches was 2618 fish. Within this figure, bream accounted for
532 fish (475 sampled and 57 counted, >20% of total)); roach, 1370 fish (444 sampled and
926 counted, >52% of total)); perch, 205 fish (124 sampled and 81 counted, <8% of total));
dace, 314 fish (166 sampled and 148 counted, 12% of total); and ruffe, 197 fish (111 sampled
and 86 counted, >7% of total) (see Graph 25).
Total catch over 3 matches
1400
Number of fish
1200
1000
800
Count taken
600
Length taken
400
200
0
Bream
Roach
Perch
Dace
Ruffe
Fish species
Graph 25: Total fish caught across the three matches displayed as individual species
41
3.5.2.2 Length to weight conversion charts
For each fish species, length to weight conversion charts were generated using data collected
during matches 2 and 3 (Graph 26 to Graph 30).
Bream Length/Weight Relationship
1600
1400
Fish weight (g)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Fork length (cm)
Graph 26: Length to weight conversion chart for bream
Roach Length/Weight Relationship
300
Fish weight (g)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
Fork length (cm)
Graph 27: Length to weight conversion chart for roach
42
25
Perch Length/Weight Relationship
500
450
Fish weight (g)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Fish length (cm)
Graph 28: Length to weight conversion chart for perch
Dace Length/Weight Relationship
250
Fish weight (g)
200
150
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
Fork length (cm)
Graph 29: Length to weight conversion chart for dace
43
25
Ruffe Length/Weight Relationship
30
Fish weight (g)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Fork length (cm)
Graph 30: Length to weight conversion chart for ruffe
3.5.2.3 Fulton’s Condition Factor
Length and weight data from each fish species was then used to calculate to ‘Fulton’s
Condition Factor’ in a similar fashion to the seine netting data (see section 3.4). Individual fish
species graphs of conversion factor can be seen in Graph 31 – Graph 40.
A line of best fit has been plotted across the range of fish lengths recorded.
Condition factors for data gathered during match 2 and match 3 were kept separately to
account for changes in body mass resulting from spawning activity completed by many
species (in particular the perch) between the two matches.
Match 2 - Bream: Condition factor (K) -v- Length
3
Condiion factor (K)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 31: Condition factor of bream sampled during match 2
44
Condition factor (K)
Match 3 - Bream: Condition factor (k) -v- Length
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 32: Condition factor of bream sampled during match and 3
Condition factor of bream was found to be >1 in all fish sampled during match 2. In only three
fish sampled during match 3 did condition factor fall to <1.
Match 2 - Roach: Condition factor (K) -v- Length
4.5
Condition factor (K)
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 33: Condition factor of roach sampled during match 2
45
Match 3 - Roach: Condition factor (K) -v- Length
3.5
Condition factor (K)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 34: Condition factor of roach sampled during match 3
Match 2 - Perch: Condition factor (K) -v- Length
Condition factor (K)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 35: Condition factor of perch sampled during match 2
46
Condition factor (K)
Match 3 - Perch: Condition factor (K) -v- Length
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 36: Condition factor of perch sampled during match 3
Match 2 - Dace: Condition factor (K) -v- Length
4
Condition factor (K)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 37: Condition factor of dace sampled during match 2
47
Match 3 - Dace: Condition factor (K) -v- Length
3.5
Condition factor (K)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 38: Condition factor of dace sampled during match 3
Match 2 - Ruffe: Condition factor (K) -v- Length
Condition factor (K)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 39: Condition factor of ruffe sampled during match 2
48
Condition factor (K)
Match 3 - Ruffe: Condition factor (K) -v- Length
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Fork length (cm)
Graph 40: Condition factor of ruffe sampled during match 3
3.5.2.4 Fish Scale Analysis
To assess the age structure of the coarse fish communities of Loch Ken, scale samples were
collected primarily during fish sampling at matches 2 and 3.
Having selected scale samples that best represented the variation in individual fish species
sizes sampled 13 bream, 8 roach, 14 perch, 8 dace, and 9 pike scale samples were examined
by the Environment Agency (EA) (as they have significant experience in coarse fish scale
analysis).
Graphs 41 – 45 show how fish growth changes with age in five coarse fish species commonly
caught on Loch Ken.
Bream: Length -v- Age
450
Fish Length (mm)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
3+
3+
5+
5
6
8+
9+
10
8
9+
13+
12
9+
Fish Age (years)
Graph 41: How growth changes with age in common bream found within Loch Ken
49
Common bream scale analysis found fish ages between 3+ and 13+ years relating to fish
lengths ranging from 146 - 400 mm.
Roach: Length -v- Age
250
Fish Length (mm)
200
150
100
50
0
1+
2+
6
5+
7+
9+
13+
9+
Fish Age (years)
Graph 42: How growth changes with age in roach found within Loch Ken
Scale samples analysed from roach were found to be from fish between the ages of 1+ and
13+ years relating to fish lengths ranging from 87 - 225 mm.
Perch: Length -v- Age
400
Fish Length (mm)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2+
2
3
3
5
4+
4+
5+
5+
5+
5+
5
7
7
Fish Age (years)
Graph 43: How growth changes with age in perch found within Loch Ken
Scale samples analysed from perch were found to be from fish between the ages of 2+ and 7
years of age, taken from fish which ranging in length from 92 - 340 mm.
50
Dace: Length -v- Age
250
Fish Length (mm)
200
150
100
50
0
2
1+
4
4+
4
4+
5
6+
Fish Age (years)
Graph 44: How growth changes with age in dace found within Loch Ken
Scale samples analysed from dace were found to be from fish between the ages of 1+ and 6+
years of age, taken from fish ranging in length from 80 - 215 mm.
Pike: Length -v- Age
1000
900
Fish Length (mm)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2
2
6+
6+
7+
9+
9+
7+
11+
Fish Age (years)
Graph 45: How growth changes with age in pike found within Loch Ken
Scale samples analysed from pike were found to be from fish between the ages of 2 and 11+
years of age, taken from fish which ranging in length from 178 mm - 880 mm.
3.5.3
Bag weights of coarse fish captured during matches on Loch Ken
Coarse fish data collected during Loch Ken angling matches can be extremely useful for year
to year comparison in general coarse fish species biomass within the fishery. However,
historically this data has been limited to total bag weight of fish captured with no record taken
of individual fish species composition within each bag.
51
The following section reviews bag weights sampled during Loch Ken matches attended within
this study and best bag weights recorded over the last year at most matches recorded on Loch
Ken through the Facebook page ‘Loch Ken Match Banter’.
3.5.3.1 Data from attended matches
For future comparison with current data, the total bag weights of fish caught at each peg during
the three matches attended in this study are shown in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Bag weights of coarse fish captured upon individual Loch Ken angling pegs during
the three matches attended in this study
Section
Name
West Bank
Twin Bridges
Peg #
Match 1
Bag Weight
(lb/oz)
Peg #
Match 2
14
15
16
17
2lb 14oz
0lb 3oz
0lb 6oz
4lb 12oz
N/A
Robins
18
3lb 4oz
1
19
1lb 2oz
2
20
21
22
7lb
1lb 2oz
2lb 15oz
3
4
23
24
6lb 4oz
1lb 14oz
5
6
25
26
27
7lb 12oz
2lb 2oz
3lb 2oz
7
8
9
28
18lb
10
29
15lb 2oz
11
30
31
14lb 8oz
2lb 8oz
12
13
32
33
34
35
36
8lb
0lb 8oz
16lb 14oz
0lb 4oz
1lb 9oz
14
N/A
13
2lb
N/A
Birches
Boulders
Shaley Bank
East Bank
Deeps
52
Bag
Weight
(lb/oz)
0lb 1oz
2lb
12oz
14lb
12oz
2lb 6oz
9lb
02oz
2lb 6oz
6lb
10oz
3lb 8oz
3lb 6oz
3lb
14oz
10lb
04oz
5lb
10oz
N/A
4lb
04oz
Peg #
Match 3
Bag
Weight
(lb/oz)
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
1lb 10oz
6lb 4oz
9lb 6oz
4lb 6oz
5lb 14oz
2lb 6oz
B12
2lb 12oz
B13
B14
B15
2lb 12oz
2lb 6oz
4lb 2oz
C1
C2
9lb 4oz
8lb
C3
C4
C5
9oz
4lb 12oz
3lb 6oz
C6
4lb 10oz
C7
2lb 14oz
C8
C9
1lb 10oz
10oz
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
4lb 10oz
2lb 10oz
8lb
1lb 4oz
4lb 8oz
1lb 4oz
B5
1lb 8oz
12
11
10
9
0lb 2oz
2lb
0lb 1oz
9lb 12oz
Big Point
8
7
6
5
5lb
6lb 14oz
1lb 15oz
3lb 10oz
14
13
12
11
Little Point
4
6lb
10
3
2lb 12oz
9
2
1
3lb 6oz
5lb 8oz
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Shallows
N/A
9lb
10oz
7lb
N/A
N/A
11lb
11lb
12oz
19lb
2oz
18lb
18lb
8lb 2oz
9lb 2oz
5lb 4oz
7lb
7lb
14oz
1
B4
B3
B2
B1
4lb 6oz
2lb 12oz
1lb 10oz
9oz
A15
A14
A13
A12
A11
A10
4lb 12oz
5lb 14oz
1lb 10oz
6lb 8oz
5lb
3lb 4oz
A9
8lb 4oz
A8
A7
A6
A5
A4
A3
A2
5lb 6oz
1lb 12oz
6lb 8oz
1lb 14oz
7lb 2oz
8lb 4oz
4lb 8oz
A1
8lb 2oz
The best bag recorded at match 1 (04/12/2016) weighed 18lb and came from Boulders section
on the West Bank. During match 2 on day 1 (31/03/2017) the best bag was recorded at Little
Point weighing 19 lb 2 oz. At the third match attended (14/04/2017), the best bag weighed 9
lb 6 oz and was recorded at Twin Bridges on the West Bank.
It was felt by anglers fishing match 3 that many fish were spawning (and therefore
unattainable) and this was evident in the amount of gravid and spawned fish sampled.
Disturbance by pike was also noted by anglers as problematic to coarse fish returns during
this match.
3.5.3.2 Loch Ken Match Calendar
To provide further context and information over a year’s worth of basic details on most Loch
Ken matches was gathered from the ‘Loch Ken Match Banter’ Facebook page. Details
including date and duration of match, angler attendance and weight of best bag by section
name were regularly recorded. These details are shown in Table 8 below.
Table 8: Basic details of most Loch Ken Matches held between the 12/03/2016 and
23/04/2017
Date
No. anglers
12/03/2016
18/03/2016
25/03/2016
Duration Match Name
(Days)
2
Loch Ken Open
3
3
Easter Festival
19-25
27
46
Match Best
Bag (lb/oz)
38lb 04oz
37lb 8oz
34lb 8oz
28/05/2016
3
18-27
31lbs
53
Section
Name
Robins
Robins
Robins
Twin
Bridges
17/07/2016
23/07/2016
05/08/2016
27/08/2016
21/09/2016
24/09/2016
08/10/2016
09/10/2016
1
2
3
3
3
2
1
1
15/10/2016
30/10/2016
06/11/2016
20/11/2016
2
1
1
1
03/12/2016
18/12/2016
28/12/2016
15/01/2017
22/01/2017
29/01/2017
12/02/2017
18/02/2017
04/03/2017
12/03/2017
19/03/2017
26/03/2017
31/03/2017
09/04/2017
14/04/2017
23/04/2017
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
Loch Ken Sweep
LK Mini Festival
August Bank Holiday
Silverfest
Loch Ken Sweep
SFCA
Loch Ken Sweep
Loch Ken Sweep
Loch Ken Sweep
Christmas Fishing
Festival
Loch Ken Sweep
Loch Ken Sweep
Loch Ken Sweep
Loch Ken Sweep
Loch Ken Sweep
Loch Ken Sweep
Loch Ken Ashes
Loch Ken Sweep
Loch Ken Sweep
Loch Ken Sweep
Loch Ken Sweep
Easter Festival
SFCA
7
32
11
38
30
17lbs 4oz
75lb
85lb 12oz
46lb 2oz
40lb 5oz
Boulders
7
21
24lb 4oz
34lb 4oz
Robins
Twin
Bridges
21lb 4oz
Boulders
20lb 8oz
40lb 2oz
33lb 8oz
Big Point
Robins
Little Point
9lb
15lb 4oz
19lb 2oz
Boulders
Little Point
Little Point
19lb 04oz
9lb 10oz
Little Point
Little Point
30
6
Birches
Robins
Robins
10
36
6 or 7
6 or 7
7
7
7
7
38
42
6
5
3
28
3
45
8
From the information available, it can be seen that between the two Easter festivals hosted on
Loch Ken (2016 and 2017), 28 further matches have been held on the loch. These include
twelve 2 or 3-day matches and sixteen 1-day matches. The largest bag recorded (85 lb 12oz)
was taken during a three-day match on 05/08/2016 at Birches (West Bank). Elsewhere, of
the 20 best bag weights that could be identified bag weights of >20 lb accounted for 14 (70%)
of 20 weights recorded.
3.6
Fish scale data
In total, scales from 52 fish were aged covering a range of fish species and lengths. The scale
reading was undertaken by the EA. For those sampled in winter (October - March), the fish
were aged using the edge of the scale as the last complete year. For fish sampled during the
summer growth season (April - Sept) the fish were aged using a plus (+) notation. The
maximum ages for each species analysed were 13+ in common bream, 6+ in dace, 7 years
in perch, 11+ in pike and 13+ in roach.
Fish were sampled from a number of sites and sample sizes were low. There is significant
variance in growth rates within specific age classes and mean growth data should be
interpreted with care due to the limited number of fish within each age class. It should also be
54
noted that the growth standards used are calibrated for rivers in England where there is a
greater volume of data and study to generate these standards than in Scotland.
The age data for each fish species is graphed below against ‘species standards for Northern
English rivers’ for roach and dace, and against ‘National growth standards’ for pike, bream
and perch.
Graph 46: Growth of common bream in Loch Ken compared to the standard growth of common
bream in rivers (Hickley and Dexter, 1979)
Common bream showed average growth until about six years old and then growth fell
(percentage standard growth (PSG) of 87%) compared to standard growth data from across
England (Graph 46).
55
Graph 47: Growth of roach in Loch Ken compared to the standard growth of roach in Northern
rivers (National Fisheries Services unpublished data)
The roach were found to have average growth rates (with a PSG of 91%) when compared to
species standards from Northern English rivers (Graph 47).
