Gcv river clyde biodiversity report [final c06]

GCV Green Network Partnership

RIVER CLYDE BIODIVERSITY PROJECT Technical Report

October 2008

EnviroCentre Craighall Business Park Eagle Street Glasgow G4 9XA

Project Manager

Elaine Cameron CEnv

Project Director

Dr Andy McMullen

t 0141 341 5040 f 0141 341 5045

w www.envirocentre.co.uk e info@envirocentre.co.uk Offices Glasgow

Report No 3429

Belfast Stonehaven Daresbury

Status: Final

Project No: 12490j Copy No: 06 Rev. No: 00 Š EnviroCentre Limited October 2008

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Page left blank intentionally

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

i

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Table of Contents 1.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 1

2.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 2 2.1

Remit.......................................................................................................................................2

2.2

Project Aim ..............................................................................................................................2

2.3

Project Objectives.....................................................................................................................2

2.4

Project Outputs ........................................................................................................................3

2.5

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................3

3.

METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................... 4 3.1

Geographical Scope of Study ....................................................................................................4

3.2

Desk Study...............................................................................................................................4

3.2.1 3.3

3.3.1 3.3.2 3.4

4.

Stakeholders .....................................................................................................................4

Information..............................................................................................................................5

Landownership..................................................................................................................5 Biodiversity Data and Field Survey .....................................................................................5

Analysis....................................................................................................................................6

BIODIVERSITY OPPORTUNITY WORKSHOP OUTCOMES................................... 7 4.1

General ....................................................................................................................................7

4.2

Identification of key areas for biodiversity .................................................................................7

4.3

Identification of current management shortcomings..................................................................9

4.4

Opportunities for future management.....................................................................................10

5.

FIELD SURVEY .................................................................................................... 12

6.

OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................... 13 6.1

General ..................................................................................................................................13

6.2

River Clyde.............................................................................................................................13

6.3

Management..........................................................................................................................14

6.3.1 6.3.2 6.4

River Restoration....................................................................................................................15

6.4.1 6.4.2 6.5

Discussion.......................................................................................................................18 Recommendations ..........................................................................................................19

Birds ......................................................................................................................................19

6.6.1 6.6.2 6.7

Discussion.......................................................................................................................15 Recommendations ..........................................................................................................17

Ecological Data and Survey.....................................................................................................18

6.5.1 6.5.2 6.6

Discussion.......................................................................................................................14 Recommendations ..........................................................................................................15

Discussion.......................................................................................................................19 Recommendations ..........................................................................................................20

Invertebrates .........................................................................................................................21

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

ii

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

6.7.1 6.7.2 6.8

October 2008

Discussion.......................................................................................................................21 Recommendations ..........................................................................................................21

Agricultural land and Biodiversity ............................................................................................22

6.8.1 6.8.2 6.9

Discussion.......................................................................................................................22 Recommendations ..........................................................................................................23

Renfrew Golf Club ..................................................................................................................23

6.9.1 6.9.2 6.10

Invasive Alien Species (IAS)....................................................................................................24

6.10.1 6.10.2 6.11

Discussion.......................................................................................................................23 Recommendation............................................................................................................23 Discussion ...................................................................................................................24 Recommendations.......................................................................................................25

Urban biodiversity ..................................................................................................................26

6.11.1 6.11.2 6.11.3 6.11.4 6.11.5 6.11.6

General .......................................................................................................................26 Green roofs, living walls and rain gardens ....................................................................27 Green bridges and pontoons........................................................................................29 Woodlands, orchards, hedgerows and tree lines...........................................................30 Floral lawns, gardens and shrubberies..........................................................................31 Summary of urban recommendations ..........................................................................31

6.12

BREEAM.................................................................................................................................32

6.13

Clyde Port Authority ...............................................................................................................32

7.

GIS ...................................................................................................................... 33

8.

CONCLUSION...................................................................................................... 34

Appendices Appendix A Action Plan Table Appendix B Phase 1 Habitat Survey Target Notes Appendix C Plates Appendix D Outline Stakeholder List Appendix E Figures

List of Figures Figure 1:

Overview (Sheets 1-8)

Figure 2:

Local Authority Boundaries

Figure 3:

Clyde Water Front, Glasgow City, Clyde Gateway Plan

Figure 4:

Designated Sites

List of Tables Table 1: River Restoration - Responsible Stakeholders...............................................................................17

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

iii

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

1.

October 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EnviroCentre was commissioned by Glasgow and Clyde Valley (GCV) Green Network Partnership to undertake the River Clyde Biodiversity Project. The project aim is to provide a review of biodiversity connectivity and quality, to inform action targets and to support strategic biodiversity planning across the Clyde corridor.

The project followed standard methodologies with regard to desk study, consultation, a workshop and field work followed by analysis and recommendations. Numerous stakeholders were identified and some targeted phase 1 habitat surveys were undertaken, however the project identified that ecological surveys would require to be further reaching to be of value.

From the initial study, key areas for biodiversity were identified along with current management shortcomings and potential opportunities.

An overview of the current position is provided and potential solutions and initiatives are submitted for consideration. Biodiversity management as it is generally conceived underpins the proposed actions; however some new suggestions with regard to the urban biodiversity management are outlined and may be regarded by some as radical. These include a change of management system for the River Clyde corridor and the move towards green roofs, living walls, green bridges and the return of gardens and hedgerows to the city.

The report concludes that a significant amount of knowledge, expertise and enthusiasm prevails within the region as a whole and that there is very good potential for enhancement of biodiversity in the River Clyde corridor if targeted action is taken.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

1

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

2.

INTRODUCTION

2.1

Remit EnviroCentre Ltd was commissioned by Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership (GCVGNP) to undertake the River Clyde Biodiversity Project. This entailed a review of current biodiversity management in the Glasgow Clyde Valley followed by the presentation of prioritised, practical and costed proposals to conserve and enhance the biodiversity value of the metropolitan River Clyde corridor between Erskine Bridge and Auchenshuggle Woods.

2.2

Project Aim The aim of the project is to provide an account of the ecological connectivity and habitat quality along the River Clyde and to provide costed proposals to enhance the current situation. More specifically, this involves: 1. seeking to identify opportunities to reverse fragmentation through: a. the identification of opportunities to increase habitat connectivity; b. the protection and enhancement of existing biodiversity value; and c.

the creation of new habitat.

2. seeking to develop a prioritised and costed Action Plan, the intended use of which is: a. to influence future land management and planning decisions; b. aid targeting and co-ordination of existing resources; and c.

as a tool to make the case for additional resources.

The need for this work has arisen through a process of industrialisation and subsequent decline which has resulted in the degradation and fragmentation of habitats. Recent regeneration of riverside land has sought to reverse the process of dereliction and to restore the river as a valuable resource for those who live, work and visit Glasgow. New development has, to a varying degree, recognised and included provision for the enhancement of the recreational and landscape potential of the Clyde corridor. Less consideration has been given to opportunities for the enhancement of biodiversity and the River Clyde Biodiversity Project seeks to redress this balance.

2.3

Project Objectives The main objective of the project is to provide the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership with information and support to enable it to act strategically to stimulate and facilitate the planning, delivery and sustainable, long-term management of a high quality green network across the Glasgow metropolitan area.

Achieving a marked improvement in the scale and quality of the Green Network is recognised as being essential, in order to: •

improve the region’s competitiveness for investment;

•

enhance the quality of life;

•

promote biodiversity and more sustainable use of natural resources; and

•

encourage healthy lifestyles.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

2

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

The following sections outline the approach that was adopted towards achieving the project aims. The results of the review are reported and discussed and Actions are identified.

2.4

Project Outputs The project outputs include this report: •

Executive Summary;

•

Section 2 Introduction;

•

Section 3: Methodology;

•

Section 4: Overview and analysis;

•

Section 5 Field Survey Results; and

•

Section 6 Overview and Recommendations.

Appendices that include: •

Maps; and

•

Additional Information.

An Arcview compatible GIS dataset containing the project data.

Presentation of the findings to the steering group / partners.

2.5

Acknowledgements The project director and manager acknowledge with thanks those who attended the workshop and others who have provided information and their time during consultation. The project has benefited from direct and open discussion of the issues affecting biodiversity management.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

3

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

3.

METHODOLOGY

3.1

Geographical Scope of Study

October 2008

The linear geographical scope of the study along the River Clyde corridor ranges through the metropolitan area from the western boundary of the Clyde Waterfront area, at the Erskine Bridge, to the eastern boundary of the Clyde Gateway area, at Auchenshuggle Woods.

The study area is not defined by a set distance to the north or south and varies according to land use type and accessibility. For example, where important strategic habitats link with the Clyde, such as at the mouths of the Kelvin and Carts, the study area broadens. If the river bank is dominated by industrial use, is inaccessible and/or has low realised or potential biodiversity, the study only considers the river’s immediate edge. Generally it includes the riparian habitat/land use and that of the adjacent unit, up to an estimated 0.5km from the River Clyde. Sites further away from the river and corridors that have potential to link with or complement Clyde biodiversity are included in the overview and can be seen illustrated on Figure 1: Overview; Sheets 1 to 8.

3.2

Desk Study The desk study was a major part of the project work. It determined the location of areas with actual or potential biodiversity value for consideration within the project and areas which required survey due to their exclusion from previous works or the time elapsed since they were last surveyed. A number of other relevant issues were also identified from the consultation process in particular, such as the relevant work and current or future activity that has not been publicised.

3.2.1 Stakeholders Stakeholder consultation was undertaken to identify significant opportunities in terms of current and potential biodiversity value. Initially a stakeholder list was drawn up and a workshop organised, based on the project aims. Those stakeholders with involvement in biodiversity management; ecological skills and interest; and associated expertise were invited to take part in the workshop which was held on Friday 16 May 2008. Not all those who were invited were able to attend but the workshop was successful in achieving its aim.

The purpose of the workshop was to: •

identify key areas for the conservation of biodiversity in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley (GCV);

•

identify concerns over the current management of biodiversity in the GCV;

•

identify opportunities for the future management; and

•

potential mechanisms for the delivery of actions.

Following the workshop the results were compiled and further desk study and field work initiated. The work shop results are discussed in Section 4.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

4

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

3.3

October 2008

Information A large amount of data has been generated over the last 20 years, relating to all aspects of the Clyde corridor.

A data trawl and desk top study of existing biological and conservation

information held by partner organisations was undertaken. Data was selected for consideration based on: •

guidance from stakeholders and the project steering group;

•

direct relevance to the project; e.g. Clyde Waterfront Green Network; and

•

subject area, context and the requirements for additional information.

A significant part of the desk study revolved around personal communication with stakeholders and interested parties or holders of information. At this stage leads were followed to develop an understanding of the key issues and ensure, as far as possible, that information was correct and up to date.

During the stakeholder interviews the project was explained, findings to date were related and potential opportunities were explored. Conversations notes were taken and all outcomes were reported.

3.3.1 Landownership Landownership details were not explored in depth at this stage, although this was the original intention. The steering group was unable to assist in the identification of landownership and therefore the process could have proved costly and time consuming to undertake through the normal channels, i.e. the Land Register, and no direct benefits were identified at this stage. To continue would have impacted negatively on the project budget and timescales.

3.3.2 Biodiversity Data and Field Survey The project team made field visits to become familiar with the river corridor as a whole in order to ensure that an appreciation of the various elements and linkages was gained. Field survey was restricted to Phase 1 Habitat Survey1 of a number of sites highlighted during the early consultation process. The sites identified for investigation are shown in Appendix E on Figure 1, Sheets 1 to 8.

It rapidly became apparent that there are numerous stakeholders and interested partners, and while there is a general knowledge of biodiversity in the Clyde corridor there is a wide variety of survey work required, much of it specialist. The task of undertaking ecological surveys of areas identified during desk study and the workshop, where no data currently exists, was found to be of a scale sufficient to place it outside the scope of the project. In order to manage this issue within the budget and timescales the focus of the field work was directed to those sites that were specifically identified as potential management areas during the workshop.

In addition to the large scale of survey work required it also became clear that whilst there are significant gaps in the ecological data there is a general understanding of the biodiversity within 1

Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey JNCC 1990

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

5

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

the river corridor based on macro habitats.

October 2008

The workgroup therefore focused on habitat

connectivity, habitat that requires protection and habitat that needs management or would benefit from enhancement. The creation of new habitat and potential connective features within the urban landscape rapidly emerged as being critical to the well being of the river and riparian habitat. This is discussed further in Section 6.

3.4 Analysis The resultant data was analysed in two distinct processes: 1. analysis of the workshop and other consultation outcomes; and 2. analysis of the field work and ecological data.

The outcomes of these studies, which entail some interaction between the two throughout the process, are then brought together and discussed to provide an overview and to aid the identification of recommendations in the development of prioritised action plans (see Appendix A).

Given the broad range of interest in the GCV it was considered appropriate to prepare potential actions for consideration rather than to specify definitive actions to be taken.

Where

appropriate and feasible, indicative costs have been included with the actions as a guide.

The actions have also been prioritised to provide initial starting points, however it is considered likely that external influences will affect this initial ranking. Timescales will also depend upon these externalities as well as the results of consultation and funding.

However, some

recommendations are capable of being taken forward in the short term, whilst others will require long term planning.

The findings of the project are such that, whilst conventional biodiversity/conservation management processes are seen as underpinning the whole process, there is a significant move towards the development of new systems and process, including new technologies and management systems that incorporate socioeconomic perspectives as well as those of a purely ecological nature.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

6

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

4.

BIODIVERSITY OPPORTUNITY WORKSHOP OUTCOMES

4.1

General The workshop structure followed an agenda of three questions which were discussed in small groups initially and subsequently opened up for general discussion. The questions were: •

What are the key areas for biodiversity?

•

What are the current management shortcomings; and

•

What are the opportunities for future management?

Maps were provided for participants to mark up as they chose and their comments were recorded; these are reported in the following sections.

4.2

Identification of key areas for biodiversity The workshop members drew attention to the designation of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) which has been an important step forward and has sought to identify the key areas for biodiversity. The exercise was then broadened out to include less valuable sites that might never-the-less have an important role to play within the biodiversity network. Sites of high conservation value were noted but other areas were also recognised as of interest. The following is a list of sites noted during the discussions, a plan showing all the areas identified is presented in Figure 1 (Sheets 1-8).

•

The Saltings (LNR);

•

Newshot Island;

•

Auchentoshan Woods;

•

White Cart;

•

Black Cart;

•

North Bank Feeder Burns;

•

Blythswood;

•

Yoker;

•

Kelvin;

•

Govan;

•

Festival Site;

•

Glasgow Green;

•

Old Power station at Dalmarnock;

•

Richmond Park;

•

Auchenshuggle Woods;

•

Various burns; and

•

Dockland gap sites.

It is clear that in addition to the SINC sites there is potentially the requirement for a significant body of work to be undertaken to investigate the areas noted and to develop management plans where appropriate. When coupled with funding issues, this presents a major challenge.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

7

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

With regard to the designation of The Saltings Local Nature Reserve (LNR), Old Kilpatrick, there was some feeling that this may open up avenues for funding. A Draft Management Plan has been prepared and its implementation may inform outcomes in relation to the future management of other sites.

Newshot Island (proposed) LNR was noted as having valuable pasture and arable habitat, the reduction of which is recognised as having potentially serious ecological effect. In particular, the workshop recorded that tree sparrow decline is serious and that there are ten pairs (maximum) recorded at the site. Newshot and surrounding farmland was subsequently visited and photographed, though not surveyed as it is too large an area for this project and any survey undertaken would sensibly be targeted for a specific purpose. The land is currently farmland with relic and intact hedgerows and scattered tree cover. It is very important for birds, notably providing habitat for roosting waders (Redshank etc.), Tree sparrows and Sand martins. The Cart flows into the Clyde on the south-eastern side and is a well-known location for Holy-grass (Hierochloe odorata) which is recorded in only thirteen other sites in the UK (and three in Scotland). This area is also identified by some as a possible location for managed retreat with regard to flood management.

Other coastal grasslands and pockets of salt marsh are also seen as very important. Boden Boo grasslands, reed beds and saltmarsh were noted as complementing a very good site to the west, and the Erskine Hospital grounds. Rashielee Quay and Park Quarry which are both disused quarries are valuable for roosting waders.

A number of biodiversity matters therefore relate to this part of the river/project area, and it has accordingly been identified as one of the priority areas.

