Appendix 11.E Fisheries Habitat Survey Report November 2015 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
November 2015 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
FISHERIES HABITAT SURVEY FOR THE PROPOSED LORG WIND FARM For AMEC A Scottish Registered Charity No. SC 020751 September 2013
1 INTRODUCTION The Galloway Fisheries Trust (GFT) was commissioned by AMEC to carry out a targeted walkover fisheries habitat survey for the proposed Lorg Wind Farm, near St John s Town of Dalry in Dumfries and Galloway. The habitat surveys were carried out on several watercourses and tributaries of the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee river system that could potentially be affected by the proposed Lorg Wind Farm development. The possible impacts that any land based wind farm development and its associated infrastructure could have on surrounding fish populations are well documented. The potential for fish species and their habitats to be affected by the development mainly occurs during the construction and decommissioning phases of the development. During the construction phase potential impacts include siltation from ground disturbance, accelerated or exacerbated erosion, hydrological changes, pollution, and the blocking or hindering of the upstream/downstream migration of fish. During the operational phase, concerns include the effects of poor road drainage, accelerated levels of erosion, fish access, and the maintenance of silt traps and road crossings. Potential risks during the decommissioning phase are broadly similar to those in the construction phase. These potential effects could all impact on the surrounding fish populations by causing direct mortality of juveniles and adults, changes in food availability, avoidance behaviour resulting in unused habitat, blocking of migration routes to spawning beds or the damage of instream and riparian habitats. There is a variety of legislation, regulations and guidance in place relating to fish species that may be present in the watercourses within the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee catchment. Atlantic salmon are an internationally important fish population which is listed under Annex II and V of the European Habitats Directive (1992) (only in freshwater), Appendix III of the Bern Convention (1979) (only in freshwater) and are a local priority species in the Dumfries and Galloway Local Biodiversity Action Plan. Atlantic salmon are also a species of conservation concern on a UK level. Brown trout/sea trout are also a UK Biodiversity Action Plan species. There have been concerns around Europe over falling eel stocks. It is currently unknown why they have undergone such a rapid decline but it is possibly linked to over-exploitation, inland habitat loss, climate and ocean current changes, disease and pollution. European Eel Regulations (EC) No 1100/2007 aim to establish measures to recover eel stocks. One such measure was the writing of an Eel Management Plan for the Solway Tweed River Basin District. Fishing or taking eels is illegal (unless licensed) under The Freshwater Fish Conservation (Prohibition on Fishing for Eels) (Scotland) Regulations 2008. Eels are also a UKBAP priority species. Although there is no access into the Dee catchment to eels (Tongland Dam at the tidal limit is an impassable barrier to eels), GFT have previously run a project to re-introduce eels into the Dee system using eel traps at the bottom of Tongland Fish Ladder.
2 AIMS The aims of this study were as follows: 2.1 To carry out targeted fish habitat surveys on specific sections of watercourses potentially affected by the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed Lorg Wind Farm access routes. These survey sections were based on potential crossing point locations and were provided to GFT by AMEC. 2.2 To analyse and present results from the habitat surveys, discussing any particular sensitivities of species/habitats found.