56
Graph 48: Growth of perch in Loch Ken compared to the standard growth of perch in rivers
(National Fisheries Services unpublished data)
The perch from Loch Ken showed normal growth (with a PSG of 98%) up to 4 years old but then
growth rates became ‘fast’ before becoming ‘very fast’ when aged 6 and 7, when compared to
national growth standards (Graph 48).
57
Graph 49: Growth of dace in Loch Ken compared to the standard growth of dace in Northern
rivers (National Fisheries Services unpublished data)
The dace growth rates were found to be close to ‘average’ (with a PSG of 82%) when compared
to species standards from Northern English rivers (Graph 49).
58
Graph 50: Growth of pike in Loch Ken compared to the standard growth of pike in rivers
(Hickley & Sutton, 1984)
Loch Ken pike growth rates (PSG of 68%) when compared to national growth standards from
Northern English rivers were low especially for the younger age classes (Graph 50).
59
4.
DISCUSSION
4.1
Public engagement
Two public engagement events were held which were well attended by a range of stakeholders
and angling interests. These meetings helped to launch the study and encouraged
engagement in the project. A lot of useful information and opinions on a range of issues was
collected. Subsequent to the events many of the attendees contacted GFT to provide further
material which was of interest to the study. It was very clear that many attendees are
interested to be involved in the management of the Loch Ken fishery.
Many of the anglers reported that over time the fishery has changed. Historically Loch Ken
was renowned as a roach fishery but bream catches started to increase in the early 2000s
and now dominate the overall catch during most angling matches. Ruffe and dace are two
fish species which have become established in the loch in recent years. Dace now appear to
be one of the most abundant fish within Loch Ken but were rarely reported in angler catches
before 2010. Many of the fishers targeting perch consider that since signal crayfish became
established within the loch that larger specimen perch are more abundant and have increased
in size due to them predating on juvenile crayfish. It would be expected that the fish
populations within the loch would change over time as many fish species are known to show
natural fluctuations in their annual recruitment and from interactions between the various fish
species due to limited resources such as food, spawning habitat or predation. The introduction
of various fish species over the years, many which are not considered native to Scotland, and
the establishment of a large signal crayfish population has changed the environment and
composition of the overall fish population in the loch. Although these reported changes
originate from the anecdotal records of anglers there is no reason to doubt their authenticity.
Attendees of the events raised the need to improve access at existing angling areas. It was
reported that many of the popular angling points are not suitable for infirm anglers. Scrub
encroachment was also mentioned by anglers as limiting access at some locations although
this is usually managed by angling interests themselves.
4.1.1 Fishery and fish protection, legal access and the right to fish
The concerns and confusion regarding the policing of fisheries legislation across Loch Ken
was also raised by a number of attendees. Many reported having seen activity they
considered to be illegal including setting of signal crayfish traps, killing of pike and fishing
without permits. This is an important issue for consideration as there is presently no clear
lead organisation policing fisheries legislation across Loch Ken.
The various organisations with a potential role to play in the policing of the Loch are detailed
below:
•
•
•
•
Dumfries and Galloway Council (Council Ranger) – in the last few years the
Council has reduced the number of rangers they employ from four down to one.
This has reduced the ranger presence at the loch. Policing of angling at Loch
Ken has never been a responsibility of the ranger post but has been assumed by
many to be so.
DDSFB – their bailiff undertakes some patrols and ticket checking around Loch
Ken but the powers of the bailiff, and funding for the post, are related and limited
by legislation to salmon and sea trout.
NGAA – the club has a trained up member to police their waters which include
Loch Ken.
Police Scotland – have a role to enforce the law.
60
While it is clearly understood that angling from the shore requires permission, usually
addressed by purchasing a permit, there is widespread confusion regarding angling on Loch
Ken while afloat on a boat or kayak. It appears that few of these anglers are buying a permit.
To police the Loch Ken fishery effectively it is essential that all relevant parties understand the
legal situation with regard to angling on Loch Ken. Legal advice was sought from Robert
Younger, Solicitor at Fish Legal Scotland who confirmed the following:
•
As Loch Ken is part of the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee which flows into the Solway
Firth it is covered by s26 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation)
(Scotland) Act 2003.
•
Under s26(1) of the Salmon Act 2003 anyone fishing without legal right, or
without permission of a person having such a right takes or fishes for any fish
other than salmon in any stream or other watercourses running into the Solway
shall be guilty of an offence.
•
Fishery owners around Loch Ken have the right to fish from their banks and also
enjoy a 'common fishing right' with other owners over the whole of Loch Ken to
be exercised by boat.
•
Thus anyone fishing by boat or kayak on Loch Ken will be in breach of s26(1)
unless they can show that they had permission from any riparian owner.
This interpretation confirms that anyone fishing Loch Ken, either from the bank or on the loch
from a boat or kayak, must be able to show they have permission to fish otherwise they are
committing a criminal offense. This permission does not have to be in writing.
Another important misunderstanding highlighted at the events was that the killing of pike by
anglers is illegal. It is not a criminal offence in Scotland to kill coarse fish. However, the
owners of fishing can set conditions on their ‘permission to fish’ which if not followed would be
a breach of their permission to fish.
4.2
Loch Ken angling record
The data collected from this source was useful but the actual number of returned forms in
relation to the number of forms distributed was disappointing. It is also important to note that
78% of the forms came from anglers fishing Loch Ken during matches and very few were from
boat anglers.
Some key findings regarding the anglers who completed the records were:
• 65% of anglers were aged between 45 – 64 years old.
• Only 17% of the anglers were from Dumfries and Galloway Region.
• Most anglers (61%) were from England.
• 25% of the anglers said they did not have a permit to fish.
• About a third of the anglers reported using fishing techniques to avoid contact
with signal crayfish.
The records also provided important information on the issue of biosecurity and showed
anglers do have an understanding of measures they should be undertaking and 54% of
respondents said they would use disinfectant equipment if it was available at Loch Ken.
Despite this awareness and the presence of signal crayfish in the loch only just over a third of
anglers (35%) reported actually and actively undertaking biosecurity actions at present. These
included a range of recognised measures including checking / cleaning boats and equipment,
61
visual checks of equipment, only using certain equipment on Loch Ken and drying out
equipment after use.
The angling catch information was useful but as many weights and sizes were estimated it
was limited how much interpretation of the data could be undertaken. It did help to further the
understanding of the level of angling success on the Loch and how many anglers landed signal
crayfish. In the ‘total bag’ records it suggested that out of the 55 records submitted, 30 caught
signal crayfish and 25 did not. The highest number of crayfish caught by an angler in a day
was reported as being 50 individuals.
4.3
Loch Ken creel record
The Loch Ken creel surveys were useful in providing a profile of the anglers using Loch Ken
who are not involved with angling matches. This differs from the angling records which came
mostly from match anglers. Numbers of anglers on the loch varied considerably with few
fishing during periods of poor weather, ice on the loch or when the fish were likely to be
spawning. Again the participants were mostly anglers fishing from the shore of the Loch and
boat anglers were poorly represented. Interestingly a wider age range of anglers was noted
when compared to the data collected using the angling records. In particular more young
anglers were recorded (<25 years old).
Again only low numbers (13%) of the anglers lived in Dumfries and Galloway, with the majority
from England (58%). These visiting anglers are important to the local economy with 70%
staying at least one night locally. The majority of anglers (73%) stayed for more than two
nights. Approximately 66% of these anglers had to pay for their accommodation with the
remainder wild camping, sleeping on a boat or staying with friends.
Anglers seemed positive about their angling experience on Loch Ken with 91% of anglers
being satisfied or very satisfied with their angling experience. Most of the anglers (82%) had
fished previously on Loch Ken. When asked for comments on any negative feedback
experienced during their angling trip the answers included the need to review the overall
management of the water, limited access for elderly anglers, poor fishing, litter and the killing
of fish. Some pike fishermen also raised concerns that increased angling activity could be
detrimental to the pike fishery.
Only 50% of anglers said they had a fishing permit to fish on Loch Ken.
Very little fish data was collected by GFT staff during these surveys as few anglers retained
their fish in keep nets after capturing them. Pike anglers were found to keep accurate weights
of their catches and this data was useful for the study. Actual sampling of pike and large perch
was not very successful in the overall study as anglers do not typically retain these fish in keep
nets or collect any data on the fish apart from weight. To understand the growth rates and
health of these fish it would have been useful to have collected more scale samples from them.
Throughout the current study anglers have regularly raised concerns that there is limited
policing or fishery protection undertaken on the loch and that certain fish species are being
killed and removed by a minority of anglers for consumption, particularly pike. Pike are the
apex predator in Loch Ken and an intentional cull of significant scale, especially if it targeted
large pike, would be expected to impact negatively on the overall pike fishery. It is recognised
that historically the DDSFB has itself undertaken a pike cull on the loch and this may, to some
degree, influence the thinking of some that the pike is less valuable to the loch.
With regard to biosecurity, 89% of anglers were aware of INNS particularly signal crayfish.
58% said that signal crayfish had affected their ‘fishing experience’ on the loch. Many anglers
(64%) deployed fishing techniques to help avoid signal crayfish. 65% of anglers do undertake
62
biosecurity measures on their fishing tackle. It was difficult to get an explanation from the
anglers who did not undertake any biosecurity and answers given included lack of disinfectant
facilities, inconvenient and not knowing what to do. It was disappointing to note that only 22%
of anglers stated they had heard of the ‘Check Clean Dry’ campaign. When asked what
measures would encourage them to undertake biosecurity there was a strong preference for
providing information on permits and signage and little support for running events or the
production of a leaflet. There was strong support for providing disinfection stations at Loch
Ken with 89% of anglers saying they would use them if provided. With regard to the positioning
of any disinfection stations, there was strong support for them to be close to Loch by the main
angling areas.
As part of the creel surveys anglers were asked how to improve the fishing / fishery experience
on the loch and the most popular suggestions were associated with signal crayfish (control or
make a crayfish plan), improving access for anglers, undertake bankside management,
construct a fishery plan and dealing with litter. Many anglers replied to say they did not think
any improvements were required and were happy with the fishery as it was.
4.4
Seine netting
The seine netting was undertaken with the particular focus of catching juvenile fish living in
the shallow weedy waters near Mains of Duchrae. There are still lessons being learnt
regarding the netting and catches have not been as high as previous envisaged. Between the
initial trial work in 2016 and 2017 there appears to have been some changes at the netting
site with some snags (woody debris) washed into the bay and greater levels of silt present. It
can be seen that catches improved as the snags were removed and the areas to avoid netting
were better identified.
One of the main benefits of the netting is to remove the potential that angling may bias the fish
sampled during the data collection in the rest of the project. There is also the potential that
other fish species may be present in the loch that are not susceptible to angling but could be
an important component of the overall fish populations in the loch.
The netting to date has caught the same fish species which have been sampled through the
angling methods. This gives confidence that the angling records, creel records and match
catches are representative of the fish populations in Loch Ken.
The fish sampled through the netting cannot be used to calculate the numbers of fish present
within the loch. If similar netting locations and effort (including season of netting) were used
annually then the catch could be used to indicate general annual trends in fish populations
present.
As each fish was accurately sampled for weight and length then the health of these juvenile
fish can be assessed by calculating their condition factor. There are many variables that can
affect growth rates in different waters.
Low growth rate can be an entirely natural
phenomenon of for example, nutrient poor, high altitude or northerly waters and is not
necessary a concern. It is important to compare sampled growth rates with an appropriate
model or comparator rate. As there is limited or no availability of growth rates calculated
specifically for or from Scottish coarse fish populations’ annual comparisons from within the
loch or against English growth rates may be all that is currently possible. However, it will be
useful in the future to be able to monitor the health of the fish population by comparing annual
condition factors over the years if the netting was to be continued. In isolation the condition
factor data from 2017 tell you very little about the health of the Loch Ken fish stocks as there
is no historic or Scottish baseline data to compare it to.
63
4.5
Angling matches
The collection of fish data from the catches at angling matches has been very successful with
2618 fish sampled from three matches. Species identification of all the fish and the sampling
of weights and lengths from a sub-sample was completed. Scale samples were also collected
to represent a range of sizes across each of the fish species.
This data has identified which key fish species are important for the angling matches. In terms
of numbers, roach were the most abundant fish caught, followed by bream, then dace,
followed by perch and finally ruffe.
It is not possible to calculate the overall size of the fish populations from the data collected but
the information does provide an important baseline to compare future data to if the sampling
was to continue. The condition factor of these fish can be calculated but as mentioned in
Section 4.4, it would only be if the data collection was to continue that trends in fish growth
and health could be considered.
Working closely with the match organisers and consulting with match participants also
provided additional useful information regarding how Loch Ken is considered as a location for
angling matches. In recent years the ongoing reporting of good fish catches by anglers has
helped to encourage anglers back to the fishery following negative publicity about signal
crayfish in the angling press. Currently Loch Ken is the most popular venue for angling
matches in Scotland (Mark Trueman, personal communication) - believed to be due to
affordable ticket costs, consistently good and reliable catches, quality and affordability of
accommodation, active match organisers, positive publicity and promotion of the events and
their fish catches and proximity to England where most match anglers are travelling from. It
was reported that English match anglers are favouring ‘wild fish’ angling venues over stocked
fisheries, making Loch Ken more popular as a location able to offer this experience when
compared with many English waters.
On the west bank of Loch Ken the water managed by NGAA is popular for fishing by club
members, day tickets and match anglers. Car parking facilities are available close to the water
at eight parking locations but access to the loch from the car parking is difficult for the infirm.
Anglers have confirmed that access difficulties limits angler participation at angling matches.
While it is known that 20+ angling matches are held annually on the Loch (most are run over
at least two days and can be attended by up to 30 – 40 anglers), additional new matches have
been trialled during winter 2016 and spring 2017. These new matches appear to have been
successful and well attended. Match organisers report there is a need to increase angling
capacity to meet angling demand – in many matches anglers are turned away as there is not
enough suitable angling pegs. If further expansion of matches is to take place then it is
important to consider that different areas of the loch may need to be fished due to seasonal
fish movements.