The north bank tributaries and culverts were raised as an important issue by all consulted. The main streams are the Duntocher Burn and Tollcross Burn which are culverted or have significant barriers located within their channel, and the River Kelvin which has some smaller barriers. The workshop identified de-culverting and the removal of barriers to fish movement as highly desirable. A definition of ‘barrier’ was not given by consultees at this stage. This is discussed in more depth in Section 6. Clydebank redevelopment was noted as providing the potential mechanism with regard to Duntocher Burn. Yoker was highlighted as an important location with regard to de-culverting. The Kelvin mouth is an important site: for the passage of fish; and habitat for birds, mammals and flora. The Friends of the River Kelvin were named as an active and valuable support group.

The Duntocher Burn is a major wildlife corridor leading into the golf course area and Auchentoshan Woods which are partly ancient woodland (M1).

With regard to Auchentoshan Woods, it was noted that £10,000 has been set aside in West Dunbartonshire for Woodland Management and that there was good community spirit which was supportive of the woodland. This was therefore regarded as a positive situation that should remain high on the list of priorities and that may form the basis for an expansion of physical habitat and community management approaches.

Other woodlands noted were Lusset Glen Valley woodland, beside Erskine Bridge, and Boden Boo Community Woodland.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

8

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

The potential for Woods In and About Town (WIAT) funding was also noted and this may be a valuable mechanism that could form part of future action plans in association with the Forestry Commission Scotland. This would require the selection of woodlands with the potential for extension, through desk and field-based surveys.

The WIAT programme sets out a

methodology that can be utilised in this process.

The Cart’s links were recorded as being important with recognition given to the Whooper swans in the Black Cart Special Protection Area (SPA).

The SPA provides international

protection and therefore development and biodiversity management must reflect and support this. Blythswood was also noted as providing some good opportunities for the development of biodiversity initiatives.

In central Glasgow it was noted that there was a lack of waste ground which can be of significant value to biodiversity. Also there was some concern expressed with regard to the narrowing of the river channel due to development near the city centre. Bird habitat and reed beds in particular are seen as important features that should not be lost and where possible be enhanced or new habitat created.

With regard to data, it was generally agreed that there is much historical and recent data that could be compiled and put to good use. There was also a call for micro habitat investigation, such as invertebrate microhabitat (e.g. for butterflies and saproxylic beetles).

4.3

Identification of current management shortcomings Biodiversity management was noted as a significant challenge by all present. The current process is obviously not delivering the desired outcomes as there is very little direct management for biodiversity recorded in the area. This leads to frustration; however, a keen interest in moving biodiversity management forward still prevails. Action needs to follow the ground work in all cases, but this is where the system consistently breaks down. Difficult communication routes and lack of funding were identified as the central issues. This was identified as a problem at all levels and affecting all concerned.

Major barriers identified were: •

the lack of communication between development control planners, biodiversity professionals and developers;

•

currently the sectors were perceived to have different drivers;

•

funding for biodiversity an ongoing issue;

•

many different owners and types of owner, and fragmented ownership; and

•

planning gain not being utilised sufficiently.

These are difficult barriers and a radical change is required in order to generate new energy and focus. This means moving away from management methods that have been shown to fail.

The subject of invasive alien species elicited some very strong views and this would need further discussion in order to clearly understand what is in truth, a complex issue. It is clear that there can be no generalisations with regard to management of invasives and that it is likely that each case will require individual consideration in order to apply the correct management.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

9

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Invertebrate surveys were highlighted as poor for the area with requirement to: •

Increase the number and extent of surveys; and

•

Increase education on invertebrate taxonomy and field skills.

This was seen as a vital area for improvement

4.4

Opportunities for future management The following points were raised in relation to future management opportunities, with the overall aim of retaining and managing core biodiversity.

•

The Clyde Gateway was seen as a major opportunity to influence the approach to, and management of, biodiversity;

•

The M74 extension and development at Cunningar Loop were also noted as presenting potential opportunities for habitat creation and the incorporation of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS). Glasgow City Council (GCC) Design Group was noted as having a role to play in this;

•

The Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) and the Scottish Rural Development Programme’s Rural Development Contracts were seen as useful vehicles and collaborative applications were regarded to be of particular value;

•

Desire to increase: o

taxonomic knowledge with regard to invertebrates;

o

knowledge and number of fish spawning sites;

o

softer engineering of river banks; and

o

take up of brownfield site opportunities.

•

identification and management of the foundation and keystone species;

•

incorporation of these into habitat creation plans; and

•

river restoration was seen as the way forward with emphasis on de-culverting.

The stakeholders would welcome opportunities for adjustment to planned engineered embankments and raised the opportunity for reed bed creation in the docks during regeneration, infilling or reclamation works (Phragmites beds rather than complete infill). The contact for this was considered to be the Director of Land and Environmental Services GCC and the relevant operations being flood alleviation work. The mechanism for this work is Duty under the Nature Conservation Act 2004 and opportunities for grant aid were highlighted with consultation with the Scottish Government considered to be the initial step.

Opportunities were also noted for the protection and enhancement of water vole populations along feeder burns. De-culverting and softer engineering approaches to the river banks are important in this respect. Mink do not generally stray too far from the main water courses, so their presence is not necessarily a significant problem on small burns and detached water bodies.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

10

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Opportunities for managed retreat downstream of the city were highlighted. This was noted as requiring forward thinking to ensure that areas were kept clear.

Forth/Clyde Canal - British Waterways proposal for Natural Heritage Audit on Glasgow branch of Forth and Clyde canal.

Clyde River Foundation (CRF) - There is potential to work with CRF on survey work for fish spawning sites in lesser studied tributaries. The role of CRF is discussed further in Section 6.

SEPA – SUDS - Planning There is scope for SUDS development and to retro-fit SUDS schemes. Again de-culverting was seen as desirable. (SEPA, CMP).

It was generally considered that hydro-morphology2 is being overlooked. A hydro-morphology data base was considered to be attainable. The data base would assist in the identification of significant pressures acting on the riverine environment. Clydeport hold bathymetric data and are one of the major stakeholders. The mechanism to achieve this target would be the River Basin Management Plan.

The scope for de-culverting ties in with improving riparian vegetation, which in turn ties in with the invasives issue and the enhancement of riparian ecology to the benefit of a variety of species. These projects would lend themselves to a partnership approach with multi benefits such as improvements in water quality, flood storage capacity and amenity value.

The Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Partnership (MGSDP) was considered as important in this regard. The new EU Flood Directive was also seen as an opportunity to look at the whole catchment in partnership with SEPA, Scottish Water and the MGSDP. The new Flood Bill was also noted as providing opportunities for encouragement of sustainable management, including, amongst other, flood storage benefits in combination with wetland creation (e.g. flood detention basins, swales, French drains, green roofs, gravel roofs and flow restriction such as the use of hydrobrakes3). In essence legislation and policy combine to provide the mechanism for the integration of water and biodiversity management.

Funding the above actions could potentially be an issue. There are numerous funding sources but competition is high and the funds available are often limited. However, there is also the possibility of funding or assistance from major corporate bodies and through planning gain and compensation.

Access is important for biodiversity as it can have a significant impact on certain groups, e.g. nesting/roosting birds. It was noted that the Core Path Plan for West Dunbartonshire is still being written. It is essential that opportunities are taken to ensure integrity of biodiversity.

2

The two elements of hydro-morphology are hydrological regime (quantity and dynamics of flow) and morphological conditions (river/channel width and depth variation, structure and substrate of bed, riparian structure).

3 Hydrobrakes – vortex flow control used to impede the passage of high flows in pipelines.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

11

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

5.

October 2008

FIELD SURVEY Phase 1 Habitat Surveys were carried out at 10 sites; the target notes and species lists are attached in Appendix B. Fieldwork included Duntocher and Tollcross Burns and the mouth of the River Kelvin but not the Kelvin corridor. The dismantled railway by Duntocher Burn was surveyed and the agricultural land by the Cart was visited. The farm land was not surveyed as it was too large an area. Renfrew Ferry was also visited along with other parts of the riverside such as the Clyde Walkway at Dalmarnock. Data is held by EnviroCentre for the Cunningar Loop but it is not available to this report as it is privately owned. It can be obtained through the planning system by the GNP when it goes into the public domain. It will then be a matter for consultation and SNH will be provided with the information. Retrieval of such data is a matter for the associated authorities.

It was concluded that, given the timescales and other limitations necessarily attached to the project, long-term focussed survey would be more valuable than rapid Phase 1, especially as the survey data goes out of date within 2 years. No mammal, invertebrate or bird surveys were undertaken, although birds and butterflies were noted during the Phase 1 habitat survey.

Plates 1-22 in Appendix C characterise some of the sites visited.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

12

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

6.

OVERVIEW

6.1

General

October 2008

The scope of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Biodiversity Project is confined to the River Clyde, its riparian habitat and, where appropriate, adjacent habitats.

In 1992 the Mid-Clyde River Valleys Project issued its Nature Conservation Strategy. The strategy recommended adoption of eight key policies and provided detailed analysis of the Clyde Valley.

Local Authority Development Plans, the Clyde Waterfront Green Network

Strategy and Clyde Gateway Green Network Strategy have established a vision for the development of the Clyde Valley, much of which is detailed to a local level.

Change is,

however, slow and new mechanisms are sought to generate action.

The desk and field studies confirmed the value of the River Clyde and its associated habitats such as river channel, tributaries and estuary habitats; intertidal mudflats, estuarine saltmarsh and Phragmites reed beds. The semi-natural riverbanks and riparian woodland are valuable habitat but under threat from a variety of pressures.

The Mid Clyde Project provided a clear description of biodiversity aims and the importance of conservation sites and wildlife corridors, noting that “to allow the movement of wildlife within

the Project area it is vital that land and water that could facilitate such movement, is safeguarded from development”. The report describes the ecological structure of the Renfrewshire rural area and the urban Clydebank and Glasgow areas and, whilst technicality it is a number of years old, it remains a valuable reference document for the management of biodiversity within the project area. We do not seek to replicate previous work in this project, but to use the information to move forward.

There is increasing awareness of the environmental changes that are occurring in relation to climate change. As a result there is an increasing recognition of the importance of including biodiversity within the built environment and including corridors not just up to the edge of urban development but continuing right through it.

In essence this is what the “Green

Network” is about. However, the real challenge to create the required step change in attitudes and implementation to meet these issues. This section of the document seeks to amalgamate the information gathered during the study and place it before the reader in a form that is bold, looks to the future, takes example from other major cities in the world, yet is Clyde focussed and delivers sound, achievable goals. It seeks to stimulate imagination, provoke discussion and enthusiasm and deliver action.

The following sections take the subject areas in turn and attempt to weave together the biodiversity issues, opportunities and solutions that the project has found to be important to Glasgow and the Clyde valley at this point in time.

6.2

River Clyde The River Clyde provides a large number of environmental and socioeconomic services to the valley and the biodiversity within the river corridor contends with the need for other services supported by the river. To illustrate this it is valuable to take a brief overview. Within the river aquatic plants and animals are supported to a lesser or greater extent depending on the health

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

13

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

and usage of the river and these in turn provide habitat and resources to the enhancement of the riverine ecology. From these resources come recreational opportunities such as fishing, bird watching and water sports, but these may conflict with use of the river as a valuable transport route for shipping and leisure craft associated with industry, leisure and tourism, and that may negatively impact the ecological resources. The Clyde is also vital to the functioning of the city, suburbs and rural areas, acting as a receptor and conduit for storm run off, treated sewage discharges and industrial discharges. The river is also contained by engineered banks to control and manage flooding and dredged to provide sufficient depth to allow large vessels to pass up river to the harbour and docks.

The River Clyde therefore provides services to industry, commerce, residential property, agriculture, tourism, recreation, water management and biodiversity. Ideally these services will be balanced to secure the health and well being of the river, i.e. they will be sustainable.

The historical imbalance, and unsustainable use of the river, has begun to be addressed in recent years and now we begin to see the recovery of the river water quality, evidenced most conspicuously through the return of salmon and otters, but also by changes in bird and other faunal populations. There are other threats, however, to the quality and of life of the river, which are serious and do require a considered and funded approach to their management.

The challenge is to integrate biodiversity with development to secure the long term health of the river, the riparian corridor and the city beyond.

6.3

Management

6.3.1 Discussion Currently the river and the riparian land are managed by a large number of organisations and individuals but in general: •

Clydeport has responsibility for the lower reaches;

•

Local authorities control the upper reaches; and

•

The Crown Estate has authority over the sea bed and fisheries.

Four local authorities have responsibility within the project area and within them numerous departments each managing different aspects of the corridor (Ref: Figure 2). Scottish Water and SEPA manage infrastructure and discharges into the river and SNH has responsibility for the internationally and nationally designated sites.

Add to this the landowners, industry,

developers, fisheries and other interest groups and the list becomes long and complex. A general list is provided in Appendix D. The project has found that this fragmentation of control creates difficulties with regard to biodiversity management (and other river management issues) and also with respect to funding and communication.

Furthermore, individual local authority departments have

incomplete management control, with divided responsibilities. This situation does not lend itself to unified, strategic management.

An example of a management issue that is generally found throughout the country, and has been recorded in the GCV this year, is that of grassland management and cutting regimes.

Cutting regimes tend to be out of sync with biodiversity aims and can lead to loss of species and reduction in grassland biodiversity value. The regimes are also costly to maintain and staff 12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

14

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

are often not informed or trained sufficiently to allow them to take “ownership” of their work.

This has been successfully redressed in some local authority areas through annual training of teams and other groups. Revised management can be valuable to local authorities in reducing costs. Section 6.7.2 includes recommendations for training days for hedge and grass cutting.

6.3.2 Recommendations It is recommended that management of the River Clyde is rationalised to provide one body with overall responsibility for the Glasgow and Clyde Valley corridor although it is acknowledged there would be a major challenge in deciding where the boundary should be drawn. Therefore it is suggested that each local authority i.e. West Dunbartonshire, Renfrewshire, Glasgow City and South Lanarkshire collaborate to form an umbrella organisation to establish a River Clyde Officer role, to manage the riparian corridor according to a vision for the whole catchment, with specific management plans for the various elements of the corridor. The function of this role would be to manage the landscape within the riparian corridor. It would ensure the holistic management of the river corridor in consultation with those responsible for water management.

This is a radical recommendation which is broad in outline and it is acknowledged that implementing such an action would take time and present challenges. It is however considered crucial to recognise the importance of holistic management systems in creating a sustainable future, not only for the River Clyde but the city as a whole.

Identification of the lead partners in this action is outside the scope of this project. It is envisaged that initial discussions between the four local authorities could be facilitated by the GNP.

6.4

River Restoration

6.4.1 Discussion The industrialisation of the river led to extensive hard engineering of the main channel and tributaries, with hard banks and culverting established as the norm. Many of the tributaries have also been built over. Reversing these hard engineering solutions can be costly and technically challenging and, unfortunately, it is very often the case that these types of solutions are still being granted planning permission in preference to soft engineering and more natural solutions.

The River Clyde, River Kelvin, the White Cart and Black Cart Water (and their

confluence), the Duntocher Burn and the Tollcross Burn would all benefit from restoration work. In addition, there are other culverts that could benefit from “daylighting”. This emerged as a serious issue during the project and presents a considerable challenge to all involved in the management of the river corridor.

As the project area includes only a relatively short stretch of the River Clyde and a small part of the Clyde catchment, any desired river rehabilitation work resulting from the GCV biodiversity project must be placed in the context of the whole catchment.

This translates into

consideration of the fact that action priorities for the catchment may be different to those within the GCV project area. The River Clyde and its tributaries are recovering from the effects of industrialisation and rapid human population growth followed by decline in recent times.

Currently, water quality is improving in the lower reaches and also in the formerly industrialised 12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

15

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

areas of the upper reaches. This has facilitated the return of salmonid and lamprey species which has increased the conservation value of the river.

This recovery will be maintained by the maintenance of good water quality and the removal of barriers to allow migratory species access to their former spawning grounds. Barriers may be physical obstructions or related to pollution, depleted oxygen levels or high suspended solids concentrations.

From the physio-chemical side the prognosis is good although less so from the biological perspective, with the introduction and spread of many non-native species, in particular the alien North American Signal Crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus).