3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Data Recording 3.1.1 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 watercourses within the boundary of the proposed Lorg Wind Farm development, specifically those which may be affected by the construction and/or upgrading of watercourse crossings. 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. 3.1.2 Method The watercourses were each surveyed between two pre-determined points, dictated by specific survey areas shown on potential watercourse crossing point layout maps provided by AMEC, by two experienced GFT surveyors. 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. Habitat Type Spawning gravel Silted spawning habitat Fry habitat * Table 1: Habitat classification for walk-over survey method Classification 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 Stable gravel up to 30 cm deep that is compacted or contains excessive silt. Substrate size with a diameter of 0.8 to 10.2 cm 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) Mixed juvenile habitat * A mix of fry and parr habitat, suited to both age classes in combination the deeper, faster, larger substrate areas used by parr, and the shallower, slower, smaller substrate areas used by fry Glides Pools Flow constriction Obstacles/Obstruction to migration Smooth laminar flow with little surface turbulence and generally greater than 0.3 m deep No perceptible flow and usually greater than 1 m deep Where physical features provide a narrowing of the channel resulting in increased velocity and depth (often combined with a localised increase in gradient and bedrock substrates) A structure or item identified as a potential obstruction to fish passage at certain water heights (e.g. impassable falls, weirs, bridge aprons, shallow braided river sections preventing upstream migration during low flows)
* 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 refer to habitat that has principally been 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. Problematic bank structures such as areas of erosion were recorded, if present. 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. Photographs were taken throughout the survey and of all major obstructions. 3.2 Habitat Survey Areas The specific watercourses and survey areas were selected by AMEC and were based on likely access road crossing points over watercourses. The watercourses and their tributaries covered in this targeted walkover habitat survey have been divided into west and east sectors for clarity: West sector 1. 0.55 km of the Water of Ken around Lorg Bridge, plus part of a small tributary 2. 0.4 km of the Green Cleugh and tributaries area 3. 0.4 km of the Un-named tributary of Alwhat Burn east of Brown Hill and tributary 4. 0.25 km of the Alwhat Burn 5. 0.35 km of the Un-named tributary of Alwhat Burn East sector 1. 0.3 km of the Small Burn 2. 0.2 km of the Pulmulloch Burn, further south of the Fans of Altry 3. 0.2 km of the Pulmulloch Burn, south of Fans of Altry 4. 0.6 km of the Pulmulloch Burn at Fans of Altry 5. 0.35 km of the Pulmulloch Burn tributary at High Countam (southern tributary) 6. 0.2 km of the Pulmulloch Burn tributary at High Countam (mid tributary) 7. 0.3 km of the Pulmulloch Burn tributary at High Countam (northern tributary) Approximately 4.1 km of watercourses were identified to be surveyed to inform AMEC of fisheries habitat information and to advise the electrofishing survey and highlight any specifically sensitive areas. Actual distances surveyed were slightly over this. Work was carried out over 2.5 days in September 2013. Instream characteristics are described as one would carry out a survey (moving in an upstream direction) in Sections 4 to 6 of this report. Banksides are always referenced in terms of right or left bank identified as if one was looking in a downstream direction.
4 RESULTS 4.1 Habitat Survey West Sector 4.1.1 1: Water of Ken The Water of Ken was surveyed from (NS) 266726 600483, adjacent to the road to Lorg, to (NS) 267120 600726, a short distance upstream of a bedrock obstruction. The survey commenced upstream of a sheep fold on the left bank. At this point the river was characterised by ideal mixed juvenile habitat with a good mix of pebbles, cobbles and boulders (Figure 1). Wetted width averaged between 9 to 12 m. It was noted that pockets of spawning substrates were present in some places. A deeper adult holding pool was present at (NS) 266771 600542 and a good draw-down of water through the gravels in this short change in gradient has created some spawning material just below the pool. The confluence of the Lorg Burn enters on the right bank and upstream of this a ford was located and it was noted that deeper glide habitat is present. Continuing upstream, the habitat was predominantly suited to mixed juveniles with some erosion on each bankside also contributing good cobble/pebble sized substrates to the watercourse. This erosion was light, natural and not causing a problem. It was noted that smaller gravel accumulations behind larger boulders had created some nice spawning material for smaller adult trout. A longer stretch of glide (25 m) was recorded a short distance downstream of a watergate across the Water of Ken, and this punctuated the predominantly mixed juvenile habitat recorded