Over 85% of the anglers attending matches come from out with Dumfries and Galloway,
including significant numbers from England. Typically each match angler stays for a minimum
of two nights in local accommodation and they estimate that each will spend £200 - £500
locally at every match attended. Therefore, there are likely to be significant and direct
economic benefits to the area if capacity for additional match anglers could be provided. For
example, if 15 new fishing pegs could be created and used for 10 matches per year this would
provide an additional 150 match angler days. The potential local spend from these anglers
would be £30,000 - £75,000 annually based upon an individual angler spend of £200-£500.
New pegs could also be utilised by day anglers out with match days.
64
4.6
Fish scale data
By collecting scales and lengths of individual fish from across the different species it was
possible to graph the growth rates of each fish species. This is a useful data set to start to
monitor the health of the Loch Ken fishery. It is possible to compare the fish growth rates in
Loch Ken against other standard growth rates from across a range of waters. The comparable
data is mostly available from England due to the greater levels of research and coarse fish
data collection compared to Scotland. Again it is important to note that the information
collected in this project is important baseline data which will give a greater understanding of
future trends and changes in the Loch Ken fish populations if the surveys continue. Slow
growth rates are not necessary a concern and can be due to a range of natural issues or
complex relationships between species. It is fair to assume though that if a fish species has
a slow growth rate compared to other waters then it is unlikely that those fish will attain a
particularly large size for the species. No particular concerns were identified when considering
the growth rates of the fish collected in 2017.
Roach are targeted by many anglers particularly during matches where they appear to make
up about half of the total fish caught and are an important element of the overall fishery.
Examination of the condition factor of roach found them to be healthy and growth rates, when
considered against EA bandings from England, are comparable until the fish are around five
years old after which time growth rate is slower than those typically found in England. Similarly
common bream are an important fish species for the overall fishery. They also showed
average growth rates, when compared to English standards, until they reached six years old
and then growth rates fell well below the average. It is not clear why this occurring.
Loch Ken was known historically as a fishery for large pike with some very large specimen
fish reported by anglers. The techniques used in the present study did not collect data from
significant numbers of pike due to them not being targeted in matches and not being retained
by individual anglers to allow sampling. The data from the sample available suggested
relatively slow growth rates compared to those from England. However, as growth rates of
many fish species in Scotland would be anticipated to be lower than England, typically due to
lower water temperatures and nutrient levels, this is not unexpected. Loch Ken was and is
one of the top venues in Scotland for large pike and holds abundant prey species to sustain
this fishery.
The dynamics of the perch population is interesting. Large perch are particularly targeted by
many anglers on Loch Ken and the loch is recognised for specimen fish. Whilst growth rates
of small perch are comparable with those from English waters when the fish reach over four
years old their growth rates increase and are considered ‘fast’ to ‘very fast’ under the same
comparison. There is some evidence that this may be due to them becoming large enough to
exploit juvenile crayfish as a food source at this age and growing more rapidly from this dietary
preference.
The dace has more recently become established in Loch Ken and the population may not yet
have stabilised within the overall ecology of the system. Growth rates, however, are similar
or a little lower than that typically found in England throughout all ages of dace sampled.
4.7
Conclusions
4.7.1
Loch Ken continues to support both a healthy fish population and is a popular coarse fishery
destination, particularly for visiting anglers who reside outside Dumfries and Galloway. This
is despite the presence of a significant signal crayfish population and the negative publicity
generated around this issue. It is recognised that the fishery has changed over time – for a
number of reasons not just because of the presence of the crayfish. At times it is the limited
65
access to the loch which restricts the use of the fishery rather than any other factor. Therefor
there would appear to be potential to increase access and angling opportunities on the loch
and to better promote the fishery to anglers and, with these actions, to increase the economic
benefits derived from anglers and angling to the surrounding area.
4.7.2
The fish populations appears to be coping with the pressures that signal crayfish are exerting
upon them e.g. predation of eggs, competition for food and grazing of aquatic weeds (which
can be important fish spawning and nursery areas for young fish). There is no indication,
based on the limited data collected and collated, that any component of the fish community is
unhealthy or under identifiable stress. No concerns were currently identified regarding
recruitment of any of the fish species in Loch Ken.
4.7.3
The monitoring and sampling confirmed that the main species targeted by anglers are bream,
roach, pike, perch and to a lesser extent dace and ruffe. The bream population makes up a
significant portion of the overall catch of match anglers. While the bags of bream caught are
highly rated by anglers during good fishing conditions the maximum sizes of bream are not
particularly notable. Growth rates of bream in Loch Ken are below the average found in data
collected from England but are still healthy. Loch Ken is highly rated as a perch fishery with
large specimen perch regularly reported.
4.7.4
Most anglers are ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with the fishing on Loch Ken, although there are
concerns over the management of the fishery.
4.7.5
Most anglers are aware of the need for biosecurity and the problems associated with invasive
species. Many anglers do undertake some biosecurity measures when fishing on Loch Ken.
There was strong support for providing further biosecurity facilities at Loch Ken and a
willingness to use them if available.
4.7.6
It is important to note that these conclusions are based on data collected in this study alone
(2016 and 2017), which has focussed on coarse fish and coarse angling, and on-going
monitoring should be undertaken to assess and understand the situation in the future. Future
monitoring should also recognise the presence of the important trout and salmon populations
in the catchment whilst retaining a focus of monitoring of the coarse fish community within the
loch
66
5.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Listed below are recommendations for projects which could be included in the Galloway Glens
Partnership Project (Stage 2) application and / or delivered in the future as part of an overall
management strategy for the Loch Ken Fishery.
These project proposals have been developed from information provided following various
consultations and discussions undertaken as part of the overall study including the public
events, ‘creel survey’ questionnaires and meetings.
5.1
Monitoring of Loch Ken fish populations
It is advised that a programme of surveys to monitor the fisheries resource within Loch Ken is
undertaken over a further five year period based on the techniques used in this study. These
surveys would provide information on the health of the overall fish population and help to
understand annual fluctuations in fish recruitment and growth rates. It is important to ensure
that any increased angling pressure which may result from the overall project is undertaken in
a sustainable manner. There may be opportunities for education institutions to assist in the
recommended monitoring work or undertake associated research (see section 5.6).
It is recommended that the following surveys and activities are undertaken annually:
•
Catches from two angling matches, in March and September, should be surveyed
following the protocol of the present study. These matches should provide up to 500
fish each for sampling.
•
Two seine nettings should be undertaken during the summer months, July and
September. The protocol of the present study should be followed. This survey will
target the juvenile life stages of fish.
•
12 Creel surveys should be undertaken annually to target anglers fishing for pike and
larger sized perch anglers. Keep nets should be made available to these anglers to
retain fish until data can be collected. Most of the anglers which are targeting large
perch do so from boats or kayaks.
•
There should be engagement with academic institutes to develop projects and studies
suitable for undergraduate and postgraduate students on an ongoing basis. These
studies could supplement ongoing monitoring work, undertake additional or more
extensive analysis of this work, initiate new studies on, for example species
interactions (including with signal crayfish) and do this on a cost effective basis whilst
adding to the body of knowledge of the loch.
5.2
Governance, Management and Planning of the fishery
It is clear that improved governance is required to ensure the long term sustainable
development and marketing of the loch fishery and to address some of the minor
disagreements that occur at times between the different angling interests.
It is recommended that:
•
Formation of a Loch Ken Fisheries Management Group (LKFMG) - as a sub-group to
the present Loch Ken Advisory Management Committee. The group would require a
clear purpose and ability to protect and improve the fishery. It is important that ‘terms
of reference’ are agreed and that administrative support is provided to facilitate
meetings. Group membership would need to be diverse to represent the range of
67
angling stakeholders and interested parties. The group would become an important
local consultative group and forum on issues such as planning or development
associated with the loch.
Regular events could be organised for the members of the group to increase their
knowledge and understanding of the different angling interests and a range of fishery
management issues such as fish sampling techniques and habitat enhancement.
•
Production of a 5 year Loch Ken Fishery Management Plan - to assist the LKFMG in
their new role. This plan would provide background information, describe the fishery
resource, identify limiting factors and set out potential solutions and achievable actions
which could be undertaken. The plan would assist with the planning of resources and
securing of funds. The LKFMG would be directly involved in the production of the plan
so as to utilise their knowledge and expertise and to ensure their ‘buy in’ and support.
The plan would require revision and updating on a 5 year cycle.
Much of the information required for the plan will have been collected for the present
Loch Ken study. It will be important that the plan production involves adequate
consultation with all interested parties.
5.3
Fishery Protection, Access and Local Management Capacity
Earlier in the report (section 4.1.1) the complexity of the fisheries protection and access
legislation is explained which needs to be enforced effectively across Loch Ken. There is a
need to develop a common understanding of the responsibilities, legalities and legislation to
build capacity and improve the overall protection of the fishery. The proposed LKFMG
(outlined in section 5.2) should play an important role in co-ordinating the required actions.
It is recommended that:
5.4
•
The writing of a general set of fishing rules for Loch Ken and organising sign up by all
those involved in the issuing of permission to fish on the loch. It is important that these
rules cover boat and kayak fishing due to the present confusion regarding their need
to have permission to fish on the loch.
•
A wildlife crime event is organised annually for all interested parties. The event would
be aimed at encouraging closer co-ordinated working, increasing knowledge, capacity
building, protection of natural heritage, identifying shortcomings in the present
enforcement arrangements and to clarify the various relevant wildlife and fisheries
legislation.
•
Improve co-ordination between existing individuals and groups involved presently in
fishery protection on the loch and clarity of their roles. The possible enhanced roles of
volunteers in assisting in the protection of the fishery should be explored.
Development: Promotion and increasing accessibility
From the public engagement work and information collected from the loch users it is clear that
improving accessibility would allow more anglers to fish and increase the angling experience
that the loch offers. This can be achieved through a combination of actions and projects which
are set out below.
It is recommended that:
68
Initially, improved access at two existing angling areas for infirm anglers through the
construction of ramps and steps is considered. Suitable locations were highlighted during the
project along the West bank (at GR: NX 64584 74195 & GR: NX 65104 73390). These
locations had available safe car parking, access at the loch edge, space and angling
opportunities. Other suitable locations requiring improvement may be available at other
fisheries around the loch.
To progress this recommendation, there will need to be support from the relevant land owner
and planning permission / detailed engineer designs will be required for gaining accurate
costings.
Creation of 10 – 20 new fishing pegs to allow the expansion of angling matches (both in
number of attendees and number of matches). The exact locations for this work will need
carefully consideration to address when there is a limitation in pegs. Three possible locations
for new pegs were identified with match organisers which require further investigation:
- Loch access along the road to Ringour and around Ged Point (west bank)
- Loch edge accessed through Shirmers Wood (east bank)
- Upstream of the Glenlochar Barrage (west bank)
Creation of an ‘Angling Passport Scheme’ - it should be investigated whether there would be
interest amongst owners of fishing rights around the loch to set up an ‘angling passport
system’ to assist in selling angling tickets. These schemes cover a number of fisheries which
are then marketed and promoted collectively through scheme literature and websites. In
England there are eight main schemes and one in Scotland (Annan). These schemes appear
to be popular with and informative for anglers, and have opened up many fisheries which
otherwise may not have offered angling. These schemes also minimise administrative
burdens and costs to fishery owners. For information on how passport schemes work on West
Country Trust waters and on the River Annan see relevant website links in references.
A Loch Ken passport system would require buy-in and support from enough owners of fishings
and land owners to be viable and it is unclear at this stage, and without further discussion,
whether this would be forthcoming or not. However, such a scheme could provide an effective
way of providing additional angling opportunity around the loch to a common set of rules and
standards whilst generating modest angling related revenues to fishery owners with limited
ongoing input from these owners.
Improved marketing using websites and social media – although individual fisheries around
the loch are well publicised on the internet, it is recommended that Loch Ken as a high quality
location for coarse angling, should be given greater prominence in future promotion of the
area particularly through the wider Galloway Glens project. There may also be opportunities
to utilise the local Fish Pal website (link provided in reference section) which could be used to
provide on-line booking facilities for selling tickets around Loch Ken to the benefit of
participating fisheries. Elsewhere, Fish Pal partners have used the booking system to
generate income to support local management – this may be possible for the fisheries of Loch
Ken.
5.5
Biosecurity
Throughout this project it has been found that anglers fishing on Loch Ken were aware that
INNS were harmful, particularly signal crayfish, but not many were actively undertaking
biosecurity measures to minimise the risk of further introductions or transfer of species to the
loch especially. Reciprocally, and equally important, there was little evidence of biosecurity
measures being implemented to prevent the spread of crayfish to other waters from Loch Ken.
Given the prominence of the crayfish issue on the loch and the impacts and disruption caused
by this it is important that the loch is not inadvertently the source of new crayfish introductions
by angler (or other water user) transfers.
69
There is currently little information regarding INNS or biosecurity available around Loch Ken
or on angling permits.
An effective and co-ordinated biosecurity programme is required for Loch Ken to provide
improved information to Loch users and the necessary infrastructure / facilities to disinfect
equipment.
It is recommended that:
•
Standard wording should be produced for all angling tickets, boat registrations, etc
which describes the harm of INNS in general, what to do with signal crayfish when
caught and reinforces the need to practice effective biosecurity.
•
Improved signage around the loch to promote the Check-Clean-Dry national campaign,
explain the legal situation regarding signal crayfish, and how to undertake effective
biosecurity measures. Specific posters for Loch Ken should be produced for use in
noticeboards currently located around the loch at the main car parking points where
many anglers and other users access the loch.
•
Provision of two fixed disinfectant stations to encourage all anglers to disinfect their
equipment before and after fishing on Loch Ken. Disinfectant stations are designed to
make it easy for anglers to disinfect their equipment and clothing and contain suitable
disinfectant and brushes within a plastic storage container. On-going maintenance is
required to top up disinfectant, replace brushes, etc. A static disinfectant station could
be fitted on each bank of the loch; one at the public boat slip way near the viaduct and
the other at the recently constructed car parking near Ringour. These locations are
near popular angling locations and are easily accessible. A mobile biosecurity station
should also be purchased and made available to event organisers for angling matches
and water based events.
•
A dedicated staff resource is required to support and organise the biosecurity work
detailed above, including the promotion of bio-security issues for all loch users.
5.6 Education and Research Opportunities
Loch Ken is well suited to offer a wide range of educational and research opportunities which
would be of national interest. Of particularly interest would be work associated with the signal
crayfish population and how it is interacting with the ecology of the loch. Loch Ken also offers
a wonderful opportunity to study the various coarse fish species present.