The Signal crayfish will rapidly

colonise freshwater sites, competitively excluding our native crayfish; it also carries a fungal disease, (the crayfish plague), for which the native crayfish has no defence. In addition to the potential impact on native crayfish, the Signal crayfish has also been shown to have detrimental effects on other native fauna in British waters, and on developments such as bridges, the foundations of which it may undermine.

With regard to data for the River Clyde there is no permanent fisheries scientist dedicated to the river and relevant data is held by a number of organisations, such as angling clubs, SEPA and Clyde River Foundation (CRF). The fisheries are also complex to administer, there being several categories of fish: conservation species; games species; and coarse species.

Additionally, the river within the project area is too deep to survey. The Crown Estate own the angling rights for sea trout and salmon which they lease to the angling clubs and the River Clyde Fisheries Management Trust Limited is the umbrella organisation for these.

The CRF is a registered Scottish charity which researches the ecology of the Clyde and its tributaries and promotes environmental education throughout the catchment. It works with the co-operation of local interests to provide a professional fishery science presence across the catchment. The CRF has accrued considerable electro-fishing data across the catchment as part of an ongoing baseline survey and advises on the likely impacts of removing obstacles.

Very little is known, however, about the river through Glasgow and the Inner Firth.

The main pressures affecting the fish and aquatic ecology are water quality and access for migratory species.

It is understood that this has been discussed in detail by the Water

Framework Directive Area Advisory Group and can be simplistically categorised as follows: •

Water quality: o

Urban and rural diffuse pollution;

o

Sewage Treatment Works effluents; and

o

Resurgent mine waters.

•

Water quantity:

•

Physical alterations:

o

Controlling abstractions and discharges.

o

Canalisation;

o

Barriers to migration;

o

Removal of spawning gravels; and

o

Invasive species, etc.

The CRF will produce a fish and fishery management plan for the River Clyde Catchment, which will dovetail with the objectives of the WFD River Basin Management Pan. 12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

16

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

With regard to the matters highlighted within the GCV project, ideally they must be viewed in the context of the whole catchment. It may therefore be that the priorities for the GCV are not high priorities within a more holistic approach; however, it does not necessarily follow that the objectives should be abandoned.

The CRF is in the best position to advise on specific restoration actions with the River Restoration Centre able to advise more generally on practical solutions.

With regard to ensuring there is no further decline in quality and that restoration is achieved where possible it is important to engage with the groups most able to affect this issue. These are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: River Restoration - Responsible Stakeholders Stakeholder

Requirements to aid restoration process

Local Authorities.

To be fully informed of the desired management of the river. In particular planning, development and greening services. Agreed management objectives may be adopted as part of the development plan and smaller information initiatives developed to provide support.

Scottish Water.

To be consulted, informed and enabled to facilitate restoration where possible.

SEPA & SNH.

To provide advice and support and possible funding.

Local Authority

To be fully informed and in a position to present alternatives to

Development Planners.

applicants.

Developers – these also

Need to understand alternatives available to them and be sure that

may be Local

there is a “level playing field”.

Authorities.

Design Engineers –

Need to be able to provide environmentally acceptable solutions but

these may also be

also need the correct instruction from the client. Need positive

retained by local

support from SEPA and Local authority.

authorities.

Local Authorities (esp.

Need to be aware when drawing up section 75 agreements and

legal services),

looking at planning gain for clients.

Environmental Lawyers, & Planning Consultants.

Planning Consultants

Need to be fully cognisant of the soft engineering and bio-

and Environmental

engineering techniques and habitat rehabilitation techniques

Consultants.

available to the client.

6.4.2 Recommendations It is recommended that the GNP consults CRF and SEPA with regard to de-culverting and restoration opportunities. To move this action forward the following is recommended: •

Identify and prioritise all burns and culverts that can ultimately be restored. Some of this work may already have been completed;

•

Carry out feasibility studies on sites which could deliver most in terms of biodiversity, amenity and flood attenuation;

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

17

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

•

October 2008

Identify tributaries of the river Clyde that can be targeted immediately. The Duntocher Burn, Tollcross Burn and River Kelvin have been identified during the project;

•

Prepare biodiversity/restoration management plans for these three streams;

•

Undertake feasibility studies for these three streams with regard to de-culverting and removing barriers or constructing fish passes and general river restoration work. The feasibility study to include ecological, hydrological and geomorphological survey, take cultural heritage into account and look at the engineering feasibility;

•

Further to the completion of the feasibility studies the work required should be classified and prioritised. It is likely some tasks will be straight forward and capable of moving forward quickly while other tasks will require significant funding or engineering works;

•

Carry out environmental impact assessment of all projects before proceeding;

•

Undertake full consultation with stakeholders before carrying out any work; and

•

The management of invasive species will tie into this work and there should ideally be linkages between the investigations of these issues.

Note: The Glasgow City Council River Clyde Flood Management Strategy (Halcrow, Fairhurst) provides engineering solutions, some of which are soft engineering and may inform the above actions.

Further restoration of the River Clyde may to some extent be achieved through development design and planning gain through mitigation and/or compensation. Community and other interested groups may be capable of tackling smaller projects such as community woodland management, river bank clean ups and assisted survey.

The suggestion that infilling of docks could be partially replaced by reed bed creation should be explored and the possibility of a pilot scheme investigated. The following stages should be considered: •

Identify potential site through consultation and commission feasibility study;

•

Produce design specification and implement project;

•

Evaluate and disseminate the results; and

•

Provide support to further projects of the same nature.

Where possible, development opportunities should be re-visited, with the purpose of looking for improvements to biodiversity.

6.5

Ecological Data and Survey

6.5.1 Discussion Whilst the corridor biodiversity is generally understood there is a lack of detailed survey data in many areas which it is desirable to address. There is currently only one active biological recording centre within the project area, i.e. Glasgow Museum Resource Centre; North and South Lanarkshire record centres are currently inactive. There is, therefore, a problem with collecting, managing, analysing and disseminating data as well as there being significant gaps in some types of data.

The RSPB and BTO collect and disseminate general bird and WeBS data, a national badger survey has been undertaken this year by the Badger Society and the results are being 12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

18

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

compiled. The Bat Conservation Trust manages bat data. The National Amphibian and Reptile Recording Scheme (NARRS) survey took place in 2007. This was a volunteer survey targeting the naturally widespread amphibians, great-crested newt, smooth newt, palmate newt, common frog and common toad to provide an assessment of conservation status. These results went through to the national recording centre but few to the Glasgow centre. With regard to invertebrates, popular species, such as butterflies, moths and dragonflies, tend to be recorded but less visible and less popular species are either under recorded or not recorded at all. Generally there is no co-ordinated programme of survey and recording within the GCV. Funding is also an issue.

Data gaps for reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates were highlighted during the project.

Particular attention was drawn to invertebrates which, as they are essential to the health of the river, require to be understood in relation to the management of the Clyde corridor.

6.5.2 Recommendations Potential Actions with regard to ecological survey and recording are as follows: •

Establish Glasgow as the main recording centre managing satellite centres in North and South Lanarkshire or activate record centres in all relevant local authorities or groups of authorities. This is already under discussion;

•

Fund two full time positions in the record centre;

•

Commission specialist surveyors to come to the project area for a sufficient period of time (e.g. 1-2 weeks) to survey identified groups at a number of locations across the GCV project area;

•

Carry out training in partnership with interest groups, universities and organisations such as Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM), Field Studies Council (FSC), Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB) and Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT), British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV), Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) etc.;

•

Organise an annual ‘bioblitz’ survey, choosing a different site each year;

•

Prepare a pamphlet on Management Guidance for Invertebrate habitat along the River Clyde. Buglife would be able to assist with this; and

•

Collaborate with Buglife, Butterfly Conservation, Bumble Bee Conservation and Glasgow Natural History Society to put together an invertebrate project to include general awareness raising through workshops, events and, talks.

This could be

undertaken as a major River Clyde Project, involving schools and communities; and as invertebrates are important to other groups such as fish, bats and birds it should be possible to gather assistance from other interest groups such as RSPB, BCT and Anglers.

6.6

Birds

6.6.1 Discussion The importance of the Inner Clyde estuary is recognised by international and national designations: •

Clyde SPA for wintering redshank populations of international importance;

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

19

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

•

Black Cart SPA for over wintering Whooper swans (Cygnus cygnus); and

•

Inner Clyde SSSI: Biological Habitat: Coastland and Biological: Species: Birds o

Populations of wintering wildfowl and waders and of international importance for its wintering population of Redshank;

o

Most northerly of Britain’s large west coast estuaries used by migrating birds;

o

Extensive areas of intertidal sand and mudflats with an abundant invertebrate fauna;

o

Typical estuarine plant communities; and

o

Includes nationally important populations of Red-throated Diver, Cormorant, Scaup, Eider, Goldeneye, Red-breasted Merganser and Oystercatcher. Curlew in numbers sometimes reaching nationally important levels.

Refer to Figure 4 for designated site locations.

For all birds, marine and tidal, it is necessary to maintain the river corridor and estuarine environment.

Of the nine species for which the Clyde SSSI is designated, most are of

favourable status but there has been a decline in numbers in recent years. The reasons for this are not clear. SNH monitor the populations through WeBS Count data, have commissioned additional monitoring this year (2008), and are awaiting the results. It is considered that improvements in water quality may be having an impact on the population and that they may settle down to a new equilibrium as the ecosystem settles and reaches a new carrying capacity.

Although the Inner Clyde is of international importance for Redshank and national importance for a range of other waders and wildfowl, farmland and woodland birds are also important within the study area. It is therefore essential to maintain and enhance habitat where possible.

Poor water quality and disturbance due to easy accessibility are the main potential impacts.

6.6.2 Recommendations Targeted actions include; •

Identify the precise location of roosting and feeding sites within the Clyde SPA, Black Cart SPA and Inner Clyde SSSI;

•

Assess the current access in the vicinity of these sites and assess the impact of

•

Using interpretation, refuge zones, and access management to avoid disturbance

disturbance during nesting/roosting times; during the breeding and over-wintering seasons; •

Consult with relevant experts to determine which potential sites are not used and why? e.g. could this be due to dog walkers, routes of pathways, etc.;

•

Create refuge zones using boulder rip rap, gravel, decking etc., re-route pathways;

•

Consult with SNH to identify any potential management requirements that may be employed;

•

Identify, map and survey open standing water within the study area;

•

Identify opportunities, through consultation and use of integrated habitat modelling, to maintain or increase the current extent of wetland and open water habitat; and

•

Identify opportunities, through consultation and use of integrated habitat modelling, to establish areas of vegetation (such as wildflower grassland or woodland or scrub) between the watercourses and within the urban environment to enhance functional connectivity.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

20

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Farmland habitat management (e.g. for oystercatcher and skylark), and habitat composition is outwith the GNP control. This is discussed further in the following Section (6.7).

6.7

Invertebrates

6.7.1 Discussion The invertebrate fauna of the River Clyde Valley is poorly known due to the limited number of field specialists; the potentially very large number of species; the size and configuration of the area; and the time involved in survey and sampling and especially in the subsequent identification of species. However, due to their small size and in some cases, their ecological specificity, there is the potential for invertebrate populations of conservation importance to exist on small sites that have been ignored by specialists interested in other groups of species, or on sites that are well known for their biodiversity interest that have not been visited by an appropriate invertebrate specialist.

In the course of consultation, only one additional site to those already considered for their significance for other species or habitats was identified and this is the exposed riverine sediment between Dalmarnock and Carmyle. A number of specialist flies are known to inhabit this area and further survey may reveal its importance for other groups of species, such as beetles. An honours degree student is currently undertaking research in this area but the poor summer weather in 2008 has resulted in the appearance of a low number of adult flies and a potentially incomplete survey of their abundance and diversity (G. Hancock, The Hunterian Museum, pers. comm.).

6.7.2 Recommendations With the lack of good invertebrate data in the GCV area having been repeatedly highlighted an initial approach should be a systematic survey in order to gain some baseline data. An ideal group on which this should be undertaken is the ground beetles because they are frequently used as a target group for assessing riparian corridors because they have many specialist species in this habitat and they are relatively easy to identify.

In addition, the species

composition of their populations responds rapidly to changes in management and there is a substantial amount of previous research with established methodologies against which results could be compared.

This would involve establishing pitfall trap transects, typically two transects of nine traps at two distances from the river edge. These are generally left out for two weeks and the contents of each strip of nine pooled and counted as one sample. In terms of time commitment, it would take about twenty minutes to install each transect and then up to two hours to process and identify the species within each sample (depending on the number of beetles and species captured). The sampling could take place within pre-determined habitat types along the GCV or at specified intervals to produce a map of ground beetle diversity along the riparian strip.

Alternatively, full invertebrate surveys could be undertaken at the ten sites which have already been subject to Phase 1 survey. This would involve transects across each site, plus targeted searches, and each site would require a minimum of one day’s full survey in the spring (March to May) and one day’s survey in the summer (June-August) to obtain a representative sample 12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

21

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

of the different species present. This approach could also be adopted on a habitat specific (cf. site specific) basis.

The time needed to process the samples from these site or habitat specific surveys would vary unpredictably according to the number of species captured and it may take up to several days to complete for each site. This time commitment (and associated costs) could be reduced by deciding before-hand on a set of target groups selected on their ecological indicator value and the ease of their identification.

The costs associated with these surveys could be reduced by becoming a partner in the BTCV Natural Talent project. This is an apprenticeship programme for training in the identification of less popular groups, such as lower plants and invertebrates. The apprentices are paid by BTCV but require partner organisations to work in to undertake appropriate projects. A forthcoming opportunity will arise in October when an apprentice Dipterist will be starting at the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh.

They will then undertake six months of identification

training and they will be looking for partner organisations to undertake practical work with.

Further information on the implementation and opportunities available under this scheme are available from: http://www2.btcv.org.uk/display/nt_apprenticeships (accessed August, 2008).

6.8

Agricultural land and Biodiversity

6.8.1 Discussion Agricultural land is an important component of the river valley in the Erskine area and was visited during the project. Plates 1 to 4 show the landscape. The landscape is mostly under arable use with trees and both degraded and healthy hedges. It is of value for farmland birds, in particular Tree sparrows, and also for Sandmartins and roosting waders.

Investigation suggests that there are currently no recipients of funding from agri-environment schemes in the area, however this is not conclusive. The current scheme available to new entrants is the Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) which comprises all the different types of grant schemes, including the stewardship schemes, Forestry Commission schemes and SNH Natural Care. It is therefore complex; but aims to provide a –“one stop shop”. This is administered through the Regional Proposal Assessment Committees (RPACS).

The Clyde Valley RPAC area is contiguous with the: •

GCV Joint Structure Plan;

•

GCV Green Network Partnership; and

•

River Basin management Area Advisory Group (WFD AAG)

The Farming and Wildlife Group (FWAG) are now independent and Scotland-based and as FWAG is well respected by the farming community it would be best placed to take any agricultural biodiversity initiatives forward. As a norm, the farmer would contact FWAG and this would be followed by a meeting and farm visit followed by a farm report if required.

Within the GCV Region, FWAG usually receives some core funding from SNH and the rest of the income is earned. In other parts of Scotland FWAG also receives some funding from Local Authorities. The Lanark Office of FWAG covers the Clyde Valley RPAC area.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

22

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

6.8.2 Recommendations It is strongly recommended that: •

The FWAG Farm Conservation Advisor for the Clyde Valley, currently David King, is invited to join the GCV biodiversity steering group;

•

The local authorities with agricultural land in their area consider funding FWAG, as the group is in a strong position to contribute towards national and local biodiversity targets. Funding of as little as £1000 from each authority would provide cost effective delivery of biodiversity objectives;

•

Communication between farmers in the project area and FWAG should be encouraged and supported;

•

Training for the management of waders is arranged through FWAG, for farmers and land managers in the Clyde corridor; and

•

Training days for local authority workers and other groups and individuals in hedge management and grassland management to be arranged. These should be repeated annually with each new team to ensure continuity of management practices and skills.

(Refer back to Section 6.3.1 and 6.7.2).

6.9

Renfrew Golf Club

6.9.1 Discussion Renfrew Golf Club has been situated at Blythswood Estate on the banks of the River Clyde, bordered to the west by the Cart Waters, below the confluence, since 1973. This is tree lined parkland that provides an extension of the rural landscape to the west and a forms buffer between the river system and the urban centre to the east. The Club is currently managed along standard golf management lines and has no biodiversity or conservation plan in place.