here. Upstream the wetted width averaged 6 to 8 m and mixed juvenile habitat continued to dominate. A narrower stretch of 25 m of stepped parr habitat (Figure 2) was present before the watercourse widens again to an average of 8 to 10 m. Some bankside collapse and bank slippage was evident at (NS) 266964 600668 but this was not deemed to be causing a problem. A further 25 m stretch of glide was then present, and some spawning at the head of this was recorded, only useful to fish if water levels were lower than those recorded at the time of survey. The watercourse then became narrow again, approximately 4 to 5 m wide and some stepped parr habitat recorded, after which some more bank collapse and slippage was evident. Figure 1: Excellent instream habitat suitable for different age classes of juvenile salmonids, looking upstream
Two bedrock obstructions to fish passage were located at (NS) 267120 600726 (Figure 3) but although the upstream one appeared to have the potential to cause most obstruction to fish passage, both were classed as passable under certain flow conditions. Figure 2: A 25 m stretch of shallow stepped parr habitat on the Water of Ken, looking upstream Figure 3: The second bedrock obstruction close to the end of the survey on the Water of Ken The survey of the Water of Ken itself was terminated at (NS) 267120 600726, but a short side tributary was surveyed which entered the Ken further downstream. This side tributary flowed down a short 0.4 m high flume before entering the Water of Ken. This burn was very narrow (0.2 to 0.3 m in width) and held much water at the time of survey. Low quality parr habitat dominated (Figure 4) with much bankside vegetation partly tunneling the burn in places. The burn split into two channels, one of which was predominantly a vegetated flush channel. Upstream of this the channel of the burn became less defined and much water flowed over ground. This was likely to be due to recent rain having raised water levels. This burn held really limited habitat for fish once it had split into two channels,
although once the channel became more defined further upstream some fry habitat was evident. Downstream of the dry stone wall the survey ended (NS) 266917 600728. Upstream of here the burn ran through a field and was surrounded by thick stands of Juncus spp.. Figure 4: Limited parr habitat offered by the small burn entering the water of Ken, near Lorg, looking upstream 4.1.2 2: Green Cleugh and tributaries area The survey of the Green Cleugh and tributaries area covered three tributaries of the Lorg Burn. Starting with the furthest downstream tributary, the survey started at (NS) 266476 601369. Downstream of the surveyed section, this burn ran parallel to the Lorg Burn before entering another un-named tributary then joining the Lorg Burn itself. This burn was not particularly suited to fish species and despite higher water levels at the time of survey, the water levels in this burn did not provide sufficient depth for fish. The burn was narrow and ran up to and over the track (Figure 5), after which it became 0.1 to 0.3 m wide. The survey ended at (NS) 266469 601432.
Figure 5: The first of the small tributaries of the Lorg Burn, looking upstream The middle tributary runs directly into the Lorg Burn itself in the form of a miniature delta (Figure 6). Here the burn percolated through and over marshy ground and some instream gravels, with no defined channel and it offered no fish habitat. Continuing upstream, the burn formed a more defined channel with a base where peat and clay were present in places. Some gradient was evident here and wetted width averaged 0.2 to 0.4 m. The burn becomes deeper with glide habitat dominating but it still did not provide good conditions for fish although the base consisted of cobbles and pebbles. The burn crossed the track and ran along the edge of the track for a short distance. Despite the elevated water flows at the time of survey it was noted that this watercourse may dry up during prolonged dry spells such as that experienced in summer 2013. The survey of this burn terminated 15 m upstream of where the burn left the edge of the track at (NS) 266311 601290 and it could no longer be said to have a defined channel. The third and largest tributary, the Green Cleugh was surveyed from the large impassable waterfall entering the Lorg Burn at (NS) 266389 601384. Immediately the gradient increased and a short 3 m stretch of mixed juvenile habitat was evident before the burn ran over bedrock where a steep impassable obstruction existed (Figure 7). Habitat suited to parr was present at (NS) 266391 601402 but it was noted that any fish residing in this watercourse would only have limited upstream movement because of the frequency of large bedrock obstructions which punctuated the juvenile habitat. Continuing upstream some stepped parr habitat was present, albeit of fairly steep gradient and this continued until the burn met and crossed the track at (NS) 266383 601456. Upstream of the track, larger boulders were present, with further bedrock falls punctuating the mixed juvenile habitat. It is unknown if this burn is likely to hold fish and this could only be determined by carrying out an electrofishing survey. The survey of this watercourse was terminated at (NS) 266381 601491.