It is recommended that:
•
Discussions are held with school, higher and tertiary education institutions to explore
possible opportunities to study Loch Ken and its ecology. Possible projects could suit
a range of interests and levels, from primary and secondary school projects to
undergraduate to postgraduate levels.
70
6.
REFERENCES
Cameron, S. 2010. Economic Value of Angling to the Glenkens Economy. Dumfries and
Galloway Council Report.
Fish
Pal
Galloway
Rivers
Web
site
(last
accessed
http://www.fishpal.com/Scotland/Galloway/index.asp?dom=Galloway
14/12/17)
Galloway Fisheries Trust. 2016. Fish, fisheries and angler survey in Loch Ken, South West
Scotland Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report.
Maitland, P.S. 1996. The North American signal Crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus (Dana),
established in the wild in Scotland. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems, 6, 107-110.
Maitland, P.S., Sinclair, C. & Doughty, C.R. 2001. The status of Freshwater Crayfish in
Scotland in the year 2000. Glasgow Naturalist, 23 (6), 26-32.
Ribbens, J.C.H. & Graham, J.L. 2004. Strategy for the containment and possible eradication
of American signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) in the River Dee catchment and Skyre
Burn catchment, Dumfries and Galloway, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.
014. (ROAME No. F02LK05).
Ribbens, J.C.H. & Graham, J.L. 2009. Loch Ken (Kirkcudbrightshire Dee) American Signal
Crayfish Trapping Project. Marine Scotland Commissioned Report.
River Annan angling passport scheme (last accessed 14/12/17) www.riverannan.org/smallstreams-passport-scheme
Rogers, D. & Brickland, J. (eds) 2000. Proceedings of the Crayfish Conference, Leeds, April
2000.
Sinclair, C. & Ribbens, J. 1999. Survey of American Signal crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus,
distribution in the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee, Dumfries & Galloway and, assessment of the use
of electrofishing as an eradication technique for Crayfish populations. Scottish Natural
Heritage.
The
Angling
Trust;
Your
story
survey www.anglingtrust.net/invasivesurvey
matters:
UK
angling
movement
The Broads invasive species survey: http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0018/405342/Invasive_species_survey_report.pdf
The Scottish Fisheries Coordination Centre (SFCC) Angling Diary: www.anglingdiary.org.uk/
West
Country
Angling
http://westcountryangling.com/
Passport
Scheme
(last
accessed
14/12/17)
West Galloway Fisheries Trust, 1996. Fishery survey of the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee. Report
for the River Dee District Salmon Fishery Board.
71
ANNEX 1: LOCH KEN ANGLING RECORD
Loch Ken Fisheries Study: Angling Record
Your details Name
Address
or
residential
town/region
Phone No.
Email
Your fishing Date
trip
Duration
Less than 1/2 day
Permit
all
Time at start of fishing (00:00)
Half Day
Full Day
Pike
Bream
Roach
No
Perch
Trout
Other
that
No. rods
Angling
method
Catch
Age
Yes
If 'yes' - please detail permit issuer
Bankside
Boat
or circle within map overleaf
Your fishing Location
Grid ref
Target
Species
(cross
apply)
insert text or cross (X) box that
applies
Key:
Bait:
Float
Ledger/feeder
Lure:
Spinner
Spoon
Crankbait
Fly
Other
Are you using a particular method to avoid signal crayfish?
Yes
No
If 'Yes' - describe method?
Did you catch anything?
Species
Pike
No
Trout
Other
Bream
Yes
Roach
Perch
Bag weights
Species
Total weight
lb
oz
Estimate
Yes
No
Individual fish
Species
Length (cm)
Weight
(lb/oz)
Comments (distinguishing features)
72
Photo*
(Y/N)
Photo
Biosecurity
*If you would be happy to supply these via email, please include email contact above
Do you undertake any biosecurity measures, actions or precautions?
Yes
No
If 'Yes', what?
Would you use disinfection stations if these were available next to the loch with clear
instructions for use?
Yes
No
Please return your completed
Loch Ken Angling Record to
mail@gallowayfisheriestrust.org
, a participating ticket outlet:
Loch Ken Holiday Park (Parton),
The Post Office & J R Hopkins
Newsagents (New Galloway) or
a match official
WIN A £50 ANGLING VOUCHER
Please remember to include
contact
details
with
your
completed form to be in with a
chance of winning a £50 angling
voucher! A winner will be selected
monthly between November 2016
& July 2017. Keep an eye on the
Galloway Fisheries Trust Website
and social media pages for more
information on this project.
73
ANNEX 2: LOCH KEN CREEL RECORD
Key:
Loch Ken Creel Record
Your details
Your fishing
trip
Name
Address
or
town/region
Tel. No.
residential
Date
Duration
Less than 1/2 day
Permit
Your fishing
insert text or cross (X)
box that applies
Email
Time at start of
fishing (00:00)
Half day
Full Day
Yes
If 'yes' - please detail permit
issuer
Bankside
Boat
or circle within map overleaf
Pike
Bream
Roach
Perch
Location
Grid ref
Target Species
No
Trout
Other
(cross all that apply)
Sample Catch
Fish No.
No. rods
Have you caught anything today?
If yes and returned - what was your catch?
Species
Estimate #/weight
If fish caught are present - ask to
process individual fish
Species
Method
Yes
Length(cm) Weight
(lbs/oz)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
74
Photo*
No
Comments
(distinguishing
features/scale sample
taken)
16
17
18
*If angler has additional fish photos to share, please provide an email address above
Mark point of sample on the map above with a circle or cross
75
Angler
profile
Angler sex
Age
<18
18-24
25-34
Are you a Dumfries and Galloway resident?
How far have you travelled to reach
Loch Ken (miles)?
Is your visit:
If overnight, give stay duration
Accomodation
type:
Invasive
NonNative
Species
(INNS)
Male
35-44
0 to 10
45-54
Female
55-64
65+
10 to 30
Yes
30 to 50
No
>50
Day
Overnight
1 night
Wild
camping
Self
Campsite cater
2 nights
>2
nights
B&B
Hotel
Is this your first fishing visit to loch ken?
Yes
No
If no, how often do you visit annually?
Are you aware of any INNS species in/around Loch Ken?
Yes
No
If 'Yes' - what?
Have you come across any invasive non-native species today?
Yes
No
If 'Yes', what?
Do you undertake any biosecurity measures?
Yes
No
If 'Yes':
How often do you carry out biosecurity measures?
Always
Sometimes
Only if moving between waterbodies/catchments
If 'No': Why don't you carry out biosecurity every time you fish?
- No-one else does it so why should I?
- I don't believe it makes any difference
Biosecurity
Angler
- I don't know what I'm supposed to do
- There were no facilities available for me to wash equipment
- I don't visit waters which have invasive species
- It's inconvenient/I don't have time
- Other (please specify)
Are you aware of the Check, Clean, Dry Campaign?
Yes
No
Provide Check, Clean, Dry Leaflet
How should we raise awareness of biosecurity at Loch Ken?
- provide basic information on permits
- run events for loch users to provide information
- distribute leaflets
- erect information panels
If there were disinfectant stations at Loch Ken - would you use them?
Yes
No
If 'Yes' - where would you suggest they be positioned to encourage useage?
- On banksides, within 100m of popular fishing locations
- At ticket outlets
- In villages, e.g. New Galloway or at entry points to loch e.g. marina
Are there any ways Loch Ken fishery and fishing experience could be improved?
76
Feedback No - leave water/fishery as it is
Yes - make a crayfish control plan
Yes - carry out predator control
Yes - construct a fishery management plan
Yes - run a hatchery programme (please specify for what in comments)
Yes - undertake bankside management
Yes - all 'Yes' suggestions above
Comments:
Have ASC affected your fishing experience today?
Are you using a particular method to avoid signal crayfish?
Yes
Yes
No
No
If 'Yes' - describe method?
On a scale of 1-5, how satisfied are you with your fishing experience at Loch Ken?
1-very unhappy
2-un-happy
3-neither happy or unhappy
4-happy
5-very happy
Please explain score with +ve/-ve aspects:
77
ANNEX 3: ANGLING MATCH STRATEGY
Galloway Fisheries Trust (GFT) have recognised that Loch Ken Coarse Fish Matches can
provide a brilliant resource for sampling the coarse fish community within Loch Ken.
With a number of anglers fishing the loch at one time (40+), adopting very similar fishing
methods, and for the same fishing duration - sampling fish on a match day will help GFT both
identify the fish species most readily available to anglers fishing from the bankside and generate
baseline data for future year’s comparison on species length, weight and age class structures.
Developing an approach to fish sampling
GFT attended a match in December 2016 where many fish were captured by anglers. A total
of 302 fish were length sampled (172 bream, 55 roach, 45 ruffe, 15 dace and 15 perch and a
wide range of fish lengths recorded (172-400 mm bream, 93-200 mm roach, 92–160 mm perch,
110–210 mm dace and 68–105 mm ruffe). At this event it was clear that it was not likely to be
possible to sample all fish from future matches given the time, staff and logistical constraints in
doing so. Therefore, an approach to sampling has been prepared to ensure that representative
samples of the range of fish captured are recorded to make best use of the staff resources
available and the opportunity to gather valuable data.
We have investigated how age could be extrapolated from recorded fish length data using the
Environment Agency document ‘Fish Ageing Survey Report (2014)’. Using scale samples, the
report confirmed that fish age structures in bream, roach and perch can be verified in relation to
age classes predicted by length data.
Using the average length to age conversion table provided within the report, lengths of bream,
roach and perch have been categorised into age classes by compartmentalising groups of
lengths within a recording sheet (Appendix 1). Predicted age classes are shown as alternate
shaded and clear bands in the length categories and these will be used to help guide scale
sampling within these bands to verify predicted age class structures of bream, roach and perch
caught at Loch Ken matches.
Weight information will also be collected from across the predicted age class bands to allow an
assessment of condition factor to be determined by species and age.
It is proposed that the following general approach to sampling will be undertaken:
• All fish of all species will have individual lengths recorded
• For all species other than ruffe i.e. bream, perch, roach and dace, weights will
be recorded and scale samples taken from every 10th fish not within the predicted
0+ age class
• A subset of these scale samples will be selected for reading and analysis with
other samples archived for later use
It is noted that volume of fish captured in the match may prevent all fish being measured for
length or limit the feasibility of collecting scales and weights from every 10th fish. In such
circumstances GFT will determine how best to proceed to maximise the data collected at any
match.
General methods
GFT will aim to sample between 200 and 300 fish during each Loch Ken match in cooperation
with the anglers and match organisers. GFT will be present at the close of the match and follow
the competition weigh-in and transfer anglers catches held in keep nets after weigh-in into GFT
keep nets. Fish held in GFT keep nets will be secured in the water on each section of the
competition until weigh-in has finished and processing can commence.
Fish will be processed from as wide a geographic range as the match competition is spaced
(normally West Bank within NGAA section and East Bank on Glenlaggan). GFT will split into
two teams to cover the East and West Bank.
78
Working in pairs, GFT will sample all (or most) fish for length data; weight and scale samples
(not for ruffe) will be collected from every 10th fish of each species across a range of sizes.
79
ANNEX 4: TABLE IDENTIFYING LOCATION BY SECTION NAME, PEG NUMBER AND
GRID REFERENCE WHERE FISH WERE SAMPLED DURING THREE LOCH KEN
MATCHES
Section
Name
West Bank
Twin Bridges
Robins
Birches
Boulders
Shaley Bank
East Bank
Deeps
Big Point
Little Point
Shallows
Peg # GR
Match
Northing Easting
1
Peg # GR
Match
Northing Easting
2
14
to 17
18
to 22
23
to 27
28
to 32
33
to 36
264587
264602
264731
264766
264944
264980
265142
265154
265186
265203
574224 N/A
574200
573993
1
573947
4
573602
5
573563
9
573254
10
573215
14
573142 N/A
573112
13
to 9
8
to 5
4
to 1
N/A
268011
268042
268071
268097
268144
268157
571309 N/A
571262
571137
14
571111
11
571001
10
570968
6
5
1
80
264738
264770
264940
264985
265135
265152
268078
268094
268148
268166
268200
268241
573987
573958
573607
573557
573258
573203
571132
571114
571002
570967
570942
570876
Peg # GR
Match
Northing Easting
3
B6
B10
B11
B15
C1
C5
C6
C10
C11
C15
264565
264600
264724
264765
264940
264978
265140
265158
265185
265200
574226
574200
573996
573951
573597
573564
573260
573208
573138
573110
B5
B1
A15
A11
A10
A6
A5
A1
268012
268040
268079
268094
268144
268160
268198
268228
571314
571272
571135
571112
571014
570962
570938
570886
ANNEX 5: MAP OF LOCATIONS WHERE ANGLER RECORDS WERE UNDERTAKEN ON LOCH KEN
81
ANNEX 6: MAP OF LOCATIONS WHERE CREEL SURVEYS WERE UNDERTAKEN ON LOCH KEN
82
ANNEX 7: MAP OF LOCATIONS WHERE SEINE NETTING SURVEYS WERE COMPLETED ON LOCH KEN
83
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Galloway Glens – Fish, Fisheries and Angler Survey in Loch Ken
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
GGLP_39
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
GCAT
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2019
Description
An account of the resource
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Commissioned Report undertaken by Galloway Fisheries Trust
environment
GGLP
-
https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/3/499/GGLP-LCAP-Appendix-9-Access.pdf
48e959e0b02c6fe763955406b5897153
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Access Audit for the Galloway Glens
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Reports
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
GCAT
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
CONTENTS
Ch.