6.9.2 Recommendation There is opportunity to introduce the club to the concept of biodiversity management and assist them with enhancement projects. The Scottish Golf Environment Group provides advice to the golf industry in Scotland and would be the body best equipped to take this forward. An initial approach has been made by the project and contact details for the Scottish Golf Environment Group have been provided to the Manager. The club appeared open to exploring this avenue and ideally this will be followed up with offers of support from the biodiversity partnership.

Support would be in the form of help with surveys and management ideas, which could be mainstreamed into the running of the club.

A number of options are available to enhance the ecological value of the course such as: •

The extent of unmanaged “rough” habitat can be maximised by reducing the width of the fairways;

•

The fairway sward should be managed to encourage a high proportion of appropriate native grass seed (such as Red Fescue cultivars) in order to reduce the need for high levels of management input with its associated economic, energetic and material costs (including runoff onto neighbouring sensitive habitat);

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

23

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

•

October 2008

Rough grassland areas bordering the fairways can be planted with a wildflower seed mix including low-growing forbs;

•

Areas of existing scrub and woodland can be supplemented by planting native trees and shrubs. Berry-bearing trees are favoured because of their use to birds as well as their longer-lasting aesthetic appeal;

•

Bat bird and insect boxes can be established at suitable locations to encourage the use of the site by these species; and

•

The creation of wetland and/or open water habitat would greatly benefit the wildlife and aesthetics of the area and create new ecological opportunities.

6.10 Invasive Alien Species (IAS) 6.10.1 Discussion Biodiversity in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley is subject to significant pressure and damage from Invasive Alien Species (IAS). Within the project area, florally, the critical invasive alien species are Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) JKW, Giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) and Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera), faunal species include North American Signal Crayfish and Mink.

These are not the only IAS but are currently the species that are

significantly affecting the biodiversity, development and management of the corridor.

The three species noted prevent access to the river and other areas, including woodland, and are out competing native species, creating alterations to habitat to the point where they completely dominate the habitat. In addition to being a major threat to biodiversity, Japanese knotweed has serious implications for the construction and development industries and flood protection schemes because it may undermine foundations. Giant hogweed has caustic sap that is a serious skin irritant.

Japanese knotweed is considered the most prolific and invasive species in the UK today and is a serious matter for developers as it can delay development and/or create significant additional costs, running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. The delivery of the Commonwealth Games Sports Village has the potential to be seriously impacted as there is substantial growth along the river at Dalmarnock.

This is a catchment related issue, as water is a major transport route; therefore in the longterm, systematic management on a catchment wide basis is required. It is however possible to treat individual sites to the benefit of the whole, and in many cases re-infestation will not occur.

The Tweed Invasives Project4 provides an example of control achievements in the River Tweed catchment and management insights that may be of value within the Clyde Valley with regard to floral invasive alien control.

Whilst there are many arguments with regard to the management of invasives the fact remains that the UK has an international obligation to manage invasives and that there are domestic obligations under the UK BAP to tackle IAS where they threaten priority habitats and species.

Invasive species do have the potential to threaten priority habitat in the study area, in particular arable field margins; coastal saltmarsh; hedgerows, lowland mixed deciduous

4

The Tweed Invasives Project, Tweed Forum 2006 Woods of Perth Ltd.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

24

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

woodland, open mosaic habitats on previously developed land, reedbeds, the rivers and, sheltered muddy gravels.

Priority species dependent upon affected habitats can also be

negatively impacted.

In Scotland’s Biodiversity Implementation Plan there is a stated requirement to take “recommended action on prevention, control, eradication and awareness raising on non-native species”.

The adverse impact of Japanese knotweed and Giant hogweed has also led to their inclusion on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This prohibits their intentional or reckless spread. The movement of soils infected by the JKW is controlled by the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

SEPA is responsible for enforcing the management of invasives however it is not an offence to have it, only an offence to allow it to grow in the wild. SEPA have limited powers of control and can only remind people of their duty as landowners not to allow plants to spread into the wild. Statutory Authorities have a duty under the Nature Conservation Act 2004 to further biodiversity. With regard to the Water Framework Directive, the plants are not included in this round of classification. The round of papers and work groups on invasives generally is manifold including the UK Strategy on Invasives, the UK Technical Advisory Group, Clyde Area Advisory Group, and the Scottish Working Group on Invasives.

Within the Clyde Valley the current issues with regard to IAS relate to: •

•

Access being prevented by: o

dense growth;

o

the associated health risks; and

Protection of the SPA from infestation.

It may not be possible to eradicate these invasives; however it is important to “knock back” Japanese knotweed and Giant hogweed before they become too dominant. In some locations, Japanese knotweed has spread from the initial infestation site through neglect until it is now forming massive stands, and if eradicated, it is unlikely to come back on the same scale (unless allowed to freely spread again).

6.10.2 Recommendations The recommended action is to: •

GNP to organise a meeting with intention of going forward with management at the catchment level. GNP to take a positive lead;

• •

Review and tie in with Catchment Management Plan where possible; Appoint an invasives project manager with special responsibility for Japanese knotweed, Giant hogweed and Himalayan balsam;

•

Identify sections of the corridor, prioritise and survey and map the presence of invasives;

•

Research current management within the corridor;

•

Identify landownership and development interests on affected land;

•

Prepare options reports in consultation with landowners and developers;

•

Prepare management plans and disseminate them to all stakeholders;

•

Research potential funding sources;

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

25

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

•

October 2008

Consider training a team to work within the corridor on a full time basis during the season – this is likely to be less costly than contracting out work;

•

Seek funding. Local authorities may find it beneficial to pool resources and/or seek match funding;

•

Monitor the corridor on a permanent basis by training all local authority staff, irrespective of role; to identify species and report sightings;

•

Run an awareness campaign. Seek funding for this from industry and development companies – controlling IAS is in their interest; and

•

Liaise with developers and seek assistance in management initiatives.

The Commonwealth Games Village site should be surveyed at the earliest especially because the presence of Japanese knotweed on the site could cause a major delay in the development plans. The “lush vegetation” referred to in reports about the Games is actually Japanese knotweed which will take up to 4 years to eradicate from the river bank. During this time it will be unsightly; therefore it would be wise to commence treatment this season. This would ensure that new, attractive native habitat could be established in time for the Games, with assistance from the Commonwealth Games fund a possibility. This would be a significant and beneficial habitat restoration programme linked to the Commonwealth Games and of positive marketing and news value.

Duntocher Burn, White Cart Water, Black Cart Water and the confluence, the Clyde Walkway at Dalmarnock and Tollcross Burn are all infested and in need of early treatment. Cuningar Loop is undergoing treatment.

6.11 Urban biodiversity 6.11.1 General The majority of the riparian corridor within the project area is industrial and surrounded by a commercial and residential urban landscape. The lower reaches of the river and estuary have been zoned to allow clear regeneration proposals to be defined, thus we see the Clyde Waterfront, Glasgow City and Clyde Gateway (Figure 3). Demolition and development are currently predominant along the riverside and a new urban landscape is emerging. Building a new cityscape within the confines of an older infrastructure is not entirely straightforward however, and when combined with a changing climate and other social pressures this can lead to problems that require new and imaginative solutions.

There are two central biodiversity issues within the urban GCV: •

management of water; and

•

greening of the urban environment.

Water management relates to flood, surface water and foul water management. The River Clyde Flood Management Strategy and the Surface Water Management Plan for Glasgow’s Clyde Gateway address the main pertinent issues and the River Basin Management Plan is due at the end of the year. The Plan looks at new ways to integrate water management with gains for biodiversity.

The greening of the urban environment relates to facilitating biodiversity into and through towns and the city, creating new habitat and linkages and at the same time providing benefits 12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

26

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

to the infrastructure and functioning of the city. The solutions identified involve the use of native and horticultural plant species combined with simple engineering to create elements within the urban environment that will attenuate water whilst providing a healthier and more biodiverse living space. It is recommended that the following elements are considered for inclusion within the regeneration programme: •

Green roofs;

•

Living walls;

•

Rain gardens;

•

Green bridges;

•

Small copse woodlands;

•

City orchards;

•

City gardens;

•

Hedgerows;

•

Tree lines;

•

Single trees;

•

Floral lawns;

•

Shrubberies; and

•

Open water features.

These can be integrated to form a beautiful, green corridor and/or series of stepping stones from east to west, across the city. This can be facilitated through the incorporation of a Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) requirement in the planning process for new developments (Ref. Section 6.11).

It is suggested that ideally there should be a buffer between developments and the river and that this water front buffer will be the main wildlife corridor with small, discrete habitat areas between the buildings. This will provide both habitat and commuting routes for animals such as badgers and bats which inhabit the riparian corridor. It will also provide continuous access to the river and allow pedestrians to move along the river front. The short distances between features will encourage use by all ages and abilities and increase safety. Instead of backing onto the river, developments could be encouraged to have their front towards the river, allowing the waterfront to become the main thoroughfare.

The Clyde Waterfront Development Strategy recognises that open amenity space is already available and that access to the waterfront is to be encouraged.

The following sections

describe how this can be achieved and what the main benefits are.

6.11.2 Green roofs, living walls and rain gardens Glasgow City does not currently have the capacity to deal with storm runoff and foul water from proposed or desired new development. In addition, there are issues with new culverts into the river in terms of water quality, quantity and flow effects on river users. It is also essential to attenuate storm run off from the City where hardstanding reduces permeability and creates a water management problem. SEPA and Scottish Water have identified green roofs, gravel roofs and water gardens as suitable management structures.

Green roofs present an elegant opportunity to simultaneously mitigate environmental problems and creating immediate life enhancing value (Earth Pledge 2005). Their contribution is to:

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

27

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

•

Reduce run-off;

•

Insulate buildings - keeping them warm in winter and cool in summer;

•

Provide acoustic insulation;

•

Provide energy savings;

•

Help optimise the effective operation of solar panels by stabilising temperatures;

•

Reduce roof membrane replacement costs;

•

Cool the urban landscape in hot weather;

•

Benefit pollinators;

•

Filter air, thus reducing pollution;

•

Provide habitat for wildlife - effectively providing a high rise green corridor; and

•

Have positive benefits for the general health and well being of the city population.

Contrary to the immediate perception, green roofs are lightweight, layered systems that overlie conventional roof surfaces with lightweight, mineral-based growing media and plants. The simplest (extensive) are shallow 3 to 4 inches deep, whilst deeper (intensive) roofs can be landscaped with flower and vegetable gardens and even trees (Dunnet & Kingsbury 2008).

Green roofs provide an opportunity to incorporate landscape into building design and a city wide network of green roofs seriously challenges the perception of biodiversity as being apart from urban life. Green roofs are not confined to large buildings they can be and are used on small buildings and shelters such as bus stops, bicycle shelters and garages.

Although it is in the early stages of development, the potential for retrofitting green roofs exists through a number of approaches.

British Land Plc.5, for example, is currently trialling a

lightweight, green roof utilising recycled materials that may be established on existing horizontal surfaces. This may be established over the entire roof surface, or restricted to cells, with substrates that provide resources for a variety of plants, birds and/or insects. And where the establishment of a green roof is limited by the conformation or weight-bearing capacity of the roof, it is possible to establish green areas with plants grown in containers of dimensions appropriate to the plantings, the site, and the requirements of the local priority species to be encouraged onto the roof.

Living Walls are a relatively new field of development but may be especially useful within the Clyde corridor. They are often associated with bio-engineering, where vegetation is used to tackle problems normally solved with concrete and heavy machinery. Living walls employ climbing plants rooted in soil and can be very site specific, reflecting natural local habitat by the use of local native species, e.g. shade loving woodland plants.

There are three main types of wall or “vertical planting”: 1. Living Wall – vegetation layers independent of the main wall structure; 2. Retaining Walls – plants can root into material behind the wall facade; and 3. Retaining Wall – rooting medium for plants is contained within the wall.

Rip rap, gabions and willow rods are the most familiar of this type of engineering, although not particularly good at supporting plant life. Gabions can be modified by filling the top with rooting medium and planting. SEPA is likely to be supportive of innovations with regard to living walls, particularly along the riverside.

5

See www.britishland.com for further details. Accessed August, 2008.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

28

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

The potential for retrofitting green walls has not received as much attention as is the case for green roofs but many of the options available are suitable in this regard. The fronting of buildings with the materials listed above can easily be undertaken at any stage after construction although in some cases, depending upon the nature of the green wall and age of the building, it may be necessary to re-point walls to ensure that the penetration of roots does not threaten their integrity. Where the installation of a green roof or wall is limited, window plantings may be utilised which provide ecological resources, a degree of shade and insulation while still permitting the transmission of light.

Bat, bird and insect boxes can also be

incorporated retrospectively, either on their own, or incorporated more specifically as part of a green wall. However, their viability is dependent upon the availability of suitable resources in their vicinity.

Rain gardens are an attractive way of managing surface flows within the city and on buildings.

Technically defined as a depression that is designed to take run-off from buildings and associated landscape, the process of achieving that aim can be exciting and creative. This is really an enhancement of the SUDS concept. Their value is that through bio-retention they: •

reduce flood risk;

•

reduce pollution;

•

reduce energy use;

•

reduce maintenance requirements;

•

increase wildlife value;

•

provide a pleasant micro climate; and

•

are attractive, easily managed and safe.

The Sheffield Peace Garden is a useful example, where channels lined with ceramics lead to central fountains. In Glasgow this idea could be linked to industrial heritage; thus providing a vehicle for the involvement of arts and the community.

6.11.3 Green bridges and pontoons Green bridges have vegetation or other forms of habitat along their whole length, facilitating passage ways for wildlife and intermediate habitat for small animals. They can help reduce the impact of ecological and social fragmentation by linking habitats and also communities; they are especially useful where transport routes or open spaces have a significant impact on wildlife movement. If the design is informed by good ecological data, e.g. bat survey data, they can literally become a life line. Continuity of habit is an important feature when approaching, entering and crossing the structure and although some thought and considerable expense is required, this option should be considered when crossings are required.

In a similar manner, pontoons can be used to “bridge” areas by creating a surface along the Clyde river, especially where semi-natural habitat is currently absent, that can be used to create habitat and permit the passage of terrestrial and semi-/aquatic wildlife. This assumes that appropriate access is made available (such as sloping edges on the pontoons and green exit points to appropriate river bank habitat) and resources (for foraging, nesting, or resting, for example). In order to promote access along the river it is envisioned that these pontoons would run parallel and adjacent to the bank, rather than across the channel.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

29

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Such pontoons may be primarily biological in their conformation and floating reedbeds are already commercially available that provide habitat for birds, mammals and insects, as well as cover for fish species6.

Alternatively, they may incorporate hard and soft engineering

approaches to create other forms of habitat, such as grassland, hedgerow, scrub and/or trees, in a manner similar to the creation of a green roof, as well as passage for pedestrians where this is otherwise limited along the river.

6.11.4 Woodlands, orchards, hedgerows and tree lines Rural development is generally required to blend sympathetically with the surrounding landscape, whilst urban development tends to be unit based and ring-fenced. Ideally, the Green Network seeks to reverse the urban view and asks developers and landscape designers to look to the neighbouring unit and seek to blend or link with the natural elements, e.g. hedge or trees on one site might be continued and expanded or merged into another design feature on the neighbouring site. This requires a level of collaboration but also includes a competitive element that has potential to benefit biodiversity.

Parks and gardens have been part of city life for centuries and Glasgow has many which are greatly valued by the community and play an important role in the life of the city.

It has been identified that a Green Network along the river corridor and a buffer strip where possible between the river and the built landscape are desirable. In order to achieve this there must be an overall vision that the whole community can own and mechanisms whereby everyone has the opportunity to bring the vision to life.

The following suggestions for

contemplation and discussion are achievable solutions that we consider are cost effective and many are attainable in the short term.

Fruit plays a major role in rural diversity but is seldom seen in town; most of us have picked blackberries and raspberries during a Sunday stroll with the family and it is important that these opportunities are open to our urban children and families.

Hedgerows are accepted as vital corridors for biodiversity, however there are few hedgerows left in the city; this was not always the case. We recommend the revival of hedgerow planting in the urban environment and the inclusion of hedgerow fruits. These will be valuable to people, birds, small animals generally and to badgers which are found within the riparian habitat.

Fruit may also be brought into the city by the planting of small, carefully designed orchards in appropriate locations.

Whilst providing a food source and a shady, recreational area and

habitat for diverse range of species there is also the potential for community benefit. This may be through the community management of the orchard, harvesting and associated celebrations, wine and cider making and preserving. Orchards may also make an attractive backdrop to a small square where farmers’ markets or other events can be held.