Figure 6: The middle tributary a short distance upstream of where it enters the Lorg Burn where a sort of miniature delta has formed, looking upstream Figure 7: A steep bedrock obstruction on the Green Cleugh a short distance upstream from the large waterfall joining the watercourse to the Lorg Burn 4.1.3 3: Un-named tributary of the Alwhat Burn, east of Brown Hill, and tributary The un-named tributary of the Alwhat Burn was surveyed along with a short un-named side tributary of the burn. The small tributary of the un-named burn was surveyed from where it entered the un-named tributary where it flowed over a large slope of bedrock and peat. This large sloped section was deemed impassable to fish. Upstream of here the burn ran over grass and looked like an ephemeral flush/hydrological source area rather than a fully formed watercourse (Figure
8). Continuing upstream towards the track across which this watercourse flows, the habitat remained fairly similar, with no habitat available for fish. Upstream of the track the burn had no discernible flow or channel so the survey terminated here at (NS) 265997 601847. Figure 8: The small tributary of the un-named burn, looking downstream. Showing an ephemeral flush zone The un-named tributary of the Alwhat Burn, the survey commenced at (NS) 265960 601735 where a small rowan and beech tree were rooted on the left bank beside a series of impassable waterfalls (Figure 9). Figure 9: An impassable series of waterfalls on the un-named tributary of the Alwhat Burn
Here the wetted width averaged between 1 and 2 m and the burn was characeterised by a combination of parr habitat punctuated by steep bedrock waterfalls creating obstructions for fish passage. A 6 m high waterfall was present at (NS) 265957 601762 but upstream of here there was some stepped parr habitat. This habitat was likely to be sub-optimal due to the level of bedrock present in the channel but nevertheless this stretch provided aceptable habitat for salmonid parr. Continuing upstream, a 12 m section of good fry habitat was present (Figure 10) at (NS) 265951 601783 where the wetted width averaged 1.5 m. This was followed by a 25 m reach of mixed juvenile habitat with the upper limit of this bounded by more waterfalls. Figure 10: A 15 m stretch of fry habitat on the un-named tributary of the Alwhat Burn, looking upstream Moving upstream a succession of pools and waterfalls was present, with an additional 12 m of good mixed juvenile habitat present. Again some parr habitat was punctuated by some smaller waterfalls which could create problems for fish passage. Some flow constriction was evident and the burn begins to narrow, with some flow constriction, to between 0.5 and 1 m. A 1.5 m high waterfall was then present (Figure 11). Upstream of here the channel is split by a large outcrop of bedrock at (NS) 265916 601883 which would cause an obstruction to fish passage. Upstream of this obstruction the habitat consisted of bedrock lined pools, offering limited parr habitat, punctuated by small passable waterfalls. This habitat continued to dominate until the burn became narrower again to approximately 1 m wetted width (Figure 12). The survey was terminated at (NS) 265856 602001, upstream of the agreed survey section.