1
Page Number
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3
2
Supply Audit ....................................................................................................... 4
2.1
2.2
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
Core Paths and Rights of Way used by walkers, cyclists and riders ................... 4
Promoted route ......................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Around Kirkcudbright ...................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Around Castle Douglas ................................................................................... 5
2.2.3 Loch Ken and surround area ........................................................................... 5
2.2.4 North of the Valley .......................................................................................... 6
Other significant paths not core or rights of way ................................................. 6
Long distance routes and cycle networks ............................................................. 6
2.4.1 The Southern Upland Way .............................................................................. 6
2.4.2 Sustrans’ National Cycle Network (NCN) Route ............................................. 7
Sites for water-based recreation and access to them............................................ 7
2.5.1 Galloway Activity Centre (GAC) ...................................................................... 7
2.5.2 Loch Ken Marina ............................................................................................ 8
2.5.3 Crossmichael Marina ...................................................................................... 8
2.5.4 Boat O’Rhone layby ........................................................................................ 8
Equestrian access ................................................................................................... 9
Current works / initiatives ...................................................................................... 9
Facilities and sites suitable for all abilities (disabled access) ............................. 9
Quiet roads / pavements ......................................................................................... 9
Carparks / stopping places ...................................................................................... 9
Quality of Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 10
Sensitive areas ....................................................................................................... 10
Conflict between users .......................................................................................... 11
3
Demand Audit ................................................................................................. 12
3.1
Current Demand .................................................................................................... 12
3.1.1 Walking ......................................................................................................... 12
3.1.2 Wild Swimming ............................................................................................. 12
3.1.3 Triathlons and Ultramarathon ........................................................................ 13
3.1.4 Equestrian Access ........................................................................................ 14
3.1.5 Water sports ................................................................................................. 14
3.1.6 Angling.......................................................................................................... 15
3.1.7 Cycling .......................................................................................................... 15
3.1.8 Missing Links ................................................................................................ 16
3.1.9 Viewpoints and stopping places .................................................................... 16
3.1.10 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 17
Potential Demand .................................................................................................. 17
3.2.1 Tourism Trends ............................................................................................ 17
3.2.2 Active sports and event ................................................................................. 17
3.2.3 All ability access ........................................................................................... 17
3.2.4 Cycle / Equestrian access ............................................................................. 18
3.2.5 Access to the shore at Loch Ken................................................................... 18
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.2
Title
1
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
3.2.6
3.2.7
Water sports access ..................................................................................... 18
Long distance routes..................................................................................... 18
4
Policy Audit ...................................................................................................... 19
4.1
4.2
Legislation .............................................................................................................. 19
Government policies ............................................................................................. 19
4.2.1 Physical Activity Implementation Plan ........................................................... 19
4.2.2 Let’s Get Scotland Walking ........................................................................... 19
4.2.3 Cycling Action Plan for Scotland ................................................................... 19
Local authority statutory plans ............................................................................. 20
4.3.1 Dumfries and Galloway: Active Travel Strategy ............................................ 20
4.3.2 Open Outdoors: The Dumfries & Galloway Outdoor Access Strategy ........... 21
4.3.3 The Dumfries & Galloway Core Path Plan..................................................... 21
4.3.4 Dumfries & Galloway Council Local Development Plan ................................ 21
4.3.5 Dumfries and Galloway Open Space Strategy .............................................. 22
4.3.6 Dumfries & Galloway Regional Tourism Strategy .......................................... 22
4.3
5
Resource Audit ........................................................................... 24
5.1
5.2
Existing Resources ................................................................................................ 24
Potential Resources .............................................................................................. 24
6
Proposed Projects areas ........................................................................... 25
6.1
6.3
6.4
Strategic / long distance routes ........................................................................... 25
6.1.1 Castle Douglas to Cairnsmore of Fleet via Loch Ken Viaduct ....................... 25
6.1.2 Source to Sea - Carsphairn to the Coast ....................................................... 25
6.1.3 Loch Ken – Boat O Rhone to Ken Bridge ..................................................... 25
6.1.4 Kirkcudbright to Doon Bay ............................................................................ 26
6.1.5 Circular walk around Loch Ken ..................................................................... 26
6.1.6 Canoe trail – Lock Ken and the River Dee .................................................... 26
Localised access ................................................................................................... 26
6.2.1 Access to Loch Ken’s shores ........................................................................ 26
6.2.2 Angling Sites around Loch Ken ..................................................................... 27
6.2.3 All ability access in the Galloway Glens ........................................................ 27
6.2.4 Increased Equestrian Access in the Galloway Glens .................................... 27
Layby and Stopping Points around Loch Ken .................................................... 27
Improving access to the core path network ........................................................ 28
7
Projects priorities ........................................................................................... 29
7.1
7.2
High priority projects ............................................................................................. 29
Reserve projects .................................................................................................... 30
6.2
Appendix
A
B
C
D
Core paths in the Galloway Glens area ................................................................. 31
Strategic Routes ..................................................................................................... 34
Improvements to Core Paths ................................................................................ 36
Improvement to views and stopping places ......................................................... 38
2
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
Access Audit for the Galloway Glens
1. Introduction
Focusing on the catchment of the Ken and Dee in the Stewartry area of Dumfries
and Galloway, the Heritage Lottery funded Galloway Glens Landscape
Partnership scheme aims to undertake a series of projects that will connect
people and communities with the unique natural and cultural heritage of the area.
Access to this heritage is key to the success of the scheme. Outdoor access is
now recognised as a key driver for delivering a range of outcomes for residents
and visitors including improved health and wellbeing, economic growth and
increase interest in and appreciation of the value of our rich local heritage.
Outdoor recreation and tourism is worth £302m to the region’s economy as it
supports 7,000 jobs and plays a vital role in the physical and mental health
wellbeing of its residents.1 This is particularly important to the Ken/Dee Valley
with its extensive opportunities for outdoor recreation in a stunning rural
environment. The potential for access is however under-utilised and under
promoted. This audit will critically assess the existing provision for outdoor
access in the area, the demand and potential for increasing this access and how
this demand might best be met through the Landscape Partnership Scheme and
beyond. Our aim is to work with local residents, partners, and businesses to
achieve significant increase in access for all users across the valley.
1
Dumfries & Galloway Regional Tourism Strategy 2016-2020, Dumfries & Galloway Council, (April
2016)
3
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
2. Supply Audit
2.1
Core Paths & Rights of Way used by walkers, cyclists & riders
Under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 all access authorities had a statutory
duty to produce a core path plan, ‘sufficient for the purpose of giving the public
reasonable access throughout their area’. This was adopted in Dumfries and
Galloway in 2013. The Council has invested significantly since then in upgrading and
signing these core path routes to ensure they are in a ‘reasonable condition’. This is
the priority for the Council’s access department. Often paths deemed in ‘reasonable
condition’ by the Council would benefit from further work to make them more
attractive to users especially those with additional needs or to ensure visitors have a
higher quality experience on their visit.
It is recognised that the methodology for the identification of the core paths focused
heavily on the paths identified by local communities. This has meant that sometimes
more strategic routes, minority user groups and often popular local routes were not
identified through this process. In addition stopping places, access to public transport
and additional facilities such a picnic areas and camping opportunities, were not
considered. The Galloway Glens projects gives the opportunity now to consider this
from a strategic level considering core paths, rights of way, other non-designated
routes. We can also consider the provision for different user groups and whether
there is opportunity to encourage certain activities through increased provision.
Diagram 1.0 shows the existing core paths and rights of way within the project area
2.2
Promoted routes
Dumfries & Galloway Council’s Environment team, in conjunction with the Wild
Seasons’ (WS) partnership/website www.wildseasons.co.uk , promotes and provides
information on specific targeted walks through downloads and leaflets. The routes
the Council promote include core paths and local community paths. A number of
these promoted routes are within Galloway Glens area.2 Please see Appendix A for
a list of the core paths within and nearby the Galloway Glens catchment area at
present.3 Added investment would link up and fill in any gaps which would make
routes more inclusive.
2.2.1 Around Kirkcudbright
There are a number of the promoted community paths surround the town of
Kirkcudbright such as Torrs Point, Balcary and Rascarrel Bay. Also, there is a linear
riverside walk around the River Dee with a woodland loop to Tongland. Barhill
2
For a full detailed list of core paths please see: http://www.dumgal.gov.uk/article/15304/Core-pathsin-Dumfries-and-Galloway, [accessed: 11/01/2017]
3
Appendix A.
4
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
Woods which abut the town on the eastern side is an important recreational site for
the residents and visitors to the town (popular with dog walks and children alike).
Barhill Woods is partially owned by the Council and the Forestry Enterprise Scotland
but will soon pass into community management (the Council and FES will maintain
ownership). St Marys Isle provides an attractive route with good views over the bay.
2.2.2 Around Castle Douglas
There are also promoted community
routes around Castle Douglas. The
Carlingwark Circular is a local
circular route around Carlingwark
Loch on the outskirts of the town.
There is also a circular woodland
walk around Doach Wood. The
Castle Douglas Town Trail is an
easy circular town route using
roadside pavements. The National
Trust for Scotland also promotes an
extensive path network around the wider Threave estate. The promoted routes to
and around Threave Estate are easily accessible from the town centre and there are
also parking facilities on site at Threave house and Kelton Mains. The Threave paths
take in woodlands, wetlands, a disused railway line and bird hides.
2.2.3 Loch Ken and surround area
Forestry Enterprise Scotland (FES)
maintains three forest routes near Loch
Ken including the route around Bennan
Viewpoint, the path to Parton Viewpoint
and the path at Kenick Burn, which also
has a designated viewpoint and picnic
facilities.
FES also promotes a number of short
trails from its visitor centres or carparks. In our area this includes Bruce’s Stone Trail
and Loch View Trail from Clatteringshaws Visitor centre and the Buzzard trail from
Loch Stroan car park. FES also promotes the Raider’s Road, a Forest Drive which
includes the popular picnic/parking spot – the Otter Pool by the Black Water of Dee
and which provides access to a number of core paths. These routes are all located in
the Galloway Forest Park within a short drive from Loch Ken.
The RSPB’s Galloway Kite Trail (GKT) is an anti-clockwise route around Loch Ken.
During the winter, the trail is twenty four miles around the loch. In the summer, an
additional fourteen miles of forest drive is added to the trail. The trail offers an
5
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
opportunity to walkers and cyclists to view red kites as
they follow the trail. Bike racks are provided at Boat O’
Rhone, New Galloway and Mossdale. The west side of
Loch Ken in particular is attractive for cyclists because
the roads are relatively quiet.
RSPB state that they promote the route as a stimulus in
promoting ‘nature-based tourism to benefit local
communities in the area’ and hope that ‘the trail helps to strengthen the ownership of
the kites by local communities and tourist operators’. The GKT has several
viewpoints with interpretation boards.
2.2.4 North of the Valley
Dundeugh Forest is situated north of Galloway Glens between the Water of Ken,
Kendoon Loch and Glenhoul Glen – near Dalry and Carsphairn. There is a walking
circuit that compromises of mostly forestry terrain. There are limited parking spaces
at the start of the track.
2.3
Other significant paths not core or rights of way
Core path 190 leads from Forest estate to the summit of Corserine. However the
popular walk along the ridge of the Rhinns of Kells to the summit of Meikle Millyea
and back to forest estate is not designated as a core path.
Garrock estate near New Galloway has an extensive network of paths and an
access friendly owner, however these paths have become difficult to use due to lack
of maintenance.
The extensive areas of forestry plantation in the area result in many miles of forest
road often highly suitable for a variety of forms of access.
2.4
Long distance routes and cycle networks
2.4.1 The Southern Upland Way
The Southern Upland Way was one the first four of Scotland's Great Trails (formerly
known as long distance routes) to be established. The Way is one of four of
Scotland’s Great Trails within Dumfries and Galloway. It is the first coast to coast
long distance route in Scotland, spanning the length of country from the Atlantic
Ocean to the North Sea. The Way stretches 341 kilometres in total and is typically
broken up into twelve stages. Two sections of the Way pass through the Galloway
Glens area. The first being the Bargrennan to Dalry section which goes through
Galloway Forest Park, Clatteringshaws Loch and then back up the hills before
reaching St John’s Town of Dalry. The second, the St John’s of Dalry to Sanquhar
stretch takes the walker further north.
6
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
Way users have given the
Environment team a steady flow
of feedback over the past couple
of years through correspondence
with our Rangers and Countryside
Officers. Some of the negative
feedback has been concerning
way-marking, poor signage and
ground conditions. Access
improvements would bring the
Way up to par with expected standards associated with long distance routes
nationally. The same users also commented on positive aspects of the route such as
encountering friendly locals and the views offered of the scenery along the way. This
feedback could be used to enhance the experience of Way users who encounter this
section which has such close proximity with Loch Ken and the River Dee by
exploiting the area’s beautiful scenery and hub of human interaction.
We recently reached out to providers who have accommodation along the Way’s
route. From the feedback given, it was found that the amount of people who are
walking the Southern Upland Way and staying in their accommodation has been
declining for some years. Some of the comments on how usage of the Way could be
better promoted included improving the information available to people before they
arrive in the area.
2.4.2 Sustrans’ National Cycle Network (NCN) Route 7
Sustrans’ National Cycle Network (NCN) is a series of routes on safe, traffic-free
paths. The NCN is not intended solely for cyclist use but also walkers, joggers,
wheelchair users and horse riders. The routes on the NCN are laid out so that they
connect towns with major cities. Route 7 of the NCN is 601 miles long and links
Sunderland to Inverness. It passes through Castle Douglas, by the bottom of the
River Dee, Kirkcudbright and Galloway National Forest Park. The route contains a
Sustrans’ Greener Greenway which helps protect
undeveloped land for environmental conservation
and recreational use.
Many cyclists have documented their thoughts on
Route 7 through blogs and forums. Their comments
reflect the benefits that the Dumfries and Galloway
countryside can offer. One user noted that on his
cycle there was ‘great countryside… the main roads
are quiet even at the best of times’ and ‘few people’
are spotted. Other documented experiences mention
7
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
the enjoying the coastal scenery and the cycle stretch that passes by
Clatteringshaws Loch.
2.5
Sites for water-based recreation and access to them
Loch Ken is a 9 mile long originally natural loch
extended in the 1930s by the Galloway Hydro scheme
into a reservoir of freshwater. Water flows to the loch
from the north by the Water of Ken and from the west
from the River Dee. It is an idyllic and suitable location
for water based recreation due to its calm flat waters. It
is used for a number of activities including sailing,
water-skiing, power-boating, canoeing, fishing and
swimming. Water-based recreation use is varied on the
loch, ranging from those that come to the loch with their
own resources, to those that rent equipment from or pay a mooring or launching fee
to local businesses on the loch.
2.5.1 Galloway Activity Centre (GAC)
Situated on the eastern side of Loch Ken
Galloway Activity Centre offers equipment
hire and tuition for a range of water-based
sports including kayaking, canoeing, sailing
and windsurfing. The centre offers sessions
by qualified sports instructors, planned
group activities, equipment hire, café
facilities and on-site accommodation. The
centre also offers launching and mooring facilities.
2.5.2 Loch Ken Marina
The centre for power boats on the loch the Loch
Ken Marina includes a Water Ski School and
slarlem course. Water ski lessons are available
along with boat launching and mooring facilities
2.5.3 Crossmichael Marina
Towards the southern end of the loch, Crossmichael Marina
caters for fishing boats and recreational power boats, with
launching and hire facilities; this is also the centre for regular
organised wild swimming.