To assist developers and planning officers it is suggested that lists of species suitable for planting are compiled as guidance when choosing or designing planting regimes. These can be compiled in consultation with landscape architects, SNH, seed companies and plant nurseries.

That way there would be a general theme across the corridor. We would not recommend a

6

See http://www.wildlife-landscaping.co.uk/rm.htm#Floating_reedbeds for further details. Accessed August, 2008.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

30

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

prescriptive approach however and would encourage creativity and competition.

We

understand that this would be appreciated by planning departments.

We would also recommend that a general management plan or guidance at least is provided with regard to herbicide and fertiliser use within the riparian habitats.

6.11.5 Floral lawns, gardens and shrubberies Everyone is familiar with amenity grassland, it is always valuable and in summer the smallest area of grass in a city setting may be occupied by people. The small rectangular lawns along Princes Street in Edinburgh are a good example of this: located on the doorstep of a large number of people employed in local businesses, they provide a chance to walk or sit out and relax briefly in a green space. In an oceanic climate, such as Glasgow’s, which is generally warm and wet, it is possible to develop floral lawns, using native forb species rather than grasses to provide a carpet for recreation. Lists of suitable species are available from specialist seed producers, and bespoke mixes can be created. The value of such a lawn is that it does not require inputs of fertiliser and herbicide and is only cut between flowering seasons; thus saving valuable maintenance budgets for use to the good of biodiversity elsewhere.

Formal landscaping is deemed appropriate for many developments but it is still possible to enhance biodiversity value within these, perhaps by the inclusion of open water bodies which can also contribute to SUDS solutions for the site. Strathclyde Business Park and Kelvin Ltd, garden at Hunts Park, Cumbernauld can demonstrate excellent examples of this. In formal landscape design, native wetland species can also be used to great effect in an artificial habitat incorporated into SUDS. Guidance should be developed listing potentially invasive species that should not be included in planting mixes. All of the species lists should be drawn up in consultation with local botanists and seed producers and be specific to the Clyde Valley.

Areas that have already been subjected to hard surfacing still retain the potential for conversion to floral gardens. At a minimum, this can be achieved by planting in containers or adopting a ground-level, green roof approach but more satisfactorily, it should involve the removal of the hard surfacing. The nature of the underlying substrate will determine the need for the addition of soil but this should be kept as impoverished as possible to favour the dominance of forbs rather than grasses. This will reduce costs and enhance the aesthetic and biodiversity value of the habitat and preserve its integrity because the presence of tall, potentially well-defended forbs will discourage trampling.

The quality of the habitat can also be improved further

through the supplementary planting of trees, shrubs and/or hedgerow in order to provide additional resources. These habitat should ideally be linked to one another or occur in close juxtaposition.

The removal of the hard surfacing also has benefits in relation to the attenuation of flood events in addition to the retardation of flow and storage provided by the creation of such habitat.

6.11.6 Summary of urban recommendations •

BREEAM awareness training (see below);

•

Planting schemes drawn up to guide developers and planners;

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

31

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

•

October 2008

Small amenity areas established with trees, orchards, species rich grassland and linked by hedgerow and tree lines where possible to provide a green corridor and buffer strip adjacent to waterfront;

•

Green roofs, living walls and rain gardens conference and awareness raising;

•

Green bridges and pontoons used to link habitat; and

•

Encourage use of bio-engineering.

6.12 BREEAM BREEAM is the British Research Establishment (BRE) Environmental Assessment Method. It is designed to encourage sustainable built development through the award of a credit rating. It is becoming increasingly relevant to developers with prospective office tenants and house buyers now requesting BREEAM ratings for building they are moving into.

It is particularly important to the high profile developers and architects that operate within the GCV regeneration area. Many gains for biodiversity can be attained through BREEAM and its value should not be underestimated.

It is recommended that a BREEAM awareness raising project is undertaken in tandem with the production of species and habitat lists, to inform planning officers, SNH, SEPA, architects, landscape architects and development companies about the benefits to be gained and how this might benefit the overall green network vision.

6.13 Clyde Port Authority Clydeport Limited controls the port facilities for the entire Clyde estuary.

Clydeport has

responsibility for port activities, pilotage, navigational safety, and dredging. The channel is maintained at 10m depth at high tide and dredging spoil is dumped at a licensed site outwith the SPA boundary.

It is essential that the Port Authority is included in discussions and

consulted with regard to developments within the estuary as it has certain duties to fulfil and these can affect projects directly related to the river.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

32

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

7.

October 2008

GIS The River Clyde Biodiversity Project provides a valuable opportunity to build a dynamic GIS database to enable the collation of consistent, accurate and reliable data for the management, visualisation, analyses and creation of relevant environmental information. A dynamic database would be used to store historical data, reports, photographs, statistics as well as acting as a receptor for new information and data as it is created. The database would not only provide an information store but as a data management tool, a decision support tool and a mapping tool.

Historic biodiversity data in the form of reports, photographs, maps and habitat surveys offers a wealth of information for the analysis of trends and patterns, but is not accessible in a timely or convenient format. Digitisation of historic biodiversity data would enable the analysis of temporal and spatial trends and patterns in biodiversity across the River Clyde catchment. Once in place, a GIS database and the information it holds can be used to analyse biodiversity data in conjunction with other available datasets, such as social and economic data, and used to model the affects and impacts of proposed management strategies and plans.

As a decision support tool, a dynamic GIS database would enable the GCV GN to locate obstructions to biodiversity within the River Clyde catchment and analyse where time and money would be best spent to bring about the most prevalent changes and provide the best value for money.

Creating a dynamic GIS database would require formal data management practices and structures to be established to ensure the validity of the database is maintained.

Standardisation of the way data and information is collected and stored across the relevant organisation and basic GIS training of staff would add value to the work of the GCV GN and councils by enabling data integration, accessibility and creating ownership of the GIS database.

Data is a valuable asset that can be used to evaluate and inform decisions in a variety of ways.

As public bodies, charitable organisations and local authorities the cost of obtaining data from external organisations, (e.g. OS, BGS & ESRI) is relatively low and is probably already available in some form within the council.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

33

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

8.

October 2008

CONCLUSION The project concludes that there is a strong basis for action to be taken to enhance biodiversity in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley. There are numerous organisations and talented individuals positively working towards biodiversity objectives and targets and there is a sound understanding of the issues and pressures within the river corridor. Policy documents set out the vision clearly and the legislation is in place.

Actions of varying scale have been proposed for discussion and are summarised in tabular format below.

Potentially the most difficult issue is that of funding for some of the more capital intensive recommendations.

Improved communication and training are also critical to realisation of

individual proposals and the vision as a whole. It is absolutely essential that all parties are fully informed and provided with resources to assist them to achieve the action targets. This is particularly relevant to planning officers who are in the front line and require support to inform and defend the decisions they make.

To achieve the aims the actions have to be tackled. This can be taken forward in a number of ways but methodologies are outside the remit of this project.

The GCV biodiversity project report concludes that the future with regard to biodiversity within the Glasgow Clyde Valley has the potential to be very positive and interesting and provide a model for other cities in the UK and Europe.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

34

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Appendix A: Action Plan Table

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

35

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Page left blank intentionally

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

36

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

RIVER CLYDE BIODIVERSITY PROJECT ACTION PLAN 1 River Corridor Management Ref: Section 6.3 No.

Action Title

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 1.1

1.2

Incorporate the

It is necessary to bring the

Publicise SPP11 guidance and raise

guidance set out in

management of the riparian

awareness of the current management

GNP.

Immediate.

SPP11 into the

habitat in line with government

issues.

management of the

guidance as well as future

River Clyde corridor.

planning initiatives and drives.

Development of

To bring a more holistic and

To reduce the use of fertilisers, herbicide

GNP, Local

Immediate to

River Corridor

consistent approach to the

and insecticide and provide guidance and

Authorities Planning,

short term.

Management

management of the landscape

details of effective alternatives. This

Parks and Roads

Plan/Guidance.

within the corridor.

would tie in with training. The proforma

Depts., Biodiversity

would outline the options available and

Officers, SNH, SEPA.

the wider policy context in which the actions will be undertaken to ensure the holistic delivery of targeted and connected outcomes.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

37

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

No.

Action Title

October 2008

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 1.3

Regular training for

It is essential to maintain

Arrange, with assistance of FWAG, SWT

GNP, Local

Autumn 2008

Council Parks Depts.

regular training as personnel

and other organisations to run annual

Authority,

for 1st courses

personnel

change and the continuity of

one day raining courses on grassland and

Biodiversity Officers,

early spring

long-term management is

hedgerow management and invasive

FWAG, RSPB.

2009. Annually

essential to avoid biodiversity

species control. Open to parties other

thereafter at

losses.

than Local Authority teams to assist

start of season

funding. Keep cost low or free to

as standard

encourage take up by landscape

training.

gardening and other land management bodies. This strategy has proved successful in other UK counties.

European funding may be available to train an ‘invasives’ team. This can be initiated immediately through a meeting with/ between the identified stakeholders to identify training needs. Refer also to Action 5.5.

1.4

Biodiversity

It would be helpful to have an

Investigate the development of an online

GNP, Local

Aim to launch

Information

internet-based index of sources

“web page” that would front a searchable

Authorities.

March 2010.

Dissemination

of biological information. It

data base of sources of information on

would be of use to both

biological records, policies, initiatives, the

developers and biodiversity

grey literature and planning.

practitioners to ensure the dissemination of relevant information

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

38

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

2 River Restoration Ref: Section 6.4 No.

Action Title

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 2.1

River Restoration

To improve the value of the

Organise a seminar at which best

GNP, River

Short term for

Development

river bank for biodiversity and

practice relating to soft-engineering

Restoration Centre,

2009

to disseminate information

techniques will be related and discussed.

Developers,

continuous

about river restoration – the

Investigate and cost the feasibility of

Engineers,

programme.

impacts of hard engineering

softening the engineered banks along the

Architects, Local

solutions and the available, soft

river. To include looking at placement of

Planners, Fisheries,

engineering solutions illustrated

dredged sediment over rip rap and

Environmental

by relevant case studies.

colonising. Also refer to River

Consultancies,

Management Plan. This must be led by

CIWEM, SEPA,

the Local Authority Planning Department

Clydeport, etc.

supported by SEPA if it is to be successful.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

39

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

No.

Action Title

October 2008

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 2.2

Investigation of

To improve the quality of the

opportunities for de-

burns for biodiversity in general

culverting (e.g. the

and to assess the potential for

Tollcross and

improving the burn to allow fish

Duntocher Burns)

to pass upstream to spawning sites.

1. Identify and prioritise all burns and

£1000 -

SEPA, Clyde River

Possibility of

culverts that can potentially be

£2000 for

Foundation, River

immediate

restored.

feasibility

Restoration Centre,

opportunities

study. Up

Scottish Water,

Commence

to

Fisheries and

2008/2009.

£100,000

Anglers groups and

2. Identify tributaries of the R. Clyde that can be targeted immediately.

3. Prepare biodiversity/restoration

Additionally, de-culverting will

management plan for these

for

other local groups

contribute to more sustainable

streams.

restoration

e.g. Friends of the

/ fish pass

Kelvin.

management of surface water drainage.

4. De-culverting - prepare feasibility studies for de-culverting and/or

work.

creation of fish passes on the Duntocher and Tollcross burns initially.

5. Classify work required and prioritise.

6. Liaise with CRF, SEPA, River Restoration Centre, anglers and other bodies throughout the process.

7. Undertake EIA before commencing any work.

8. Tie in with invasive species management.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

40

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

No.

Action Title

October 2008

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 2.3

Development of

To extend the area of reed bed

Creation of reed bed by placement of

SEPA, Clydeport,

Medium term to

reed beds in quays.

available on the river and soften

substrate and planting in the inner city

Inner Clyde Forum,

long-term

the river bank and provide

area in quays rather than hard edged

Fisheries,

commitment.

natural benefits which are well

infilling. Floating reed bed pontoons may

Developers, Council,

documented elsewhere.

also be incorporated along hard-fronted

GNP, SNH and

lengths of river.

Biodiversity Officers.

1.

Identify a pilot site and carry out consultation, negotiation and feasibility study;

2.

Run a pilot scheme;

3.

Evaluate and disseminate results; and

4.

Provide support to further projects of the same nature.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

41

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

3 Ecological Data and Survey Ref: Section 6.5 No.

Action Title

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 3.1

3.2

Establish Biological

This has been an ongoing issue

Review recent negotiations and identify

GNP to make initial

Record Centre.

for over 20 years. It is time to

the central issues. Place in national

enquiries in

establish, with proper funding, a

context. Take a lead and establish the

consultation with

permanent record centre

centre with at least 2 full time staff in

Glasgow Museum

system.

Glasgow. Tie in with River Clyde

Resource Centre

Biodiversity GIS and information centre

and the Local

Survey Programme.

Immediately.

initiative. Stay focussed on GCV

Authorities and

requirements.

SNH.

Initiate a co-ordinated

Commission Glasgow Museum Resource

GNP, Glasgow

At the earliest

programme of survey and

Centre to identify the gaps, prepare a

Museum Resource

in preparation

recording within the GCV based

programme and identify the delivery

Centre.

for 2009.

on a gap analysis of knowledge

mechanisms.

on particular groups of species.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

42

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

No.

Action Title

October 2008

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 3.3

Invertebrate survey.

To inform Biodiversity

1.

Management Plans undertake specialist invertebrate survey.

2.

3.

Participate in the BTCV Natural

BTCV, Buglife,

Start to

Talent apprenticeship scheme;

Biodiversity Officers,

organise now

Bring in specialists for a significant

Glasgow Museum,

for Spring

period of time (e.g. 1 week) to

Ranger Service and

2009.

survey a number of sites;

Local Biodiversity

Organise a 'Bioblitz' of one different

Groups.

site every year. Commence with first site in Spring 2009; and 4.

Collaborate with Buglife, Butterfly Conservation, Bumble Bee Conservation and Glasgow Natural History Society to initiate an invertebrate project to include general awareness raising through workshops, talks and other events.

Undertake as part of a major “River Clyde Project”. (Ref: Section 6.5).

3.4

Invertebrate

To increase public awareness of

Education.

invertebrates and knowledge of their presence and distribution.

1. Prepare leaflet about invertebrates in River Clyde Valley.

2. Run training courses, workshops and regular events.

Biodiversity Officers,

Commence

Buglife, Butterfly

immediately.

Conservation, RSPB, Fisheries, Insect Society, SNH.

3.5

Herpetofaunal

To increase public awareness of

Environmental education strategy. School

Biodiversity Officers,

Start to

survey.

amphibians and reptiles and

visits, pamphlets, art competition, etc.

British

organise now

knowledge of their presence

Herpetological

for Spring

and distribution.

Society and SNH

2009.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

43

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

No.

Action Title

October 2008

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 3.6

Otter survey.

To increase public awareness of

Environmental education strategy. School

Biodiversity Officers,

Start to

otters and knowledge of their

visits, pamphlets, art competition, etc.

British Mammal

organise now

Society and SNH.

for Spring

presence and distribution.

2009.

3.7

Lower Plants and

To increase public awareness of

Run workshops, courses and surveys.

Biodiversity Officers,

Start to

fungi survey.

mosses, lichens and fungi and

Develop an interest group. (Youth

British Bryological

organise now

knowledge of their presence

groups, churches - eco-congregation, -

and Lichen Societies

for Spring

and distribution.

lichen/gravestones).

and SNH.

2009.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

44

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

4 Birds Ref: Section 6.6 No.

Action Title

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 4.1

Manage access.

Access requires to be managed

1. Identify the precise location of

Biodiversity Officers,

to avoid disturbance at certain

roosting and feeding sites within

SOC, RSPB, BTO,

times of the year. On the Clyde

the Clyde SPA, Black Cart SPA and

Anglers and

this can be a significant length

Inner Clyde SSSI;

Ramblers.

of time due to the breeding

2. Assess the current access in the

season (March to July) and

vicinity of these sites and assess

important over-wintering

the impact of disturbance during

populations (from November to

nesting/roosting times, when it

March).

occurs and the main causes;

At earliest.