Figure 11: Parr habitat and a 1.5 m high waterfall followed by some flow constriction on the un-named tributary of the Alwhat Burn Figure 12: Typical habitat in the upper un-named tributary of the Alwhat Burn close to where the survey was terminated 4.1.4 4: Alwhat Burn The survey of the Alwhat Burn began at (NS) 265297 601665. The survey commenced at a small round area of pool, upstream of which a 15 m stretch of mixed juvenile habitat was present. Some bankside collapse was evident due to high erosive forces in times of high water cutting through peat banks. Less bedrock was recorded in this burn compared to that encountered further downstream out with the surveyed section. This was most likely due to
the land being flatter here with lower gradient in the burn itself compared to that seen downstream. Despite the peat environment the burn still held suitable instream substrates to sustain a population of fish (gravels, pebbles, cobbles and boulders). A large rock outcrop causing an obstruction to fish passage was present upstream of the mixed juvenile habitat (Figure 13), upstream of which the burn provided some nice pool/riffle habitat suitable for juvenile life stages of salmonids. Some suitable spawning material was present at (NS) 265283 601715 upstream of which a 10 m reach of mixed juvenile habitat was present (Figure 14). More bankside collapse was evident but this was natural and not caused by trampling from livestock. A small pool capable of supporting larger parr was evident just upstream of where a small side tributary entered the Alwhat Burn from the right bank side. Some suitable spawning material (Figure 15) was present just downstream of a small 0.8 m high waterfall and small pool at (NS) 265258 601775. Upstream of here the channel of the burn deepens, narrowed to approximately 0.5 m wide and glide habitat dominated. In places some water flowed over the grass but this was probably due to recent rain elevating water levels rather than the channel being undefined at this point. Some good quality fry habitat was present at (NS) 265246 601802. Continuing upstream, some small waterfalls were present just upstream of an old fenced of square on the left bank. It was noted that at this point the gradient started to decrease further and the burn flowed through what had now become a shallow valley. The burn was wider here (up to 1.5 m wide in places) and some good mixed juvenile habitats were offered where suitable substrates were present. Some suitable spawning material was present downstream of a stretch of glide habitat at (NS) 265226 601844. Upstream of here some erosion of the peat banks was evident and pool/riffle sequences were recorded where there were small increases in gradient within the burn. Again the burn was wider here with some areas up to 1.5 m wide. Parr and mixed juvenile habitat dominated amongst some bedrock outcrops and a small waterfall obstruction to fish passage was recorded at (NS) 265204 601881. Moving upstream, mixed juvenile habitat continued to be the dominant habitat. The burn then narrowed to 0.5 m wetted width and became around 0.6 m deep. Here the flow was slower and glide habitat dominated. The survey was terminated at (NS) 265190 601900 upstream of where the agreed survey section on the Alwhat Burn ended. Figure 13: A large bedrock outcrop on the upper Alwhat burn which would cause an obstruction to fish passage
Figure 14: Mixed juvenile habitat upstream of (NS) 265283 601715 on the Alwhat Burn Figure 15: Some suitable spawning substrates on the upper Alwhat Burn 4.1.5 5: Un-named tributary of Alwhat Burn The survey of the un-named tributary of the Alwhat Burn which flows from the west commenced at (NS) 265321 601475. Here the burn was very narrow with a wetted width of 0.5 m. A peaty base dominated and very little in the way of suitable substrates to sustain fish existed. Sections of the burn had no defined channel and were inundated with moss (Figure 16) and although cobble sized substrates could be felt through the moss, very little in the way of suitable habitat existed for fish. Continuing upstream the first available fish habitat in the surveyed section was present at (NS) 265308 601468 where there was a
defined channel which has cut itself deep into the peat. Here some suitable substrates were present amongst the clay base but the burn only provided low quality fry habitat here and substrates were relatively compacted (Figure 17). Figure 16: Looking upstream at no defined channel, and although under the moss suitable substrates existed, this section held no fish habitat Figure 17: A stretch where the channel has cut deeply through the peat and some low quality fry habitat is present, looking upstream
After this short open stretch the burn then flowed back underground and moss filled the channel. The channel became much less defined again and the burn appeared to split in two and become more of a flush zone/hydrological source offering no habitat for fish. The survey was terminated at (NS) 265263 601451. East Sector 4.1.6 6: Small Burn The survey of the Small Burn commenced at (NX) 267032 599589. Here the wetted width was approximately 0.3 m wide and low quality mixed juvenile habitat dominated, punctuated by glide habitat. In places the burn flowed through a narrowed, deepened channel although substrates were still suitable for mixed juvenile habitat. The lower burn was partially tunnelled and flowed underground in places. Continuing upstream the burn narrowed and three sets of small waterfalls were present (Figure 18). Upstream of the waterfalls a mix of pool and glide habitat dominated until the burn began to narrow further and run underground again and the gradient increased. This burn offered suitable habitat for trout although access from the Altry Burn is limited. Some suitable spawning habitat was evident at the tail of some of the glides and pools throughout the surveyed section. The survey was terminated at (NX) 267152 599724 just upstream of the agreed survey section of the Small Burn. Figure 18: Three sets of small waterfalls such as this one were present in the mid-section of the surveyed part of this burn