8
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
2.5.4 Boat O’Rhone layby
Offering the only formal public launch facility around Loch Ken, Boat O’Rhone layby
and has car and trailer parking and a slipway which is kept locked. Access to the slip
way is through purchase of a key on a short term or seasonal basis. The layby and
slip way are run by Dumfries and Galloway Council who operate a power boat
registration scheme for the loch. The Council employs a part time seasonal ranger to
administer and police the boat registration scheme and loch regulations.
There are many opportunities for informal launching of non-powered craft along loch
ken and the nearby river systems however there relatively few formalised locations.
2.6
Equestrian access
Equestrian access within the area is largely confined to
the forest roads and tracks. These provide an
extensive network of routes although often key
linkages are missing. There is currently no specific
targeted route for horse riders or carriage drivers in the
area and little information on suitable routes and
access points.
2.7
Current works / initiatives
The council is currently nearing completion of its upgrade works to core paths across
the region. This investment in the network (worth £2.5 million over 5 years) should
see every core path signed and barrier free by 2018. This work does not however
always address the wider issues on paths such as ground conditions, availability of
parking etc or add value to a path with interpretation, resting places and viewpoints.
2.8
Facilities and sites suitable for all abilities (disabled access)
There are a limited number of access route within the area which are suitable for all
abilities. These include the Bruce’s stone path by Clatteringshaws Visitor centre and
the RSPB reserve at Ken Dee marshes, the reserve also offers accessible hides.
There are very short sections of path at the Otterpool and some forest roads are
suitable.
2.9
Quiet roads / pavements
With the exception of the A75 and the A713 the roads in the area can be considered
relatively quiet. Such roads can provide important cycling routes as well as short
connecting sections for longer walking routes. Pavements in the area are restricted
to the larger towns and villages with the exception of the partially complete section
from Castle Douglas to Crossmichael along the eastern side of the A713. However
narrow width, blind bends and often large agricultural vehicles, along with excessive
9
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
speed of the few vehicles on the road, can still be a barrier to some users of the road
network.
2.10 Carparks / stopping places
All core paths and most other route will start at a public road. However the core path
planning process and subsequent upgrade work has not addressed how users reach
the path itself. Many paths start away from settlements, public transport is infrequent.
Most users therefore use their cars to reach the start of a path and in many cases
there is no or insufficient parking at path starts.
Viewpoints, picnic areas and start points for recreational activities are also an
important feature of the Galloway Glens area. Past road improvements have left a
number of isolated sections of road around Loch Ken some of which are used for
informal or more formal laybys. Elsewhere stopping place are less frequent, in
general most stopping places are in a relatively poor condition. Suitable picnic areas
throughout the Glens area are infrequent, particularly around Loch Ken. Laybys and
stopping areas with some formal facilities are identified in Appendix D.
2.11 Quality of infrastructure
Infrastructure around the area is a mixture of longer existing facilities/furniture with
some more recent additions. Some long standing infrastructure is in need of
maintenance, repair or replacement. Some of the better quality elements are
standing up well and just require inevitable maintenance. Other more recent lower
quality infrastructure performs the function it was designed for but does little to
enhance the quality of the area.
2.12 Sensitive areas
There are several designated natural, cultural and built heritage sites around Loch
Ken:
- Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI): Kenmure Holms and River Dee.
- Special Protected Area (SPA): Loch Ken and River Dee Marshes
- Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM): spanning Neolithic to medieval periods
- RAMSAR sites
- Sites of Archaeological interest
10
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
2.13 Conflict between users
Where multiple activities take place in the same location or use the same facilities
some conflict between users can be expected. This is particularly the case when
facilities are inadequate and under pressure. The relative opportunities for outdoor
recreation and limited current users should mean that there is space for all however
in some key locations conflict does arise.
This is particularly the case around and on Loch Ken. The boat registration scheme
and zoning of the loch with its associated regulations generally keeps conflict
between motorised and non-motorised craft to a minimum. The most significant
conflict on the Loch Ken waters is between anglers and canoeists. Limited access to
the shore for fishing pitches and for launching canoes mean the two groups are often
trying to utilise the same frontage with inevitable conflicts occurring.
There can also be conflicts between powerboats
and other users when competing for space on
Loch Ken. Canoeists tend to avoid the high speed
zone unless traveling through it. There can be
potential conflict and dangers with wild swimmers
especially if swimmers don’t make themselves
visible.
The above generally highlight the competition for
space and potential dangers that arise when different types of users use Loch Ken at
the same time, however the current space and user numbers should allow for safe
use by all especially if key pinch points are recognised and addressed.
There can be conflict on paths in the Galloway Glens. Pedestrians, cyclists and
horse-riders all potentially clash when they are using the paths at the same time
without due respect for other users.
When dealing with conflict between users the Scottish Outdoor Access Code is the
leading guidance for responsible access. One of sections three’s main points
focuses on enjoying the outdoors responsibly by taking account of your own actions
and the safety of others. As part of this, it states you share the outdoors with others
so you should ‘not interfere unreasonably with the rights of other people’ while taking
‘proper account of the interests of others’.4 If it is deemed that you have not adhered
to the Code you could be asked to leave the land/water you are using. This could be
taken further as a criminal offense.
4
Ibid.
11
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
3. Demand Audit
A number of organisations and individual have been consulted to try to get a picture
of the current and potential demand for access in the Galloway Glens Area. At a
recent meeting of the Outdoor Access Forum (OAF) of Dumfries and Galloway
specifically organised to gain members perspective on the potential for increasing
access through the Galloway Glens projects a range of insights were given to the
current and potential demand from different user groups. In addition businesses and
special interest groups have given their views and an online survey Monkey survey
sort the views of members of the public.
3.1
Current Demand
3.1.1 Walking
The most popular outdoor recreational activity undertaken by people in the UK’s is
walking. Millions of people across Britain – visitors and residents enjoy walking
outdoors for enjoyment every day. Data of this nature was captured by the Ramblers
organisation a few years ago in one of their publications. They note that journeys on
foot are decreasing but walking for leisure is
increasing.5 This can be attributed to increases in car
ownership and improvements in the public transport
infrastructure. Yet, walking still tends to be the
preferred method of transport for short distances. This
trend shows that walking has instead become an
activity of choice for people in their free time and is
used for enjoyment and as a way to get fit. The
Scottish Recreation Survey indicates walking is easily the most popular outdoor
pastime enjoyed by Scottish adults and is the main activity of 75% of visits to the
outdoors. In Dumfries and Galloway 88% of those answering the 2010 D&G Outdoor
Access Strategy public surveys named walking as their most frequent physical
activity.
Walks of different lengths, types of scenery and challenge will always be popular
with a wide range of locals and visitors. Existing routes are already popular and the
demand for upgrading of quality and new routes is constant.
3.1.2 Wild Swimming
A recent national trend which is evident on Lock Ken and surrounding Lochs is for
wild swimming, with the Telegraph stating in 2015 that ‘in less than a decade, the
5
The Ramblers, Participation in Walking, (2010)
12
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
number of outdoor swimmers (i.e. those who regularly dive into lidos, lakes, rivers
and the sea) has exploded from a handful to tens of thousands’.6 This was just one
article amongst many that has been written in the interim period between 2015 to
late 2016 commenting on the increasingly popular national trend of wild swimming
throughout the UK. The sport is attributed countless times in these articles for its
health benefits both physical and mental. The Outdoor Swimming Society’s website
www.wildswim.com is a useful resource for swimmers all round the world. Their
mapping tool, which pinpoints wild swim locations, has three recommended places
within the Galloway Glens area. They identified Loch Ken, Loch Whinyeon and
Crossmichael Marina as ideal wild swim locations. There is increasing demand for
organised events, races and endurance events as well as information on where wild
swimmers can enjoy more solitary experiences.
3.1.3 Triathlons and Ultramarathon
A local group organises events in and around the Galloway Glens area. These
included more extreme sporting activities like wild swimming at Crossmichael,
triathlons which involves running, biking and swimming around the loch. There is
potential to see it grow to attract more participants and spectators in the future, if the
right infrastructure and marketing was put in place.
Ultramarathons tend to have a smaller number of participants opposed to
marathons. This is so that there is a more community feel and also because they
take place in more natural environments. This culminates in an altogether uniquely
different experience for the runners. Evidence suggests runners are changing the
demand for the type of marathons in the UK.7
There have been a number of enquiries to the Council from organisers who have
identified the region as a destination for one of their upcoming ultramarathons. One
such will be 214 miles following the Southern Upland Way route which starts at
Portpatrick. This route’s landscape has made it attractive for the ultra-marathons
organisers who cater for participants who want a challenging rough terrain with a
great way-marked landscape. The organisers have honed in on the heritage of the
location by placing emphasis on it being an important location of ‘The Killing Times’
– Scotland and England’s turbulent political period of unrest in the 1600s. The
ultramarathon is planned for August 18, 2018 and organisers have the capacity for
up to 200 participants.8 Village halls and town venues along the route are planned to
provide assistance (food and medical) to all participants along the way.
6
Etherington, J., The Telegraph, Why Open Water Swimming is the Trend of 2015, (Jan 5, 2015)
O’Hagan, S., The Independent, London Marathon seems almost tame in these days of ultrarunning…, (April 22, 2016
8
Ahotu Marathons, https://marathons.ahotu.com/event/ultra-great-britain-2018, [accessed:
12/01/2017]
7
13
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
3.1.4 Equestrian Access
The estimated GB horse population, including both private and professional
ownership, is just below one million horses (988,000). Of riders who ride once a
week or less, 46 percent cited access safe off-road riding as a factor that would
increase their riding opportunities. There is a tradition of horse ownership and
traditional equine based festivals such as the Riding of the Marches in the area yet
no specific provision for riders or carriage drivers.
In addition an estimated 3 million people have taken a riding holiday in the past 12
months. Older riders, of 55 and over, are more likely to do this and this is an
increasing trend. Often simple measures such as addressing locked gates and
providing sufficient space for parking a horse box or trailer can open up miles of new
trails for this group. The tracks within the forest estate can be ideal opportunities but
varied experiences are also necessary. If this resource is provided in the area more
local people will be encouraged out into the natural environment and more local
businesses could take visitors out of offer ‘bring your horse on holiday’ offers.
Information about parking and where to go is also crucial.
3.1.5 Water sports
Loch ken and associated rivers systems are ideal for watersports of all kinds. In
recent years there has been a move away from power boats to lower cost paddle
sports. While registrations of power boats have declined sharply there have been a
noticeable increase in use of the loch and rivers by canoeist.
This increase has highlighted the need for increase launch points and information
available to visitors either before they arrive or on the day.
This increase in demand has highlighted that lack of facilities can cause conflict with
other users (i.e. fishermen on the banks where canoeist want to launch) and safety
concerns at obstacles such as the Glen Lochar Barrage where there is currently no
formal portage route and safe access and egress points.
With good facilities the opportunity to promote a route down loch ken and the lower
Dee would be a valuable addition to the
attraction of the area.
There is an existing demand to improve
disabled access in the Galloway Glens area
especially around communities and at key
visitor ‘hot spots’. Making access more
inclusive would benefit a wide section of the
communities including families with young
children, older residents and visitors with an existing impairment.
14
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
3.1.6 Angling
Loch Ken caters for a variety of types of angling from specimen perch and pike to
match fishing with bag weights of up to 70lb in 3-4 hours with high levels of prize
money. Recreation anglers fish from both the banks and boats both in summer and
winter catching a wide range of species.
Loch Ken has long been famous for its course
fishery however in recent years negative
publicity the presence of American signal
crayfish is the loch has led to a drop in
numbers visiting. It is clear from resent
research that the fish population is however
still very healthy and represents an attractive course fishery. Match angling is still
popular with matches being regularly oversubscribed and healthy bag weights
achieved. In addition there has been a rise in the size and weight of ‘specimen’ fish
of some species caught in the loch.
With positive publicity and the increase in facilities for anglers in the loch numbers
fishing could rise significantly. Issues which need to be addressed are;
Negative publicity around crayfish and fish stocks in the loch
Restrictive number of fishing pegs for matches
Facilities to improve easy access to the loch shore i.e. parking, paths
Reduction in conflict with other users i.e. canoeist by ensuring sufficient
facilities for all and education of both sides about respecting others
rights.
Ease of obtaining fishing permits and information on the law in
Scotland
Information about the above readily available both before a visit and
while on site.
3.1.7 Cycling
After walking cycling in all its forms is the most popular form of physical activity
enjoyed in the outdoors. The 7 Stanes mountain bike
network alone has generated £9 million and attracts
400,000 visitors a year making it one of the top 20
visitor attractions in Scotland (2007). None of the 7
stanes are located in the area however Kirroughtree
and Dalbeattie are sufficiently close to cater for visitors
to the area. There are many more opportunities for mountain biking on the forest
roads and tracks within the area. The relatively quiet roads are also attractive to road
cyclists with facilities such as bike shops available locally. One area which is lacking
is easy, family friendly off road cycling. Some of our forest track may be suitable but
a dedicated low gradient surfaced path aimed at easy cycling for families would
15
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
complement the more challenging cycling available in the region. There are currently
no easy off road cycleways outside the region’s main towns and cities.
As with many other users access to information both before and after arrival is a key
requirement.
3.1.8 Missing Links
A number of ‘missing links’ have been highlighted in consultations, some of these
may be achievable relatively easily other may talk considerable amount of time,
negotiation and finance to achieve:
A connection between Castle Douglas to Kirkcudbright by making a walking
route, connecting the two towns
An off road cycle route from Castle Douglas to Crossmichael
An off road cycle route from Kirkcudbright to the Doon (Nun Mill Bay)
A circular walk around Loch Ken (27 miles)
Mossdale Village to Galloway Forest/Cairnsmore of Fleet Nature Reserve on
the old railway line.
Route from Loch Ken Holiday Park to Crossmichael pub.
All ability access from Castle Douglas to Kelton Mains
A walking route down the valley ‘from source to sea’
A route from New Galloway to the Raiders road
3.1.9 Viewpoints and stopping places
The Galloway Glens area is rich in many spectacular and attractive views. Many of
them are at their best from off road walks and tracks but there are also a significant
number readily enjoyed from beside the public road. These viewpoints and stopping
places are available to all regardless of their ability.