3. Using interpretation, refuge zones, and potentially bye-laws in certain cases, manage access to avoid disturbance during the breeding and over-wintering seasons; 4. Consult with birders determine which potential sites are not used and why, e.g. could this be due to dog walkers, routes of pathways, etc; 5. Create refuge zones using boulder rip rap, gravel, decking etc., reroute pathways;

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

45

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

4.1 Continued No.

Action Title

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 4.1

6. Consult with SNH to identify any potential management requirements that may be employed; 7. Maintain or increase the current extent of wetland and open water habitat; 8. Identify, map and survey open standing water within the study area; and 9. Identify opportunities, through consultation and use of integrated habitat modelling, to establish areas of vegetation (such as wildflower grassland or woodland or scrub) between the burns and within the urban environment to enhance functional connectivity.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

46

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

No.

Action Title

October 2008

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 4.2

Maintain or increase

To ensure valuable habitat is

habitat for birds.

retained and enhanced.

1.

2.

3.

Identify, map and survey open

Mapping

Biodiversity officers

At earliest and

standing water within the survey

and survey

in collaboration with

ongoing over

area;

cost

BTO, SOC, RSPB,

the long-term.

Create new ponds/open water for a

dependent

SNH, FWAG,

range of species, e.g. between

on number

Planning Officers,

burns and within urban locations to

of sites.

Developers and

create links;

Expected

Designers.

Maintain and enhance woodland

to be low.

connectivity. This is very important as birds are mobile and good colonists that bring other species (especially berry-producing plants) with them; and 4.

Farmland management to benefit birds – see Section 6.7 and following actions.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

47

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

5 Invertebrates Ref: Section 6.7 No.

Action Title

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 5.1

Undertake surveys

To develop a greater

Undertake survey of specific habitats

Mapping

BTCV, Natural

Commence

of sites identified as

understanding of invertebrate

and/or sites to determine the nature of

and survey

History Museum,

now to start in

of potentially value

diversity and the habitats

the invertebrate fauna. This could be

cost

Edinburgh, Buglife,

Spring 2009.

for invertebrates.

and/or sites of conservation

undertaken holistically or more

dependent

Butterfly

importance.

economically by focusing upon particular

on number

Conservation,

groups of species that may provide a

of sites.

Bumble Bee

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

proxy for the diversity of other

Conservation and

unsurveyed groups.

GNHS.

48

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

6 Agricultural Land and biodiversity Ref: Section 6.8 No.

Action Title

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 6.1

Establish working

FWAG is well respected in the

Invite the FWAG Farm Conservation

Initiate

relationship with FWAG.

farming community and is best

Advisor to join the GCV biodiversity

through

placed to take any agricultural

partnership.

meeting –

6.3

Funding for FWAG.

Immediate Action.

low cost.

biodiversity initiatives forward.

6.2

GNP, FWAG.

Securing Local Authority funding

Request all Local Authorities in the

Initiate

GNP and Local

Immediate

for FWAG is a cost effective

partnership fund FWAG on an annual

through

Authorities.

Action.

means of achieving biodiversity

basis. As little as £1000 each would be a

meetings

targets.

significant step forward.

low cost.

Support

To facilitate delivery of

Communication between landowners and

General

All partners.

Ongoing.

communication

biodiversity objectives.

FWAG should be positively encouraged

support –

through dialogue and advocacy.

no cost.

between farmers and FWAG. 6.4

Training for

To provide training in the

This has been undertaken in other areas

Initiate

GNP, Biodiversity

Prepare for

management of

management of land for wading

and can be rolled out in the GCV without

through

Officers, FWAG,

2009.

waders.

birds.

incurring great cost and effort. As this is

meeting –

RSPB.

a recent initiative, with the structures in

low cost.

place, it makes sense run training in the short term.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

49

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

No.

Action Title

October 2008

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 6.5

Training days for

To ensure correct management

Collaborate with FWAG and Local

Initial

GNP, Local

Prepare for

Local Authority staff

techniques are being applied.

Authorities to set up training days.

meeting –

Authorities, FWAG.

2009 season,

and others in

Example schemes are available from

low cost.

refer also to

hedgerow,

Clackmannanshire Biodiversity Officer

Training

Section 6.3.

grassland and

and FWAG amongst others. Refer also to

cost

invasives

Action 1.4.

£3k-4k.

Action Plan

Costs

management.

7 Renfrew Golf Club Section 6.9 No.

Action Title

Reason

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 7.1

Renfrew Golf Club

Improve conservation value of

An initial introduction has been made and

No specific

Renfrewshire

Already

Biodiversity

the club and link with adjacent

contact details provided for the Scottish

cost.

Biodiversity Officer.

underway. To

Management Plan.

farmland and SPA.

Golf Environment Group. This should be

follow up.

followed up by contacting SGEG and the Golf Club Manager.

Offer to assist with survey work and preparation of the Plan.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

50

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

8 Invasive Alien Species Ref: Section 6.10 No.

Action Title

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 8.1

IAS Meeting.

To ascertain exact position and

Arrange a meeting to discuss

Meeting

Local authorities and

Immediate

way forward for invasives

management of invasive species within

cost.

relevant

action.

management.

the River Corridor with the intention of

stakeholders.

taking an initiative forward. Invite all stakeholders currently involved in management. Take a positive lead for the GCV. 8.2

Review Invasives

To ascertain basis for taking

Undertake to review the position with

Management in the

management action forward.

regard to invasive alien species within the

action. Short

GCV and tie in with River Clyde

term report to

Catchment Management Plan where

provide for long

possible. Be prepared to take separate

term

initiative if there are co-ordination or

management.

GCV.

Local authorities.

Immediate

timescale issues.

8.3

Appoint IAS Project

To ensure overall control and

Appoint a project officer for the control

Local authorities.

Action following

Officer.

responsibility for delivering the

and management of IAS. With special

initial meetings

management of IAS.

responsibility for bringing Japanese

– medium

knotweed, Giant hogweed and

term.

Himalayan balsam under control.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

51

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

No.

Action Title

October 2008

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 8.4

Undertake IAS survey and review.

To inform management decisions.

1.

Identify sections of corridor

Local authorities,

affected and prioritise, survey and

SEPA, SNH

map IAS; 2.

Research Current management in GCV;

3.

Identify landownership and development interests on affected land;

4.

Prepare management options reports in consultation with landowners and developers;

5.

Prepare management plan and disseminate them to all stakeholders;

6.

Research potential funding sources; and

7.

Consider training a team to work within the corridor on a full time basis during the growing season.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

52

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

No.

Action Title

October 2008

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 8.5

Monitor IAS.

To determine the distribution of

1.

Train relevant Local Authority staff

Local authorities,

IAS and to potentially detect its

and other groups to identify and

SNH, development

invasion, or re-establishment, of

report IAS. Provide easy reporting

and construction

an area at an early stage.

contact and follow up reports with

industry

visible action;

representatives,

2.

Run an awareness campaign;

weed control

3.

Seek funding and assistance for

companies.

campaign from industry and development companies – it is in their interest to control these species; and 4.

Liaise with developers and seek assistance in management initiatives.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

53

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

9 Urban Biodiversity Ref: Section 6.11 No.

Action Title

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 9.1

Raise awareness of

To ensure that all concerned

Contact BRE and arrange to work with

Building Research

are aware of and understand

them on an awareness raising initiative.

Commence

Establishment

the value of BREEAM to

This could include:

immediately.

Environmental

biodiversity within the urban

Assessment Method,

situation.

Green roofs provide a number

short lunch time seminars; asking people to look at the website; • circulate the Land Use and Ecology Sections of one of the BREEAM Manuals; and • talking to people through the course of work.

Green roof review and preparation of a

GNP, Architects,

Immediate to

of potential benefits including:

usable document that explains the

Construction

Short.

concept, use and construction of green

Companies, Roof

roofs within the Clyde corridor. Support

Engineers,

available through www.livingroofs.org.

Developers and

Independent UK Resource For Green

Planners.

(BREEAM).

9.2

Green Roofs.

•

• • •

• •

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

insulation - keeping buildings cool in summer and warm in winter; greater solar panel efficiency; air quality benefits; SUDS issues, the use of green roofs is desirable, particularly within the City; general health benefits and assisting the movement of species across Glasgow, especially as climate change initiates migration.

Minimal.

GNP.

Ongoing.

• •

Roof Information.

54

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

No.

Action Title

October 2008

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 9.3

Green bridges.

GNP, Architects,

Immediate to

Preparation of a usable

Construction

short term.

avoidance of severance and the

document that describes green

Companies, Bridge

development of new links.

bridges, their use and

Engineers,

construction methods;

Developers and

illustrates the type of green

Planners.

One of the major challenges within the river corridor is the

Green bridge review.

•

Green bridges have a role to play in new development. In addition water management

bridge appropriate for the Clyde

issues indicate that the use of

corridor; and

green roofs is desirable, particularly within the city.

9.4

•

•

the circumstances in which it would be used.

Green Roof and

To provide information and

Seminar to be organised and held in

To be scoped by the

Immediate to

Bridge Seminar.

sharing of ideas with regard to

2009 in Glasgow. Other seminars are

GNP. To involve

Short.

the use of green construction

currently being held across the world and

green construction

within Glasgow and Scotland.

www.livingroofs.org can be contacted for

industry experts and

Facilitate marketing and

information.

interested parties,

networking.

e.g. universities and colleges, architects, construction companies, bridge and roof engineers, developers, planners and councillors including importantly planning committee members..

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

55

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

No.

Action Title

October 2008

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 9.5

Woodland planting.

To extend the area of woodland

Identify areas where woodland planting

Possible

GNP, architects,

Short term

through the planting of small

can be incorporated into new

funding

developers,

commencement

copses that can be linked by

developments within an urban setting or

through

planners, FC,

long-term

hedgerow and tree lines

be valuable as mitigation or

Forestry

Community groups,

commitment.

compensation in relation to planning

Commission

forestry companies.

gain. Informed by GCV integrated habitat

Woodlands

Tree/wildflower

modelling.

In and

seed merchants.

throughout the river corridor.

About Towns (WIAT) scheme.

9.6

Woodland

To ensure positive woodland

Identify areas of woodland requiring

Local authorities,

management.

management for recreational

management. Re-visit management

Glasgow City Council

and biodiversity opportunities.

plans in light of other developments

Woodland Unit,

within the corridor.

landowners, developers, FC, community group.

9.7

Meadow planting.

To provide species rich

Identify derelict sites that can be

Biodiversity Officers,

grasslands for recreation and

temporarily planted with agreement that

Developers, Local

play in addition to providing

this will not affect future planning. In

Authorities,

agricultural and community

addition, identify a number of basic mixes

Industry, wild flower

activity benefits.

that can be purchased at a reasonable

seed merchants.

Short term.

cost and that will provide a choice of vegetation type.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

56

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

No.

Action Title

October 2008

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 9.8

Partner native

To allow strategic planning and

Identify a native seed producer that is

GNP, Local

Immediately

seed provider.

design with regard to native

interested in working with GNP to provide

authorities, seed

applicable.

planting. Native seed providers

seed, design inputs and advice over the

producer other

need up to 5 years to prepare a

whole range of habitat creation including

interested parties.

bespoke high quality seed mix.

green roofs and bridges.

It is in the interest of all that they are brought into the project at an early stage.

9.9

Urban native hedgerow planting.

1. To provide a continuous

1.

The planting of native hedgerows

Tree nurseries, SNH,

Medium term to

along the waterfront and within the

native seed

long-term

urban developments to link with

companies,

commitment.

identification of suitable

urban fringe hedgerow (ensuring

biodiversity officers.

hedgerow (including

views are maintained).

network of woodland.

2. To facilitate easy

bespoke hedgerow) and

2.

To develop a number of hedge

ease of ordering and

types that can be planted to suit

planting.

different locations. To arrange with plant suppliers to provide selected hedge mixes at specified costs. To include the use of fruit trees and shrubs such as raspberry, current and gooseberry.

3.

Disseminate best practice and identified opportunities to planning and biodiversity officers.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

57

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

No.

Action Title

October 2008

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 9.10

9.11

Dismantled

To link with other wildlife

Some work on this has already been

Biodiversity officers,

Short to

Railway

corridors such as the canal and

undertaken, such as removal of the track

local authorities,

medium term.

Management.

Duntocher Burn.

and embankment around Broomhill,

Babcock

Partick and Thornwood. Support further

Engineering (on

action by producing a Biodiversity

behalf of Network

Management Plan to fit with other uses

Rail), other user

and opportunities.

groups.

To encourage native species

Pilot the use of floral lawns rather than

Local authorities,

Organise 2008

and to save costs on

amenity grassland. To be used on

developers, native

for planting in

fertilisation, herbicides and

roundabouts and all the usual amenity

seed company,

Spring 2009.

cutting. Floral lawns do not

grassland areas.

biodiversity officers.

To link with hedgerows and

To form part of the connected and

Developers, Local

Explore n the

copses to provide community

functional woodland network. To provide

authorities,

short term for

orchards within the city that will

fruit for local use and benefit biodiversity.

community groups,

long-term

provide recreational and

To bring communities into closer contact

horticultural and

commitment.

educational areas and support

with the environment and facilitate spin-

agricultural

Tie into

meadow. Can be enclosed by

off community activities. Farmers

organisations.

development

fences, walls or hedgerow.

markets, use of apples, harvesting etc.

Commercial

and

Allow people the freedom to simply pick

organisations and

regeneration

the fruit and eat it.

companies.

schemes and

Floral lawns.

require any of inputs and cutting is between flower periods only. Grasses are not used or used only sparingly.

9.12

City orchard.

programmes.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

58

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

No.

Action Title

October 2008

Reason

Action Plan

Costs

Consultees/

Timescale

Stakeholders 9.13

Formal gardens

To provide a diversity of habitat

Liaise with landscape architects to discuss

GNP, Landscape

with water

within the urban environment.

how biodiversity can be incorporated into

architects and

landscape design.

horticulturalists.

features.

9.14

On-going

Encourage use of

To reduce impact of hard

Review and publish pamphlet on bio-

GNP, Civil

Short-term, on-

bio-engineering.

engineering techniques on the

engineering techniques appropriate to

Engineers,

going

river.

the river Clyde within the urban and

Hydrologists, SEPA,

industrial landscape.

CIRIA.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

59

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adshead, Harry, A Surface Water Management Plan for Glasgow Clyde Gateway.

Clyde Islands Bird Report 2004; Highlights in the Clyde Area.

Clyde Rebuilt: Clyde Waterfront Working Group. June 2002.

Clyde Waterfront: Action Themes for the Green Network (Part 2).

Clyde Waterfront: Strategic Overview of the Clyde Waterfront Green Network (Part 1).

Dunnett, Nigel & Clayden, Andy. Rain Gardens. 2007. Timber Press, Inc. Dunnett, Nigel & Kingsbury, Noël; Planting Green Roofs and Living walls. 2008. Timber Press, Inc. Earth Pledge. Green Roofs. 2005. Schiffer Books.

Firth of Clyde Forum – Integrated Management Strategy and Action Plan.

Forestry Commission Evaluating Biodiversity in Fragmented Landscapes: Principles September 2005.

Forestry Commission Scotland Policy: WIAT Woods In and About Town: Phase II. Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000.

Glasgow City Council River Clyde Flood Management Strategy.

Glasgow City Plan Technical Notes Natural Environment.

Inverclyde Renfrewshire East Renfrewshire LBAP Rivers and Streams.

JNCC Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey 1993.

MacDonald, Alistair. Glasgow City Council, Glasgow History and Development. Regenera Final Conference 22 February 2007.

Mid Clyde Project Nature Conservation Strategy.

Renfrewshire Local Plan Adopted March 2006.

Scottish Biodiversity Forum Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plans 2005-2007.

South Lanarkshire Local Plan Finalised Plan August 2006.

UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive. Revised classification of aquatic alien species according to their level of impact.

United Clyde Angling Protective Association Ltd. Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Species Action Plan. North Lanarkshire Biodiversity Action Plan.

West Dunbartonshire Local Plan Finalised Draft August 2007.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

60

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Appendix B: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Target Notes

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

61

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Page left blank intentionally

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

62

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Erskine Harbour (Boden Boo) Grid ref: NS 464 718 Habitats (JNCC title and code): semi-improved neutral grassland (B2.2); swamp (F1) and scattered scrub (A2.2).

Features of ecological value: Reed swamp and semi-improved grassland with scattered scrub.

Current management: No current management identified.

Management options: Current management to be researched and a management plan drawn up if possible.