4.1.7 7: Upper Pulmulloch Burn, further south of Fans of Altry The survey of this upper section of the Pulmulloch Burn commenced at (NX) 268103 599251. Here the watercourse averaged only 0.2 m wide and along the majority of the survey stretch the habitat was predominantly glide and in places the flow was underground. There was little in the way of fish habitat and only in occasional places was the burn open enough with suitable substrates to provide any habitat for fish species (Figure 19). In all, this upper part of the Pulmulloch Burn did not provide suitable fish habitat. 4.1.8 8: Pulmulloch Burn, south of Fans of Altry The Pulmulloch Burn was surveyed further downstream towards the Fans of Altry. The survey commenced at (NX) 268233 599660 and continued upstream for a distance of approximately 0.2 km. At the start of the survey the Pulmulloch Burn offered some fry habitat (Figure 20) punctuated by some mixed juvenile habitat. The wetted width in this stretch averaged around 1 m. The gradient and smaller sized substrates allowed for the formation of pool and riffle sequences. Continuing upstream the burn gets narrower quite rapidly to become around 0.5 m wide. Some pool habitat was present, with some mixed juvenile habitat, albeit quite shallow, available for fish. At the time of survey the water levels had been elevated by recent rain so it may be that in times of low water the upper area of the Pulmulloch Burn would be very low. Moving upstream the gradient increased slightly and the burn narrowed further (0.2 m wetted width). Although the base of the channel still held reasonable sized substrates (pebbles and cobbles) it was less suitable for fish although some mixed juvenile habitat was available. The survey was terminated at (NX) 268254 599602 just upstream of the agreed survey section at this location of the Pulmulloch Burn. Figure 19: Very little suitable habitat for fish in the upper Pulmulloch Burn
Figure 20: A stretch of suitable fry habitat in the Pulmulloch Burn, looking downstream 4.1.9 9: Pulmulloch Burn, at the Fans of Altry The survey of the Pulmulloch Burn near the Fans of Altry commence at (NS) 268195 600071. Here the wetted width ranged between 0.6 to 3 m wide and mixed juvenile habitat dominated with some nice shallow glide/riffle sequences. Substrates here were small with pebbles and gravel and some cobbles evident. Some erosion was evident on the banksides but this was natural and not caused by trampling by livestock. Indeed a low level of natural erosion can be a source of instream substrates to a watercourse. This burn offered good habitat for juvenile salmonids. Continuing upstream, good levels of mixed juvenile habitat were provided by the burn. The burn then split into two tributaries. The eastern tributary was up to 1.2 m wide and offered pool and riffle habitat. Substrates were dominated by cobbles and pebbles and some good mixed juvenile habitat was present. The western tributary was the larger watercourse and the wetted width was recorded up to 1.3 m. Good quality fry habitat in particular was available here (Figure 21). This fry habitat continued to dominate through glide/riffle sequences until the survey was terminated at (NX) 268302 599861 slightly upstream of where the agreed survey section ended.
Figure 21: Good quality fry habitat in the Pulmulloch Burn 4.1.10 10: Pulmulloch Burn tributary at High Countam (southern tributary) The southern tributary of the Pulmulloch Burn near High Countam was surveyed upstream from (NX) 268546 599687 for a distance of approximately 0.25 km. At the start of the survey a wetted width of up to 1 m was present and a good range of substrate sizes offered suitable mixed juvenile habitat (Figure 23). This was punctuated by shallow glide habitats where there was less gradient. Some bank erosion was evident on both banksides and it was apparent that this tributary may be quite spatey in nature and the steady gradient would cause increased erosional forces on the banks. Continuing upstream on the main burn after the tributary splits, the channel narrows (0.2 m in places) and a peat base provides very little habitat for fish. The burn then ran through thick stands of Juncus spp. and it became hard to identify a defined channel. The tributary which entered from the east was small and appeared to hold habitats unsuitable for fish. It ran through a channel of high cut peat banks where it was evident the erosional forces of the burn have cut down through the peat (Figure 24). No suitable fish habitat was available here, even although some isolated patches of suitable substrate existed. The high peat banks were up to 2 m high in places and some parts were very unstable and had collapsed over the burn causing tunnelling. This section of this tributary was particularly unsuitable for fish. The survey was terminated just upstream of the end of the agreed survey section.