However many of the existing stopping places and viewpoints are in need to
improvement. Many have developed organically over time and are little more than
dirt laybys, other used to have views which have been obscured over the years by
unchecked tree growth. This has led to a feeling amongst many that Loch Ken in
particular appears ‘private’. Other laybys are suffering from their popularity and lack
of maintenance.
Around the shores of Lock Ken in particular there are various opportunities to pull off
the road, admire the view and maybe go down to the shore. Here facilities vary but
common problems occur;
Views obscured by sapling trees and undergrowth
Lack of suitable surface
Lack of facilities i.e. seats or picnic benches
Lack of signage, interpretation or general information.
16
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
Lack of easy access to the Loch shore
Lack of shore side walking routes.
In other areas clear interesting views exist, often with features of interest (i.e. parts of
the Hydro Scheme, but there is no opportunity to safely stop and admire the view or
learn more about the landscape and the heritage elements within it.
3.1.10 Conclusion
This mesh of national trends can be seen on a more local level with the changing
demand for more extreme sporting activities and events amongst various ages along
with increasing access for leisure and health and wellbeing. As these trends spread
and become more inclusive to those of all ages and backgrounds the use of the
countryside also changes. Scotland’s progressive access rights make it a perfectly
suited destination for individuals and larger event organiser alike. However the
facilities to attract and provide a rewarding experience need to be in place to
safeguard reputation and ensure repeat visits.
3.2
Potential Demand
3.2.1 Tourism Trends
Tourism trends. Visit Scotland’s 2017 Tourism trends report highlights the increasing
importance to visitor of authentic experiences, health and wellbeing, quiet areas,
dark skies and fluid itineraries.
We need to therefore consider how we help our visitor experience our landscape and
wildlife in a way that meetings these needs.
3.2.2 Active sports and event
Active /adventure holidays are increasing in popularity and the Galloway Glens is an
ideal place to promote this type of holiday. Events on Loch ken are already proving
popular and could easily grow with investment in facilities and promotion. Linking in
with other attraction and facilities nearby in the region will also add to the offer.
3.2.3 All ability access
By making the Galloway Glens region accessible to all, we can make it a destination
attractive for those with a disability or a young family. Cornering this market would
benefit many who live and travel here, but have difficulty accessing rugged
countryside.
Dumfries and Galloway has an increasingly aging population. By increasing the
accessibility of our natural environment we encourage active participation amongst
the local population. Being active for longer helps stave off mental and physical
decline and helps combat social isolation. Dementia friendly walks a new concept,
17
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
beneficial for those living with dementia and their carers. Nature based activities and
time spent outdoors can potentially offer a reprieve for both parties.
3.2.4 Cycle / Equestrian access
Both cycling and horse riding are under provided for in the area and to some extent
within the region. Both have potential to connect to special interest holidays as well
as providing facilities for local users. The benefits include that facilities created for
both these groups are mutually compactable and benefit all users.
Greater off road riding opportunities are needed for both groups as roads become
increasing busy and dangerous.
3.2.5 Access to the shore at Loch Ken
Access to and walking beside water is always popular with a wide range of users.
There are currently limited opportunities to access the shore of Loch Ken any
increase will be a draw for both locals and visitors.
3.2.6 Water sports access
In 2016, canoeing remained the most popular boating activity with 1.5 million UK
participants. Similar activities including small sailboat activities, yacht cruising and
small sailboat racing also saw an increase in participation in 2016 (500,000, 362,000
and 166,000 participants respectively). Across water sports activities, the biggest
growth in the percentage of UK adults taking part in a boating or water sports activity
was in the ever-growing trends of kitesurfing, stand up paddle boarding,
bodyboarding and surfing (+0.4% points across these activities or an increase of
275,000 participants). Stand up paddle boarding enjoyed the greatest increase within
this segment (with growth of +0.3% points or 176,000 participants).
For our area sailing, paddle boarding and canoeing are the water sports most
applicable. There have been reported increases in canoe use of Loch Ken, including
Kayak fishing. As an accessible, family friendly sport which can also be taken to
higher levels the potential exists to create better facilities and to promote increased
use of the River Dee and Loch Ken. Better information and access and egress points
are the main areas of improvement needed along with widespread promotion.
3.2.7 Long distance routes
Long distance route are increasingly popular as more people look to recreational
walking for holiday ideas. The number of new long distance trails being developed in
Scotland is testament to this. These route appeal as they give purpose and
challenge to a walking holiday.
Two very long distance routes already pass through the area. However there is the
opportunity to make a medium distance route achievable in a long weekend which
would take in the variety of landscapes of the Galloway Glens.
18
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
4. Policy Audit
4.1
Legislation
The Access Audit is undertaken within the context of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act
2003, The Scottish Outdoor Access Code and the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967.
Dumfries & Galloway Council have a legal duty to protect and assert access rights.
4.2
Government policies
4.2.1 Physical Activity Implementation Plan
The Physical Activity Implementation Plan: A More Active Scotland - Building a
Legacy from the Commonwealth Games 2014 makes the case for action in tackling
physical inactivity in Scotland. This national programme is a ten year plan that has
adapted key elements used in Canada’s Toronto Charter for Physical Activity. The
charter was focused on creating opportunities for physical active lifestyles for all.
This includes local authority cross-departmental cooperation in providing sustainable
ways for people to enjoy the outdoors and carry on being physically active. This
national policy is the Scottish Government’s attempt at proving a positive legacy for
the Commonwealth Games for years to come.
4.2.2 Let’s Get Scotland Walking
Scotland’s Let’s Get Scotland Walking: National Walking Strategy (2014) is a key
element in delivering the Physical Activity Implementation Plan. It outlines the
Scottish Government’s vision of a Scotland where everyone benefits from walking.
Scotland has outstanding opportunities for walking both in urban and rural areas.
This is down to spectacular scenery, landscapes, walkable urban centres,
community routes, long distance routes and the country’s world-class access rights.
Walking is highly cost-effective when looking at how to improve policy concerning
recreation, local community routes, tackling elderly loneliness, connecting
communities, improving the workforce’s attitudes and healthier lifestyles. The health
risks of inactivity are staggering ‘7 Scots die every day due to inactivity, often long
before they have to’. This demonstrates that prevention really is better than cure.
4.2.3 Cycling Action Plan for Scotland
The vision set by the national Scottish Government in the Cycling Action Plan for
Scotland 2013 (CAPS) was for 10% of everyday journeys taken in Scotland to be
done by bike by 2020. To reach this ambitious goal set out in CAPS, local
governments need to deliver infrastructure improvements and change behaviours
amongst communities. To encourage cycling access must be made suitable. By
allow better access for cycling the Council will support the sustainable economic
growth that Scotland pursues as a nation.
19
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
A Long Term Vision for Active Travel in Scotland 2030 recognises that walking and
cycling are the most popular choices for shorter everyday journeys for people. By
improving access this allows individuals to feel more confident to travel by foot or
cycle. A combination of increased investment in pedestrian and cycle infrastructure
along with a shift in outlook has culminated in a generational change to travel habits.
Walking and cycling as mainstream travel options support equality in opportunity and
improvements to the environment.
4.3
Local authority statutory plans
4.3.1 Dumfries and Galloway: Active Travel Strategy
Dumfries and Galloway: Active Travel Strategy (2015-2017) was developed with the
aim of increasing walking and cycling throughout Dumfries and Galloway. The region
is largely rural, with long distances between towns, so it is not always easy to
incorporate active travel strategies. The local authority invested in the existing core
path system so that the network of paths can be expanded upon to make enjoying
the outdoors more accessible and to connect communities. Improving access in the
Galloway Glens area would do exactly that – improve the existing surrounding
network, make the outdoors more accessible and link communities. The Strategy
identified that existing networks should provide ‘more direct, user friendly,
accessible, signed, safe and sustainable links for residents and visitors’.
The Strategy’s main focus was to promote and increase ‘the opportunities for easy,
safe and accessible day to day functional walking and cycling, particularly for short
journeys (walking – under 2 miles; cycling – under 5 miles)’ for both residents and
visitors. Short walks were focused on because when compiling the Strategy,
VisitScotland’s survey found that 1 in 3 visitors to Dumfries and Galloway cited short
walks as their most popular activity during their stay in the region.
Furthermore, the Strategy details the economic goals it hopes sustainable transport
will bring to the region. It sets out the benefits brought to communities that offer good
and accessible walking and cycling links. One benefit was increased leisure and
tourist activity. This type of focus allows more social inclusion as it was found that
more than 1 in 5 household in Dumfries and Galloway has no access to a car (SHS
2012/2013). Therefore linking up towns and areas of woods and lochs with path
infrastructure allows for more mobility.
The Strategy also had an emphasis on assisting in enhancing health and wellbeing
to keep people active throughout life. In support of this, the Strategy noted that active
travel is one of the most sustainable ways people can build physical activity into their
daily lives and that walking and cycling are practical way in which people can reach
the 150 minutes of physical activity a week recommended by doctors.
20
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
The Strategy gives further thought to the environmental benefits that sustainable
transport and improved access can bring by reducing traffic, pollution and reaching
CO2 reduction targets set by the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Therefore,
improving access in the Galloway Glens area can help improve and increase walking
and cycling routes and in turn help reach the tourism, economic, socially inclusive,
health and environmental benefits set out in the Dumfries and Galloway: Active
Travel Strategy.
4.3.2 Open Outdoors: The Dumfries & Galloway Outdoor Access Strategy
Open Outdoors: The Dumfries & Galloway Outdoor Access Strategy 2012-2017 has
five overarching objectives. They are:
1. To promote Scottish Outdoor Access Code to all residents;
2. for residents to lead more active lifestyles with increased opportunities for
outdoor recreation and sustainable travel;
3. to increase tourist numbers and spend and increase the economic
benefits of access;
4. to ensure Countryside facilities are maintained and communities develop a
sense of responsibility for local paths, and;
5. to assert and protect access rights an ensure land and water is managed
responsibly for access.
Building on and improving the access around the Loch Ken area will contribute to all
five of the Strategy’s objectives.
4.3.3 The Dumfries & Galloway Core Path Plan
The Dumfries & Galloway Core Path Plan 2013 was a direct requirement of the
Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The Act establishes a right of responsible access
to most land and inland water in Scotland. People have the right to use land for
recreational purposes as long as they are behaving responsibly. This right extends
to walks, cyclists, canoeists and horse riders. The overall network of core paths has
to provide for all abilities and all types of users. Further access in the Galloway
Glens area would build on and compliment the current core path infrastructure.
4.3.4 Dumfries & Galloway Council Local Development Plan
Dumfries & Galloway Council Local Development Plan 2014 (LDP) sets out how and
where land and property will be used in Dumfries and Galloway. Within this falls the
protection of conservation areas and national and international importance of
biodiversity and geodiversity. The issues mentioned all concern the area of Loch Ken
and the River Dee due to its’ wetland RAMSAR sites, the protected marshes and
local nature reserves. Investment in the area would yield benefits for these specially
protected sites.
21
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
4.3.5 Dumfries and Galloway Open Space Strategy
The Dumfries and Galloway Open Space Strategy 2014 acknowledges the important
part of open spaces on local communities. This can be seen with enhanced public
health and the type of recreational opportunities provided. Open spaces not only
bring health benefits to locals but they also play a part in attracting visitors. This can
be seen in an excerpt from the Strategy: ‘Tourism is the single most important rural
industry in the region and is the only sector that is growing annually, although the
tourism economy of the region is considered to be fragile and underdeveloped. Good
quality open spaces, incorporating recreational opportunities, have an important role
to play in enhancing tourism.’ Loch Ken currently serves as an open space but
access to its shores is limited. Opening up the shores more would complement the
Strategy.
The Strategy also touches upon the relationship open spaces have with The Flood
Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. The Act required all those involved in flood
management to make better use of natural flood management options. By upholding
flood management measures this ensures that current access routes are kept
undamaged.
4.3.6 Dumfries & Galloway Regional Tourism Strategy
The Dumfries & Galloway Regional Tourism Strategy 2016-2020 places an
emphasis on the importance of nature-based tourism and access to natural
resources. The Strategy agrees that the region’s most valuable tourism asset is the
natural environment. Therefore increasing access would increase the Strategy’s
effectiveness. It attributes the region’s marine, coastal and inland based tourism
assets with providing visitors with an authentic experience. It says that these assist
in supporting a broad range of nature, environment and activity providers. For
example, this can be seen looking at the businesses specifically surround Loch Ken
that provide fishing licenses, water sport equipment and caravans for overnight
stays. The Strategy also embraces how having natural lochs, coastline, woodland
and forestry can be a lure to those visiting due to suitable places for outdoor
activities such as walking, cycling and mountain-biking. All in all, the Galloway Glens’
natural environment and landscape is a real asset in this Strategy that is working to
assess and improve the strategic economic benefits of tourism.
The Strategy has aligned its objectives with Visit Scotland. By 2020, they have set
out to:
-
Increase the value of tourism from £300m to £330m by 2020;
increase the volume, length of stay and extend the season - growing visits from
2.43m to 2.6m;
increase direct and indirect jobs created by tourism to increase from 6,969 to
7,300, and;
22
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
-
to build Dumfries & Galloway’s reputation as a place to return to and be
recommended by satisfied visitors.
All the objectives are based on investment, innovation, internationalisation and
inclusive growth. From this, has come a focus on quality, sustainability and inclusive
tourism. By investing in access in the Galloway Glens area, all four objectives would
be touched upon.
23
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
5. Resource Audit
5.1
Existing Resources
5.2
DG Council – Core path capital budget this budget is nearing the end
as the Environment team are hopeful that all core paths will be signed
and barrier free by 2018. However subject to financial pressures and
other demands this may free up capital budget to look at enhancing
routes. If new routes are to be created and the Council approached to
adopt them for long term maintenance then they will need to be
designated as core paths
FES – budget remain very limited and are directs to core route in areas
of high demand. In recent years due to financial pressures FES has
reduced the number of path it promotes on its land.
Potential Resources
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership
Dumfries and Galloway Council – competing with other access
improvement projects across the region after 2018
SRDP Improving Public Access Fund – this very useful fund will pay
set rates for a limited number of operations. The fund will be open for
application in May 2018 although its future after that is uncertain and
depends on how long the allocated funding lasts.