Site description: This site comprises a number of different habitats moving from grassland through scrub to reed bed and mudflat in the estuary. An industrial unit and hotel are located close by. See Figure B1.

The field between the island and the industrial unit has a willow-hazel-broom hedgerow and the field supports semi-improved neutral grassland. The far edge of the field, towards the river, is bordered by a bund/berm which is planted with trees and shrubs. Beyond it there is a tarmacadamed track/path leading west to the community woodland. On the other side of the path, enclosed by post and strand wire fence, there is a monoculture of common reed (Phragmites australis) forming a large reed bed (classified as swamp by JNCC). Species noted in the grassland and reed bed are listed below.

Plants species list: Scientific name

Cirsium arvense Dactylis conglomerate Deschampsia cespitosa Epilobium montana Equisetum arvense Holus lanatus Juncus articulates Juncus effusus Lathyrus pratensis Lotus corniculatus Phragmites australis Poa anserina Poa pratensis Quercus robur Rubus fruticosus Rubus idaeus Rumex obtusifolium Salix fragilis Silene dioica Ulex europaeus Urtica dioica

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

Vernacular name Creeping thistle Cock’s-foot Tufted hair-grass Broad-leaved willow-herb Field horsetail Yorkshire fog Jointed rush Soft rush Meadow vetchling Bird’s-foot trefoil Common reed Silver weed Smooth meadow-grass Pedunculate oak Bramble Raspberry Broad-leaved dock Crack willow Red campion Gorse Common nettle 63

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

The field to the west of the reed bed supports a slightly different grassland community but is also classed as semi-improved neutral grassland. It has fewer ruderals and is less tussocky.

Species noted include: Plants species list: Scientific name

Cirsium arvense Crataegus monogyna Festuca rubra Holcus lanatus Plantago lanceolata Potentilla anserina Rubus idaeus Rumex obtusifolius Taraxacum officinale.

Vernacular name Creeping thistle Hawthorn Red fescue Yorkshire fog Ribwort plantain Silverweed Raspberry Broad-leaved dock Dandelion

At the edge of the reed bed and River Clyde a stream flows into the river and mud flat dominates. Curled dock (Rumex crispus) was noted and occasional Scurvy grass (Cochlearia

officinalis). This is a small backwater and across the flat and channel is a grass berm with tree cover. From a distance oak, hawthorn, broom, birch and willow were noted.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

64

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

October 2008

65

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Boden Boo Community Woodland Grid ref: NS 462 718 Habitats (JNCC title and code): Semi-natural broad-leaved woodland (A2.1.1).

Features of ecological value: Woodland of value to flora and fauna and birds generally.

Current management: Community management identified.

Management options: None.

Site description: This small woodland has been the subject of recent management and it is a relatively open and healthy woodland. Numerous birds and insects were noted along with a healthy field layer containing the species listed below.

Plants species list: Scientific name

Acer pseudoplatanus Aegopodium podagraria Aesculus hippocastanum Alnus glutinosa Anthoxanthum odoratum Anthriscus sylvatica Betula pendula Cardamine pratensis Crataegus monogyna Cytisus scoparius Dryopteris filix-mas Epilobium sp.

Equisetum arvense Filipendula ulmaria Geum urbanum Hyacinthoides non-scripta Lotus corniculatus Plantago lanceolata Prunus avium Quercus robur Ranunculus ficaria Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus Salix caprea Salix sp.

Sorbus aucuparia Trifolium pratense Tussilago farfara Ulmus glabra Veronica chamaedrys

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

Vernacular name Sycamore Ground elder Horse chestnut Alder Sweet vernal meadow-grass Cow parsley Silver birch Cuckoo flower Hawthorn Broom Scaly male fern Willow-herb Field horsetail Meadowsweet Wood avens Bluebell Bird’s-foot trefoil Ribwort plantain Wild cherry Oak Lesser celandine Cat’s tail moss Goat willow Willow Rowan Red clover Colt’s-foot Wych elm Germander speedwell

66

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Other species: Scientific name

Vernacular name

Pieris rapae

Small white butterfly

Carduelis carduelis Cyanistes caeruleus Erithacus rubecula Phylloscopus collybita Phylloscopus trochilus Pica pica Turdus merula

Goldfinch

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

Blue tit Robin Chiff chaff Willow warbler Magpie Blackbird

67

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Clyde walkway, agricultural field and adjacent amenity grassland Grid ref: NS 473 717 Habitats: Improved grassland (B4); Amenity grassland (J1.2).

Features of ecological value: The amenity grassland edges and field edges have potential value.

Current management: Grazing and cutting.

Management options: Manage the field as a traditional meadow with an inoculation of native meadow species, or leave buffer around the field uncut. The open aspect is probably best as the field supports roosting waders and clear flight lines with lack of cover for predators is likely to be important. The amenity grassland could be managed as a floral lawn with less frequent cutting and edges allowed to grow with one cut in September.

Site description: This is a field used as pasture within the urban fringe adjacent to the River Clyde and bordered by the Clyde walkway. The walkway is popular for recreation and the field is fenced off with a 3-strand barbed wire fence. The field appeared relatively healthy and whilst there will be difficulties associated with the urban location (such as vandalism and litter) no significant management problems were apparent. This would need to be confirmed with the landowner who was not contacted. The grassland could be scarified and over sown or inoculated with a native meadow mix and managed as a spring or summer meadow if the landowner was interested. As stated above there will be penalties attached to farming in this location, therefore any management for biodiversity should take these into consideration and aim to benefit the farmer. As noted above, the field is identified as of value for roosting waders.

Plants species list: Scientific name

Anthriscus sylvestris Arrhenatherum elatius Cerastium fontanum Holcus lanatus Lolium perenne Ranunculus acris Rumex acetosa Rumex obtusifolium Taraxacum officinale agg.

Veronica chamaedrys

Vernacular name Cow parsley False oat-grass Common mouse-ear Yorkshire fog Perennial rye-grass Meadow buttercup Common sorrel Broad-leaved dock Dandelion Germander speedwell

The amenity grassland adjacent to the walk way access path and the car park holds a little more interest in terms of flora and was especially notable for the abundance of cowslips.

Standard trees have been planted adjacent to the path and the field is bordered to the south by a belt of woodland/scrub. Additional species noted were:

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

68

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Plants species list: Scientific name

Anthoxanthum odoratum Cardamine pratensis Carex nigra Primula vulgaris Ranunculus acris Ranunculus repens

Vernacular name Sweet-vernal meadow-grass Cuckoo flower Common sedge Cowslip Meadow buttercup Creeping buttercup

Other species: Scientific name

Carduelis carduelis Anthocharis cardamines

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

Vernacular name Goldfinch Orange tip butterfly

69

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Dalmarnock Bridge recreation ground Grid ref: NS 620 628 Habitats: Amenity grassland (J1.2) with small blocks of trees (A3.1).

Features of ecological value: The small blocks of trees.

Current management: Parks department Management options: Reduce the cutting regime outside the play area and introduce a wildflower seed mix into the edges of the amenity grassland.

Site description: This is amenity grassland with small blocks of trees and shrubs bordering the main recreational area. It fronts onto the river walkway which is bordered by moderately diverse vegetation communities.

See Tollcross Burn Map below.

Plants species list: Scientific name

Allium ursinum Bellis perennis Cirsium arvense Cotoneaster sp.

Fallopia japonica Heracleum mantegazzianum Heracleum sphondylium Hyacinthoides hispanica Lamium alba Petasites hybridus Rosa sp.

Symphytum x uplandicum Taraxacum officinale agg.

Trifolium pratense

Vernacular name Ramsons Daisy Creeping thistle Cotoneaster Japanese knotweed Giant hogweed Hogweed Spanish bluebell White dead nettle Butterbur Field rose Russian comfrey Dandelion Red clover

Other species: Scientific name

Anas platyrhynchos Carduelis chloris Hirundo rustica Parus major Phylloscopus trochilus Pica pica Pyrrhula pyrrhula Turdus merula

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

Vernacular name Mallard (on Clyde) Greenfinch Swallow Great tit Willow warbler Magpie Bullfinch Blackbird

70

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Duntocher Burn Grid ref: NS 474 712 Habitats: Dense continuous scrub (A2.1); Tall ruderal herbs (C3.1); Running water (G2.2).

Features of ecological value: The riparian scrub with frequent trees acts as a conduit for bats and birds: and the running water as a habitat for semi-/aquatic species.

Current management:

There is no on-gong management but the banks have been

culverted.

Management options: Remove the culverting and re-contour the banks to produce a more natural configuration. Take actions to further improve the water quality (which is currently good enough to support a population of brown trout). Control of Japanese Knotweed.

Site description:

The banks of the Duntocher Burn have been culverted although a

reasonably natural configuration of the bed still persists with the existence of apparently dynamic features such as shingle islands, undercuts and deeper pools. The banks have a continuous line of scrub with the following species: Ash, Elder, Goat Willow, Hawthorn, Sycamore and Wych Elm. The invasive Japanese Knotweed is sporadically present along the length of the burn and it would be desirable to control this species.

Plants species list: Scientific name Acer pseudoplatanus Aegopodium podagraria Alnus glutinosa Anthriscus sylvestris Carex pendula Crataegus monogyna Dactylis glomerata Dryopteris filix-mas Fallopia japonica Fraxinus excelsior Lamium purpureum Petasites sp.

Poa pratensis Ranunculus acris Rubus fruticosus Rumex obtusifolius Salix caprea Symphytum officinale Ulmus glabra Urtica dioica

Vernacular name Sycamore Ground elder Alder Cow parsley Pendulous sedge Hawthorn Cock's-foot Male fern Japanese knotweed Ash Purple deadnettle Butterbur Smooth meadow-grass Meadow buttercup Bramble Broad-leaved dock Goat willow Common comfrey Wych elm Nettle

Other species: Scientific name

Vernacular name

Anas platyrhynchos

Mallard

Salmo trutta

Brown trout

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

71

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Dismantled railway line adjacent to the Duntocher Burn Grid ref: NS 477 713 Habitats: Dense continuous scrub (A2.1); Tall ruderal (C3.1); Spoil (I2.2).

Features of ecological value: The scrub, trees and ruderal vegetation provide habitat and resources for a range of species and its continuity additionally provides a conduit for the movement of species.

Current management: There is no management at this site and it appears to have very little usage by pedestrians.

Management options: There is no need to manage this site as it will naturally continue to revegetate, and given the unnatural substrate of ballast, there is no template towards which management might encourage it to develop. The persistence too of bare ground means that there is space into which additional species may establish.

Site description: This abandoned railway is at an early seral stage compared to many others in the Glasgow area which are developing into woodland, most commonly dominated by birches. However, the western edge is marked by a continuous line of mature scrub and trees that have probably been present since before the railway was abandoned and these are beginning to establish onto the central parts of the track. Along the eastern edge, shrubs and trees are more sporadic in their occurrence and the vegetation is dominated instead by tall herbs and grasses which give way to those of a lesser stature, and frequently procumbent habit, in the centre of the track. The vegetation cover here is sparse and this is assumed to be a consequence of the inhospitable conditions presented by the free-draining and infertile ballast and to a lesser extent by trampling.

Plant species list: Scientific name Acer pseudoplatanus Aegopodium podagraria Alnus glutinosa Anthriscus sylvestris Artemisia vulgaris Betula pendula Betula pubescens Cardamine flexuosa Centaurea nigra Cerastium fontanum Chamaenerion angustifolium Cirsium palustre Crataegus monogyna Cytisus scoparius Dactylis glomerata Dryopteris filix-mas Fallopia japonica Fraxinus excelsior Lamium purpureum Lotus corniculatus

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

Vernacular name Sycamore Ground elder Alder Cow parsley Mugwort Silver birch Downy birch Wavy bitter-cress Knapweed Mouse-ear chickweed Rose-bay willow-herb Marsh thistle Hawthorn Broom Cock’s-foot Male fern Japanese knotweed Ash Purple deadnettle Bird’s-foot trefoil 72

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

Matricaria inodora Medicago lupulina Myosotis sylvatica Petasites sp.

Plantago lanceolata Poa compressa Poa pratensis Ranunculus repens Rubus fruticosus Rubus idaeus Rumex obtusifolius Salix caprea Senecio vulgaris Solanum dulcamara Symphytum officinale Trifolium pratensis Ulmus glabra Urtica dioica Veronica chamaedrys Vicia cracca

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

October 2008

Pineapple weed Black medick Wood forget-me-not Butterbur Ribwort plantain Flattened meadow-grass Smooth meadow-grass Creeping buttercup Bramble Raspberry Broad-leaved dock Goat willow Ragwort Woody nightshade Common comfrey Red clover Wych elm Nettle Germander speedwell Tufted vetch

73

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Tollcross Burn Grid ref: NS 629 625 Length: The stretch of Tollcross Burn surveyed included the down stream section, approximately 750m, from London Road to the River Clyde.

Habitats: Dense continuous scrub (A2.1); Tall ruderal (C3.1); Running water (G2.2).

Features of ecological value: The burn has value for birds and invertebrates and potentially for wildflowers. However it is in poor condition due to the dominance of invasive alien species.

No signs of water vole were found and no particularly suitable habitat was recorded, mainly due to the stone channel sides and overgrown banks.

Current management: There was no evidence of any significant, current management of the burn and banks. Amenity grassland within the cemetery is maintained by cutting.

Management options: Management to remove invasive alien species and potential deculverting upstream.

Site description: The Tollcross Burn is culverted under London Road and emerges at the northern boundary of the Tollcross cemetery which is managed by Glasgow City Council. It flows south west through the cemetery where it is canalised and on through broad-leaved woodland/plantation to the south. The burn habitat is effectively defined in sections by the bridges and each is described in turn in the site description below. The banks are dominated by invasive alien species. Refer to Figure B2.

1. The first section from the northern boundary wall to the first bridge is very overgrown with tall trees and shrubs. There was a gentle flow on the day of the survey and although the water was not very deep, no aquatic plant species were seen. The canalised banks are steep and vertical (1 -2m high with stone walls) adjacent to the stream then they are graded less steeply up to ground level. Rowan and Sycamore form a canopy over the stream and Japanese Knotweed (JKW) is extensive and under treatment in the top section. Ferns, great wood-rush and ground elder occur by the corrugated tunnel which forms the conduit under the bridge leading to the next section.

2. The second section is also very overgrown but there is no canopy layer and therefore more light. Pendulous sedge (Carex pendula) is abundant and JKW is found all the way along the section. Common comfrey grows on the banks with occasional bluebell, cow parsley and sycamore saplings and a snowberry hedge is managed along the eastern side of the burn. The water is cloudy in this section and slow flowing before a small weir below which the channel broadens by the next (metal) bridge. Common reed, cow parsley, nettle, grasses and ground elder are also frequent components of the flora close to the bridge.

3. After the second bridge, the habitat becomes more natural but it is still affected by invasive aliens. Dock, pendulous sedge, nettle, creeping buttercup, common comfrey, grasses, tufted hair-grass, creeping thistle, cow parsley, cock’s-foot and occasional speedwell are prominent within the flora. One mature horse chestnut tree and one sapling were also found to be present.

The aliens and invasive species include: Japanese knotweed, giant hogweed,

rhododendron and snowberry.

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

74

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

4. The burn is canalised south of the third bridge/tunnel where there is also a large stand of giant hogweed. An almost complete canopy of crack willow, wych elm, small-leaved lime and sycamore excludes light along most of this section with an occasional understory of elder and hawthorn. Japanese knotweed is prolific and common comfrey is dominant, with pendulous sedge, closer to the water. Perennial cornflower, redshank, yarrow, Spanish bluebell, lilac and a large stand of Russian comfrey were also noted. A wren was seen here.

5. Birch scrub maturing into woodland is present opposite cemetery. Giant hogweed and Japanese knotweed are both abundant. Also noted were rose-bay willow-herb, common and Russian comfrey and grasses including smooth meadow-grass, cock’s-foot and Yorkshire fog forming a field layer beneath a canopy of goat willow, crack willow, elder and sycamore.

Leylandii is planted along the lower road on the west side as an edge to the cemetery. Bufftailed bumblebee was recorded on the cornflowers.

6. The burn becomes inaccessible from this point due to the steepness of the banks and the difficulty of access to these banks.