Figure 23: Mixed juvenile habitat in the southern tributary of the Pulmulloch Burn, looking upstream Figure 24: The burn has cut down through the peat causing high unstable banks, looking upstream
4.1.11 11: Pulmulloch Burn tributary at High Countam (mid tributary) The mid tributary of the Pulmulloch Burn near High Countam was surveyed from (NX) 268701 599800. It was noted at the start of the survey that this tributary has potentially been straightened in the past and is more drain-like in nature rather than an actual watercourse (Figure 25). Figure 25: The drain-like nature of the mid tributary of the Pulmulloch Burn, near High Countam The channel of this watercourse was narrow (0.2 m wide), deep and looked like it had been cut into the peat at some point in the past. Although some suitable substrates were encountered in places, the base of the burn was mostly peat which provided very little habitat for fish. It was noted that despite elevated water levels at the time of survey due to recent rain, there was very little water flow within this burn and so it may dry up in times of low water. The survey was terminated when a blockage of peat in the burn was found near the top of the agreed survey section. 4.1.12 12: Pulmulloch Burn tributary at High Countam (northern tributary) The northern tributary of the Pulmulloch Burn near High Countam was surveyed from (NS) 268741 600305. Similar to the mid tributary (Section 4.1.11) it was noted at the start of the survey that this tributary had potentially been straightened in the past and is again more drain-like in nature rather than a natural watercourse (Figure 26). The burn was very narrow and nearly exclusively flows underground with the visible channel inundated with moss, offering no habitat for fish. Only the occasional short section of running water was visible which showed a peaty base. The survey continued upstream for a distance of 0.25 km during which the habitat remained the same. The survey was then terminated at the end of the agreed survey section.
Figure 26: The northern tributary of the Pulmulloch Burn showing a mossy drainage channel and no suitable habitat for fish
5 DISCUSSION Historically the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee was known as a catchment with plentiful supplies of salmon running the river. In the 1930s the Dee became part of the Galloway Hydros Scheme, where several dams were built on the river, some with fish passes incorporated. The location of the proposed Lorg Wind Farm lies upstream of Kendoon Dam in the headwaters of the Water of Ken. Upstream migration for fish past Kendoon Dam is not possible. This dam was completed in 1936 and although it was recognised that there would be migratory salmonids in the Water of Ken and the Water of Deugh (a farmer, previously of Smittons Farm, reported catching up to five salmon a day in 1930s, and upstream of the area covered in this habitat survey at Strathanna Farm, it has been reported that large numbers of salmon were caught in the 1920s); no fish pass was installed. The only consolation to fish already present upstream of Kendoon was the installation of a downstream only smolt pass and this was operated for three years after the dam was completed, after which, it was closed. Therefore although the habitat upstream of Kendoon is the most perfect and abundant migratory salmonid habitat of the entire Dee river system, it is inaccessible to them, and unfortunately will continue to remain so for the foreseeable future. It is probable that brown trout are present and able to use some of the habitat encountered across this survey and most of the larger watercourses would be though to have some brown trout in them. In terms of non-salmonid fish species, the habitats encountered in the survey would be suitable for eels. Due to their nature, eels can live in all types of freshwaters and are known to penetrate right to the headwaters of river and loch systems. Although their ideal preference would be rich waters with much instream vegetation, they are found in all habitats as they can wriggle down through the nooks and crannies of instream substrates in which to find shelter. It is not unusual to survey a watercourse less than 20 cm wide and find an eel. Eels would find it extremely difficult to ascend the fish ladder at Tongland Dam. GFT are in the process of working with Scottish Power to try and solve the problem of no eels in the Dee system, but this really only applies to the watercourses and lochs accessible between Tongland and Earlstoun Dam (near St John s Town of Dalry), where another