Other Lottery Funds
Paths for all – Community grants
Wind farm Community Benefits Fund
other funders
24
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
6. Proposed Projects areas
6.1
Strategic / long distance routes
6.1.1 Castle Douglas to Cairnsmore of Fleet via Loch Ken Viaduct
As it stands, Loch Ken Viaduct is currently under private ownership. The reopening
of the viaduct would allow for an important access point to be opened to the public.
There is currently no existing route to cross the loch’s middle section. The viaduct
could offer a connected route from Loch Ken to walk Galloway Forest Park and
Cainsmore of Fleet National Nature Reserve – connecting east and west. Many
tourist businesses on the east side of the loch have expressed an interest in the
viaduct opening to the public.
The project would aim to renew physical and cultural links between communities on
the East and West banks of Loch Ken by opening foot and bicycle access across the
middle of the Loch using the former railway viaduct. This will renew an historic
physical link between Parton and Mossdale and facilitate extended pedestrian and
bicycle access between Castle Douglas and the Galloway forest Park, using sections
of the former railway where practical, via Crossmichael, Parton, Mossdale and Loch
Stroan.
6.1.2 Source to Sea - Carsphairn to the Coast
A route has already been identified from Carsphain to New Galloway. There exists a
small missing link from New Galloway to core path 177 if the route is to travel down
the western side of the Loch. If it goes down the eastern side a new route will need
to be agreed from Ken Bridge to Boat o Rhone.
On the western side core path 177 leads to 141,205 &485 to Mossdale then over the
Loch Ken Viaduct to Boat O Rhone. The route will ideally follow the old railway line
through Parton down to Crossmichael. From Crossmichael to Castle Douglas the
route follows the road on a largely complete tarmac path.
Past Castle Douglas a route to Kirkcudbright is yet to be identified, but once in
Kirkcudbright the route could end at the harbour or continue on existing core paths to
the mouth of the bay.
6.1.3 Loch Ken – Boat O Rhone to Ken Bridge
This route will form part of a round Loch Ken route and will form an important link.
This route lends itself more to informal access mainly focused on walkers. It is
important to keep as close to the shore of the Loch as possible to take advantage of
the Loch side views.
25
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
6.1.4 Kirkcudbright to Doon Bay
The residents of Kirkcudbright view Doon bay on the western cost of the bay as their
place to recreate and swim. Consequently large numbers of children regularly walk
or cycle the 1.5 miles along the road to the bay, the road is narrow and fast and not
safe for this use at present. A cycleway to the bay would for a number of functions.
Give safe access to the bay for locals and visitor
Encourage non-motorised transport and recreational cycling and walking
Plug a missing link in the wider coastal path currently under development.
Connect the town to core path 220 out to Ross bay
6.1.5 Circular walk around Loch Ken
Unlike many other similar sites (i.e. in the Lake District) Loch Ken has no path
around its shore, most access (still limited) is point access at laybys or commercial
businesses. The attractiveness of the loch and the connection people can make with
the loch would be greatly increased by formal path access around the shore. This
would increase active travel and health and wellbeing amongst the local community
and the visiting public by encouraging exercise in a natural environment. In addition
the route around the loch would be approximately 26 miles which is ideal for the
running of events such as marathons and triathlons which is a growing business for
the loch. The addition of such an attractive route would make the marketing of the
loch to visitor easier. By sensitive design people will be able to interact with and
observe the various natural habitats and wildlife of the loch shore as well as the
cultural heritage.
6.1.6 Canoe trail – Lock Ken and the River Dee
A long distance canoe trail has been identified from Dalry in the north down through
Loch Ken and down the Dee to Tongland. A number of access and egress points are
being considered along with information for paddlers and portage routes around
obstacles. The route also includes a spur off along the Carlingwaulk Lane to Castle
Douglas.
6.2
Localised access
6.2.1 Access to Loch Ken’s shores
There is very limited public access to the shore of Loch Ken, including limited
viewpoints and picnic areas. Existing access is limited to commercial businesses and
a few laybys. This gives an impression that Loch ken is ‘private’ or is not easy to
access. These existing points of access are point access with no linear access along
the shore. There also limited public facilities i.e. picnic areas information.
We would like to create new access point(s) of high quality which will be attractive to
visitors and locals. This would involve potential purchase or lease of land, creation of
26
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
physical facilities (car parking, picnic area and information). It will create greater
access for people to enjoy the natural heritage of the loch. Also, it could create
opportunities to provide information on the cultural heritage of the loch. The increase
in tourist and local use will support local businesses.
6.2.2 Angling Sites around Loch Ken
There is a demand for access to an increased number of sites for match fishing in
particular. New site have been identified as part of the Loch Ken Fisheries Study.
Elsewhere parking and access to the shore is the main restriction for bank anglers.
6.2.3 All ability access in the Galloway Glens
There is a general lack of planned all ability access within the Galloway Glens area.
Areas for possible improvements include existing visitor centres and honey pots
where some facilities already exist. And popular routes near to centres of population
where the greatest benefit can be obtained. Possible locations are;
Castle Douglas to Threave estate path
The Otter Pool – Raiders Road
Bruce’s Stone Path – Clatteringshaws visitor centre
Others to be investigated
6.2.4 Increased Equestrian Access in the Galloway Glens
Tackling parking issues and obstructions is the greatest need. A dedicated route for
horse riders would also be welcome. Better information on where to ride or carriage
drive and potential obstacles and route terrain would help attract users to the area.
6.3 Layby and Stopping Points around Loch Ken
There are a number of laybys on the roads along the edge of Loch Ken and
elsewhere in the Galloway Glens area. Some of those next to Loch Ken contain
interpretation and access to the edge of the loch but most do not. They are all in
need of improvement and none, even those with access to the edge of the loch,
provide good views of Loch Ken.
Upgrading these laybys, improving the views of the loch, adding interpretation would
improve public access to, and understanding of, the natural and cultural heritage of
Loch Ken. Improving these laybys together would allow them to be done in a
consistent way. This would ensure that facilities such as bins, picnic facilities and
interpretation were available to a consistent standard and without duplication or
conflicting information. Negotiations would be done with local landowners to remove
trees in order to improve views over the loch.
27
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
Horse riders and canoeists would benefit from more an increase in more suitable
stopping places e.g. parking at the bottom end of the loch.
6.4
Improving access to the core path network
Missing links
o New Galloway to Core path 177/142
o Kirkcudbright to Doon Bay
o Corcerine (core path 190) to Miekle Millyea (core path 15)
o Link from core 155 over road bridge to meet adopted road at Lodge
Cottage
o Link from core path 155 to the road next to the river Dee at Bridge of Dee
o Off road link from Castle Douglas to Kirkcudbright
Improved access to paths See table in Appendix A
Improvements to paths – various to be explored
Improved signage and interpretation – various to be explored
28
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
7. Projects priorities
7.1
High priority projects
Priority Project
Project
Mossdale to Cairnsmore of fleet
Mossdale to Crossmichael
including Loch Ken Viaduct –
surfaced cycle route
Glenkens Way
Development required
Landowners agreed funding
applied for decision in
autumn. Standalone project
from existing car park at
Mossdale
Landowner negotiations
started, some issues.
Agreement not reach as yet.
Given its size likely to be
pursued outside of the
Galloway Glens Scheme
(8KM)
Landowner agreements
secured. Costings agreed
with DGC
Cost estimate
£96,000
£1.3 million
£40,000
Boat O Rhone to Ken Bridge –
informal walking path unsurfaced
Landowner discussions
underway – informal path
predominantly for walking
(10KM)
£50,000
Loch Ken Canoe Trail
Negotiation taking place
with landowners, Scottish
Power on board
£150,000
All ability access
Otter Pool, Castle Douglas
to Threave path and 2 other
sites. In discussions with
FES
£100,000
New Angling sites around Loch
Ken
Survey undertaken,
discussions underway with
landowners
£53,000
Improvements to core paths
7 out of 14 paths identified.
In discussions with DGC
Countryside Services
£35,000
29
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
Laybys and stopping places
Improve 10 out of 21
existing identified. Create 2
out of 4 new ones identified.
Negotiations with
landowners underway,
survey undertaken.
Garroch Estate & New Galloway
Golf Club paths
Volunteers to undertake the
majority of the work costings £21,000
for materials and training
Castle Douglas/Bridge of Dee
paths
Improvements to Southern Upland
Way
7.2
New or upgraded path
connections to Threave
estate, including one all
ability access
Upgrades to the route in the
Galloway glens includings
where necessary
£140,000
£57,591
£50,000
Reserve projects
Reserve Projects
Project
Development required
Cost estimate
Improvements to core paths
Additional 7 core paths
£35,000
Laybys and stopping places
Improve a further 11
existing. Create 2 further
new ones.
£150,000
Castle Douglas to Kirkcudbright
path
Route needs to be identified
and negotiated –would
complete the Source to Sea
route
£150,000
Kirkcudbright to Doon Bay Cycle
route
Route needs to be identified
and negotiated
£400,000
Complete round Loch Ken path
Complete more difficult
sections subject to
landowner negotiations
£100,000
30
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
APPENDIX A
Core paths in the Galloway Glens area
**Please note, shaded ones have opportunities for improvements
Core
path #
13
15
16
Route name
Dee Walk to Tongland (near
Tongland Power Station)
Forest Lodge to Loch Dungeon
Garryhorn Rig
21
Dalry to New Galloway/Dalry to New
Galloway Riverside Path
23
Dundeugh Hill
24
Ardoch Hill
28
Glengap and Laurieston Forest
(stops at the Laurieston Forest
boundary)
29
The Gunney, Parton
30
Glenlee
135
Nethertown near Crossmichael
141
142
Raiders Road East
Raiders Road to Kenmuir Link
143
Raiders Road
144
Retreat Wood, Laurieston
151
153
St Mary’s Isle
Arie, near Mossdale
Comments
Accessible from Kirkcudbright and
Tongeland
Parking available?
Parking needed to avoid conflict
with Farms/houses? At end of
public roads.
River bank route with parking
available in both Dalry and New
Galloway
Parking in nearby layby short walk
on verse and need to cross road.
Entrance could be widened to
provide room for a couple of cars
Makes a circular route from Dalry
using the road and Southern
Upland Way, no parking on road
access but available in Dalry
No parking available would be a
great long all user route potential
to make good parking area just off
the road.
Good parking at the layby (old
Road)
Limited parking available at power
station. Accessible from Dalry
Local route? Accessible from
Crossmichael with some road
walking. Possible limited verge
parking at eastern end.
Minor link off Raiders road
Parking at the Otter Pool on
Raiders Road
Parking at Otter Pool but
alternative option would be of
benefit. Access from this route to
others in the area (forest tracks)
Links to Kennick burn walk carpark
at northern end could do with small
layby at southern.
Accessible from Kirkcudbright
Links to old railway line unsure of
parking at far end
31
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
154
155
Forest Lodge
Threave Estate
156
Tongland
157
164
165
Torrs Point
Bardennoch Trail Pack Road
Barhill Woods
168
Barney Water to Loch Skerrow
172
177
Benniguinea
Cain Edward Hill
179
Carlingwark Loch, Castle Douglas
182
190
Cairnsmore of Carsphairn by Craig
of Knockgrey
Castle Douglas Town Walk
Clatteringshaws to Gatehouse
Station
Corserine
191
Craigshinnie Bridge to SUW
192
Cruichie
193
Culgruff
199
Kendoon Youth Hostel to Butterhole
Bridge
200
205
Kenick Burn Walk
Mossdale Walk, Red Kite Trail
208
Livingston Hill
185
187
Parking available at Forest Lodge
Network of paths. Parking on road
by wooden gate? Ends in river? All
ability access needed by Kelton
mains for route to CD and in centre
of Castle Douglas. Parking at
Kelton Mains
Accessible from Kirkcudbright and
Tongland
Parking area short way down road
Parking at site of Pollmaddy village
Accessible from town but also FCS
carpark just out of town. Possible
management takeover by local
community
Makes a circular route from
Mossdale via Raiders Road and
Old railway line. Parking available
at Otterpool and Mossdale
Parking at the visitor centre
Could do with parking at northern
end but residents would probably
object
Accessible from town, car parking
at park
Parking needed off public road.
Local path accessible from town
Informal parking at entrance. From
Clatteringshaws side
Ties into 154 Forest Estate –
parking available
Opportunities for informal parking
as no gated access? Should formal
parking be created? Opportunities
for bike and horse access
Good parking at the Boat O Rhone
layby
Local route from Crossmichael
accessible from centre of village
No parking except verge –
opportunity to formalise parking for
2 -3 cars.
Has its own carpark
Accessible from carpark at
Mossdale
Opportunity to formalise parking at
one end or other. Informal one or
two cars can be accommodated at
32
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
209
Loch Dee to Loch Doon
210
Loch Roan
219
Mary of the Mosses and Floors Loch
220
Millhall to Ross Bay
222
Balmangan, Borgue
224
Mulloch Hill, Dalry
344
Craigencallie
485
Mossdale to Gatehouse Station
Railway Walk
487
Cairnsmore of Carsphairn by the
Green Well
504
Southern Upland way
516
New Galloway West
572
High Boreland farm road (near
Tongland Power Station)
Bridge of Dee to Rhonehouse
573
594
Carsphairn Forest and
Knockengorroch
northern end
Possible parking needed at end of
minor road to Craigencallie which
would service other route as well.
Could benefit from small parking
provision along with 221 as some
distance from Parton and
Crossmichael
Accessible from Castle Douglas
with short road walk
Parking at formal carpark at the
Doon
Ties into 220 potential for small
verge parking at southern end.
Part of local network around Dalry
accessible from Dalry
Opportunities for parking at end of
public road – bike and horse
access
Has carpark at Mossdale. No link
east on railway path and viaduct
over to Parton and down to Castle
Douglas as yet
Car parking definitely needed
private track entrance. Parking
happening on verge
Small layby for limited parking at
Earlstoun Power station
Opportunities already exist for
parking at both ends
Accessible from Kirkcudbright and
Tongland – local route
Accessible from both settlements
local route
Layby for parking where minor
road turns off A713
33
APPENDIX B Strategic routes
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
34
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
35
APPENDIX C Improvements to Core Paths
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
36
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
37
APPENDIX D Improvement to viewpoints and stopping places
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
38
ACCESS AUDIT FOR GALLOWAY GLENS 2016-17
39
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Access Audit for the Galloway Glens
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
GGLP_40
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
GCAT
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2016
Description
An account of the resource
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Commissioned Report undertaken by Dumfries & Galloway Council Environment Team
access
GGLP