Woodland/Plantation to south of Cemetery 7. This is small and relatively young woodland which is becoming very dense and difficult to walk through. Species noted include: rowan, silver birch, aspen, figwort, garlic mustard, wood avens, pale sedge, willow-herb, Russian comfrey (in frequent robust clumps), cleavers, creeping thistle, nettle, ground ivy, broad-leaved dock, cow parsley and the invasives: Giant hogweed and Himalayan balsam.

Within the woodland, a stand of dead trees was found growing on rubble and the burn contained cloudy water. These signs of toxicity indicate management or contamination.

8. Where the burn flows into the River Clyde it is canalised and the species composition is much the same as that described at target note 7.

However the canopy is not as well-

developed and red campion, white dead nettle and crosswort were recorded as additional species. The presence of crosswort is notable as it is an uncommon species. The hill on the opposite bank of the river is steep and supports neutral grassland. Grey wagtail and Black cap noted here along with swallow, greenfinch, white throat, and goldfinch. Orange tip and large white butterfly noted.

Along the river side path hawthorn, sycamore, goat willow, Japanese knotweed, germander speedwell, ribwort plantain, nettle, common comfrey, wild cherry, field forget–me-not, smooth meadow-grass, creeping buttercup, Himalayan balsam, cock’s-foot, snowberry, ramsons and white lipped snails were noted.

Japanese knotweed dominates the river bank south of the path. Access was impossible. Local flora is out competed. Ramsons were noted as still surviving in small pockets, which suggests that this would have been riparian woodland with a woodland herb layer. Bluebell, ramsons and red campion are hanging on where the knotweed has not yet taken hold.

12490J © EnviroCentre Limited

75

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

This is a good location for passerines and woodland birds.

Plants species list: Scientific name

Acer pseudoplatanus Achillea millefolium Aegopodium podagraria Aesculus hippocastanum Alliaria petiolata Allium ursinum Anthriscus sylvatica Betula pendula Bromus sterilis Buddleja Davidii Carex pendula Carex sp.

Centaurea montana Cirsium arvense Cotoneaster sp.

Crataegus monogyna Cultivar Dactylis glomerata Deschampsia cespitosa Fallopia japonica Festuca rubra Galium aparine Galium cruciata Glechoma hederacea Heracleum mantegazzianum Holcus lanatus Hyacinthoides non-scripta Impatiens glandulifera Lamium alba Luzula sylvatica Myosotis arvense Phragmites australis Plantago lanceolata Poa pratensis Populus tremula Prunus avium Ranunculus ficaria Ranunculus repens Rhododendron ponticum 12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

Vernacular name Sycamore Yarrow Ground elder Horse-chestnut Garlic mustard Ramsons Cow parsley Silver birch Barren brome Butterfly bush Pendulous sedge Sedge Perennial cornflower Creeping thistle Cotoneaster Hawthorn Hyacinth Cock’s-foot Tufted hair-grass Japanese knotweed Red fescue Cleavers Crosswort Ground-ivy.

Giant hogweed Yorkshire fog Bluebell Himalayan balsam White dead-nettle Great wood-rush Field forget-me-not Common reed Ribwort plantain Smooth meadow-grass Aspen Wild cherry Lesser celandine Creeping buttercup Rhododendron 76

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

Rosa sp.

Rubus fruticosus Rumex obtusifolius Salix caprea Salix fragilis Salix sp.

Sambucus nigra Scrophularia nodosa Silene dioica Sorbus aucuparia Symphoricarpos alba Symphytum officinale Symphytum x uplandicum Syringa vulgaris Tilia cordata Ulmus glabra Urtica dioica Veronica chamaedrys

October 2008

Rose Bramble Broad-leaved dock Goat willow Crack-willow Willow Elder Common figwort Red campion Rowan Snowberry Common comfrey Russian comfrey Lilac Small-leaved lime Wych elm Common nettle Germander speedwell

Birds noted: Scientific name

Carduelis carduelis Carduelis chloris Columba palumbus Corvus corone corone Fringilla coelebs Hirundo rustica Motacilla cinerea Parus major Pica pica Sturnus vulgaris Sylvia atricapilla Sylvia communis Troglodytes troglodytes Turdus merula

Vernacular name Goldfinch Greenfinch Woodpigeon Carion crow Chaffinch Swallow Grey wagtail Great tit Magpie Starling Black cap White throat Wren Blackbird

Other species: Scientific name

Pieris rapae

Vernacular name Small white butterfly Hover flies – varied species

Anthocharis cardamines Cepaea hortensis

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

Orange tip butterfly White lipped snail

77

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

12490J Š EnviroCentre Limited

October 2008

78

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Golden Jubilee National Hospital grounds Grid ref: NS 484 708 Habitats: Species-rich amenity grassland (J1.2); and a small area of hard-surfaced, formal garden .

Features of ecological value: Un-mown amenity grassland margins.

Current management: Mowing.

Management options: Negotiate a conservation management plan with the hospital management. This may include planting of small areas of woodland and scrub; reduced mowing regime with seeding to enhance the biodiversity of the grassland. A pond may be a possible introduction.

Site description: The hospital grounds include extensive areas of mown amenity grassland which has a relatively diverse flora as reference to the species list below will demonstrate.

Marginal areas to the north-west of the site were not mown at the time of survey and these have an apparently greater diversity (although this may simply reflect the loss of standing parts in the mown areas which result in species being missed). The un-mown areas are also notable for the infrequent presence of alder seedlings which have the potential to form an area of scrub.

The amenity grassland extends to the banks of the River Clyde which are reinforced with large boulders (rip rap) that provides limited habitat for plant species although a line of Cotoneaster marks their upper edge and occasional ash, white willow, alder, bush vetch and purple loosestrife occur sporadically.

Scientific name Alopecurus geniculatus Alopecurus pratensis Anthoxanthum odoratum Arrhenatherum elatius Cotoneaster sp.

Cynosurus cristatus Dactylis glomerata Deschampsia flexuosa Equisetum sylvaticum Equisetum, arvense Festuca rubra Fraxinus excelsior Holcus lanatus Juncus conglomerates Juncus effuses Lolium perenne Lysimachia punctata Plantago lanceolata Ranunculus acris Rumex acetosa Rumex crispus

12490j © EnviroCentre Limited

Vernacular name Water foxtail Meadow fox-tail Vernal grass Tall oat-grass Cotoneaster Crested dog’s-tail Cock’s-foot Wavy hair-grass Wood horsetail Field horsetail Red fescue Ash Yorkshire fog Compact rush Soft rush Perennial Rye-grass Purple loosestrife Ribwort plantain Meadow buttercup Sorrel Crisped dock 79

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

Rumex obtusifolius Salix alba Senecio jacobaea Taraxacum officinale Trifolium repens Urtica dioica Veronica chamaedrys Vicia sepium

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

October 2008

Broad-leaved dock White willow Ragwort Dandelion Creeping clover Nettle Germander speedwell Bush vetch

80

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Dock Yard Area Grid ref: NS 494 701 Habitats: Hard standing and a few bankside trees.

Features of ecological value: Bankside trees Current management: To be redeveloped.

Management options: Influence the development to encourage good ecological use of the site.

The dockyard was not accessible during the time of the survey and it is understood, from consultation with a number of parties that it is currently subject to plans for redevelopment.

Accordingly, the current situation is likely to change in the short-term anyway.

The redevelopment of the dock will give the potential opportunity to improve and enhance its ecology which is currently very limited because most of it is dominated by hardstanding and derelict buildings and materials. Otherwise, the only features of ecological note were a small number of trees and associated herbaceous vegetation at the north-western end of the yard, upon the river bank. These were not identifiable with any certainty from the edge of the site but the retention of the mature trees into the next phase of land use is to be strongly encouraged.

Dock - River Kelvin Mouth Grid ref: NS 557 660 Habitats: River confluence, hardstanding and ruderals.

Features of ecological value: River channel Current management: Adjacent land under re-development.

The mouth of the Kelvin is in poor condition. The engineered banks are hard and unyielding and only rank weed species have gained a hold. Giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) is prevalent with red clover (Trifolium pratense), ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale agg.), ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata) and mouse-ear (Cerastium

fontanum). Oystercatcher, heron and kingfisher have all been noted at the site. Recent survey found no evidence of otter.

The area is currently subject to development.

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

81

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Local Biodiversity Action Plans Glasgow City LBAP This LBAP is currently incomplete although the following species plans have been prepared.

Birds:

Jack Snipe (Lymnocryptes minimus); Skylark (Alauda arvensis); Reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus); Tree sparrow (Passer montanus); and Swift (Apus apus).

Fish:

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).

Vascular Plants:

Bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta); Bog-rosemary (Andromeda polifolia); Burnet saxifrage (Pimpinella saxifraga); Purple ramping-fumitory (Fumaria purpurea); Sheep’s-bit (Jasione montana); Toothwort (Lathraea squamaria); Tufted loosestrife (Lysimachia thyrsiflora); and Wood cranesbill (Geranium sylvaticum).

Bryophytes:

Bog mosses (Sphagnum).

Amphibians:

Common frog (Rana temporaria); Common toad (Bufo bufo); and Palmate newt (Triturus helveticus).

Insects

Small pearl-bordered fritillary (Boloria selene); and Dragonflies and Damselflies.

Mammals:

Badger (Meles meles); Otter (Lutra lutra); and Water vole (Arvicola terrestris).

Habitats for which Habitat Action Plans (HAP) have been prepared.

Broad habitats:

Acid grassland; Broad-leaved, mixed and yew woodland; Built up areas and gardens; Dwarf shrub heath; Neutral grassland; Rivers and streams; Standing open water and canals; and Boundary features.

Local Habitats:

Swamp; Marsh; Fen; Lowland raised bog; Reed beds; and Wet woodland.

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

82

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire, Inverclyde LBAP This is not completed but the following species have been identified and those that are underlined have management plans drawn up. (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/lbap.aspx?ID=444) Species highlighted are of interest within the GCV as they are resident or can be encouraged to inhabit the area.

Local Species: Birds:

Black guillemot (Cepphus grille); Hen harrier (Circus cyaneus); and Lesser whitethroat Sylvia curruca.

Vascular Plants: Butterfly orchid (Platanthera spp.); and Spignel (Meum athamanticum).

The following have had Species Action Plans (SAP) prepared.

Mammals:

Brown hare (Lepus europaeus), Otter (Lutra lutra), Pipistrelle bat (Pipistrellus pipistrellus); and

Vascular plants: Juniper (Juniperus communis).

South Lanarkshire LBAP This one is not complete but as above, a number of species and habitats have been identified and plans have been drawn up for some. (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/lbap.aspx?ID=460) Species underlined are of interest within the GCV as they are resident or can be encouraged to inhabit the area.

Local Species: Vascular Plants:

Aspen (Populus tremula); Cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccus); Herb paris (Paris quadrifolia); Ragged robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi); and Round-leaved sundew (Drosera rotundifolia).

Fish: Amphibians:

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).

Common frog (Rana temporaria); Common toad (Bufo bufo); Palmate newt (Triturus helveticus); and Smooth newt (Triturus vulgaris).

Birds:

Barn owl (Tyto alba alba); Curlew (Numenius arquata); Garden birds;

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

83

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus); Oystercatcher (Haemalopus ostralegus); Redshank (Tringa totanus); and Snipe (Gallinago gallinago).

Butterflies:

Common blue butterfly (Polyommatus icarus); and Large heath (Coenonympha tullia).

Mammals:

Daubenton's bat (Myotis daubentonii).

Bryophytes:

Magellanic bog moss (Sphagnum magellanicum).

Species for which Species Action Plans (SAP) have been prepared. Those underlined are relevant to the GCV Project area.

Amphibians:

Great crested newt (Triturus cristatus).

Birds:

Skylark (Alauda arvensis); and Black grouse (Tetrao tetrix).

Mammals:

Water vole (Arvicola terrestris); Otter (Lutra lutra); and Pipistrelle bat (Pipistrellus pipistrellus).

Vascular Plants:

Juniper (Juniperus communis).

Habitats of interest within the GCV: Local habitat:

Agriculture; Broadleaved & mixed woodland; Churchyards and cemeteries; and Gardens.

Habitats for which Habitat Action Plans (HAP) have been prepared.

Broad habitat:

Boundary and linear features; Rivers and streams; and Standing open water and canals.

Priority Habitats

Lowland raised bog; and Upland heathland.

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

84

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Appendix C: Plates

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

85

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Page left blank intentionally

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

86

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

GLASGOW AND CLYDE VALLEY BIODIVERSITY PROJECT PLATES 1-22

Plate 1: Arable field and hedgerow with semi-natural woodland. (NS4968)

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

87

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Plate 2: Pasture tree line and semi-natural woodland (NS4969)

Plate 3: Arable field by River Clyde/Cart waters (NS 4969) 12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

89

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Plate 4: Arable field bordered by hedgerow (NS4969)

Plate 5: Common reed (Phragmites australis) bed (NS4671)

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

91

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Plate 6: Bottom Bow mud flats (NS4671)

Plate 7: Bottom Bow mud flats (NS4671)

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

93

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Plate 8: Duntocher Burn mouth (NS4771)

Plate 9: Renfrew Ferry (NS5168)

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

95

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Plate 10: Renfrew Ferry (NS5168)

Plate 11: Renfrew Ferry (NS5168) 12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

97

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Plate 12: Renfrew Ferry (NS5168)

Plate 13: Yoker- Re-development (NS5068)

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

99

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Plate 14: River bank opposite Yoker

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

101

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Plate 15: Dense growth by Clyde Walkway at Dalmarnock (NS6262)

Plate 16: Tollcross Burn (NS6362) 12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

103

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Plate 17: Tollcross cemetery woodland (NS6362)

Plate 18: River Kelvin Mouth (NS5566)

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

105

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Plate 19: River Kelvin Mouth (NS5566)

Plate 20: River Kelvin Mouth (NS5566)

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

107

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Plate 21: River Kelvin Mouth (NS5566)

Plate 22: Recreation Ground Dalmarnock (NS6262)

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

109

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Appendix D: Outline Stakeholder List

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

111

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Page left blank intentionally

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

112

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

General List Government organisations and Non-Government Organisations Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) British Bryological and Lichen Society (BBLS) British Herpetological Society BHS) British Mammal Society (BMS) British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV) British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) Buglife Bumble Bee Conservation (BBC) Butterfly Conservation (BC) Calderglen Country Park Carts Greenspace Chatelherault Country Park Clyde River Foundation (CRF) Clyde River Fisheries Management Trust Clydeport Ltd (CRFMT) Crown Estate Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) Firth of Clyde Forum (FCF) Forestry Commission (FC) Friends of the River Kelvin (FRK) Gal Gael Glasgow Botanical Gardens (GBG) Glasgow City Council (GCC) Glasgow City Council Ranger Service Glasgow Museum Resource Centre (GMRC) Glasgow Natural History Society (GNHS) Kelvin-Clyde Greenspace Renfrewshire Council River Clyde Users Group Royal Entomological Society (RES) Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB) Scottish Badgers (SB) Scottish Enterprise Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Scottish Golf Environment Group (SGEG) Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Scottish Ornithology Club (SOC) Scottish Wildlife Trust (Falls of Clyde Area Manager) (SWT) South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) The Hamilton Natural History Society (HNHS) WeBS Counts West Dunbartonshire Council (WDC) West Dunbartonshire Countryside Ranger Service WISE Group

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

113

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

River Basin Management Planning - Clyde Area Advisory Group Membership Argyll & Bute Council Association of District Salmon Fisheries Boards North Ayrshire Council, South Ayrshire Council, East Ayrshire Council British Waterways Clyde River Foundation The Coal Authority Firth of Clyde Forum East Dunbartonshire Council Glasgow City Council Inverclyde Council North Lanarkshire Council Renfrewshire Council South Lanarkshire Council Forestry Commission UK Major Ports Group Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park NFUS RSPB Scottish and Southern Energy Scottish Natural Heritage Scottish Rural Property Business Association Scottish Water Other Sectors Commerce Communities Community groups Developers Development Planners Industry Landowners Legal Sector Leisure Small Business Strathclyde and Metropolitan Police Tenants residential/commercial Transport

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

114

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Appendix E: Figures

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

115

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

October 2008

Page left blank intentionally

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

116

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

October 2008

117

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

October 2008

118

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

October 2008

119

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

October 2008

120

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

October 2008

121

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

October 2008

122

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

October 2008

123

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

October 2008

124

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

October 2008

125

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

October 2008

126

GCV Green Network Partnership Clyde Biodiversity Project

12490j Š EnviroCentre Limited

October 2008

127