long fish ladder is present. This does not detract from the matter, however, that Kendoon Dam, upstream of Earlstoun and Carsfad Dams, and downstream of the proposed wind farm development, still remains impassable to all fish species. Therefore, although the habitat in the surveyed area would be considered to be good for eels, it is highly unlikely that any eels are present. This also applies to some lamprey species, for sea lampreys and river lampreys are anadromous in habit. Brook lampreys, however, spend their entire lives in freshwater and so do have the potential to be present within the surveyed watercourses. During the habitat survey it was evident that there was little in the way of good lamprey ammocoete habitat (fine sands and muds, usually encountered in back eddies and marginal areas) so although they may be present, a high population is unlikely. It is possible that there may be some stoneloach within the surveyed watercourses, but this could only be properly determined by carrying out an electrofishing survey. In general, all watercourses surveyed were found to be in good condition, particularly the larger watercourses such as the Water of Ken, the Lorg Burn, the Alwhat Burn and its main tributary (covered in Section 4.1.3). Some good instream habitats for salmonid production were encountered during the survey with some deeper adult holding pools and glides present for smaller mature resident brown trout. The habitats encountered in the watercourses during the survey have the potential to be productive on a limited basis due to most being narrow and upland in nature but nevertheless it would be expected to find fish in those which hold the habitat, albeit most likely at a low population density. The main limiting factor in the case of the surveyed area is the lack of access for migratory fish species as the
lower accessible areas of the surveyed burns would certainly provide good habitats for these species.
6 SUMMARY 6.1 Twelve sections of watercourses were surveyed for the proposed Lorg Wind Farm. The main watercourses covered in this survey were the Water of Ken, Alwhat Burn, Tributary of Alwhat Burn and the Pulmulloch Burn. All the surveyed watercourses form part of the upper Kirkcudbrightshire Dee river catchment. 6.2 The Water of Ken held perfect salmonid habitat. The prevalence of clean spawning gravels and mixed juvenile habitat made for ideal conditions for salmon and trout production. Unfortunately, as no migratory fish access is possible upstream of Kendoon Dam, the only fish resident in the Water of Ken are likely to be resident brown trout. Most of the surveyed watercourses held a degree suitable fish habitat along parts of the surveyed stretches. The un-named tributary of the Alwhat Burn (covered in Section 4.1.3) appeared to have the greatest gradient out of all the surveyed sections and most obstructions to fish passage were identified there. All were natural waterfalls and although downstream migration may be possible, upstream migration would be impossible over the larger obstructions. Indeed, several large and probably impassable waterfalls also existed on the Lorg Burn further downstream which was not properly surveyed for this study. Instream habitats within the surveyed sections of all the watercourses were generally in good, natural condition and it would therefore be expected to find fish species in some of these watercourses where the habitat permitted. The only salmonid likely to be present in the areas surveyed is likely to be resident brown trout. It is possible therefore that the population of fish within the surveyed watercourses could be low and therefore would be sensitive to negative impacts. 6.3 It is appreciated that watercourse crossing points within wind farm developments are kept to a minimum and any works associated with the development should be kept well back from the banksides to ensure no silt or pollution input. In terms of sensitivity, spawning areas would be classed as the most sensitive, with fry and mixed juvenile habitat also sensitive. These areas should be avoided where possible and an appropriate crossing structure should be installed. In watercourses where it is likely that the population of fish is low, continuity of habitat is very important, so care should be taken to ensure fish passage is maintained where possible. As there is no up to date information available on fish populations resident in the watercourses potentially affected by the development, an electrofishing survey is recommended in order to assess the sensitivities of the fish populations present.