Hamilton Low Parks Woodland Herbivore Impact Assessment & Roe Deer Management

Executive Summary

1). Parnassus Ecology was commissioned by NatureScot to carry out an assessment of the impact of roe deer upon woodland within the Hamilton Low Parks SSSI. Parnassus Ecology was also asked to recommend management solutions to address any adverse impacts upon the woodland, including safeguarding the long-term future of its large heronry. In addition, Parnassus Ecology was also asked to investigate management measures to address the locally high number of Deer Vehicle Collisions (DVCs) on the adjacent stretch of the M74, including Junctions 5 and 6.

2). The woodland field work was carried out in early March 2018, using the procedures and techniques set out within the modified Woodland Grazing Toolbox (WGT) method described within ‘Assessing Herbivore Impact in Woodlands: An Observation-based Method: Revised 21 December 2017’ by Armstrong H., Black B., Holl K. & Thompson R..

3). Roe deer management issues in the area, including those associated with the M74, were also examined with the help of thermal and field count data, as well as information gained from a trial trail camera survey. Further consideration of the impact of roe deer in the area was also aided through active engagement with all relevant land managers in the locality of Hamilton Low Parks between December 2017 and April 2018.

4). The woodland herbivore impact assessment concluded that there was a current HIGH overall herbivore impact upon woodland within Hamilton Low Parks SSSI, and that roe deer were a key factor in the general current lack of natural tree and shrub regeneration within the mature woodland. However, it was also noted that roe deer were not preventing the healthy growth of willow scrub within the SSSI and that regeneration has been, and continues to be, also significantly hindered by heavy shade and thick leaf litter from mature Yew, Beech and Sycamore in many parts of the woodland.

5). The work investigating issues relating to DVCs looked at data from the last 17 years and identified that Junction 6 was the main hotspot at this time in the area, with on average, at least 4 roe deer DVCs per annum. The recent ‘Raith Interchange’/Junction 5 works has apparently reduced DVCs in that immediate area to zero, whilst the stretch of M74 between the two junctions has had a low but consistent number of 1 DVC per annum over this period. The fieldwork identified at least 23 roe deer living within 200m of the M74 and Junctions 5 & 6 over the study period.  

6). Management recommendations, including the establishment of a local Deer Management Group, well-managed deer control, initial trialling of mobile vehicle messaging signage at Junction 6, the implementation of a woodland management plan and conifer planting to support future heron nests, have been made to address the current roe deer impacts upon woodland interests and to reduce the risk of DVCs in the Hamilton Low Parks area.

7). This work was assessed against the Deer Code and has been judged to be in compliance with its key criteria.

1.1.1. An assessment of deer (and any other herbivore) impacts upon woodland habitats within the Hamilton Low Parks SSSI; and

1.1.2. Making recommendations for management measures that may be adopted based on the findings of the above assessment and other work relating to road collisions. In particular, recommendations will cover:

The production of this plan involved the following tasks:

- Improving the condition of the Hamilton Low Parks SSSI woodland; and

- Reducing the number of Deer Vehicles Collisions (DVCs) on the adjacent stretch of the M74, including Junctions 5 and 6, and adjoining roads;

- Ensuring all management is in compliance with Scottish Natural Heritage’s Code of Practice on Deer Management.

This plan is not, however, a detailed woodland or site management plan for the SSSI, but will instead provide detailed recommendations relating to woodland and roe deer management at Hamilton Low Parks, and thus be a useful reference for other such future plans.

The plan has been divided up into several straight-forward sections. The first section broadly encompasses the strategic context within which this work will take place. Then, the plan divides up between two main chapters, namely; woodland management and management relating to Deer Vehicle Collisions. Management recommendations are made specific to each chapter, with a final section bringing the two elements together as they both share a common denominator, which is sound roe deer management.

Whilst the plan covers the land within and immediately surrounding the Hamilton Low Parks SSSI, it has also taken full account of the effects of its recommendations on surrounding areas, as any management will have knock-on effects on other roe deer management, especially relating to DVCs. Recommendations have also taken account of other relevant issues on the site, such as illegal poaching.

2.0. SSSI Condition & Roe Deer Management: Strategic & Legal Context

This section briefly sets out the strategic context to the work presented in this report, with specific regard to the condition of designated sites, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), and deer management. More detailed background information on this strategic context is included in Appendix 2.

In summary, this plan has taken into account the following policies, plans and legislation:

• The Scottish Government’s National Performance Framework (NPF): National Indicator (NI) 44: Improve the condition of protected nature sites.
• ‘Deer Management in Scotland: Report to the Scottish Government from Scottish Natural Heritage 2016’ (in response to the recommendations of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee of the Scottish Parliament)
• ‘Scotland’s Wild Deer: A National Approach’ (or WDNA) (2008, 2014)
• The Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 (this Act consolidated and replaced the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959)), including as amended by the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 (WANE) and the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016.
• ‘The Code of Practice on Deer Management’, aka the Deer Code, as well as the well-respected Best Practice Guides developed by NatureScot in collaboration with the industry.

2.1. Lowland Deer Network Scotland, South Lanarkshire Lowland Deer Group & South Lanarkshire Council:

In Scotland, deer management is currently carried out on a voluntary basis. In order to address the above outlined aims in lowland Scotland (generally defined as those parts of Scotland at lower altitudes, mainly South Scotland, Central Scotland and East and North East Scotland) and to also take account of the legislation as it relates to deer in Scotland, the Lowland Deer Network Scotland (LDNS) was formally constituted in 2012, and developed concurrently with the progress of the WANE Act 2011 and the Code of Practice on Deer Management. The LDNS is core-funded by NatureScot, Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) and Transport Scotland.

The establishment of the LDNS was formal recognition that a collaborative, co-ordinated approach was required to the management of wild deer in Scotland’s lowlands and the urban fringe in order to take account of its particular challenges compared to upland areas e.g. the number and scale of landholdings, heavily urbanised areas, history, culture, etc.

LDNS membership is open to all (including individuals) with an involvement in the management of deer in the Scottish Lowlands, and is mainly made up of low-ground deer management practitioners (e.g. sportsmen, stalkers, rangers), landowners, farmers, and organisations with an interest in deer management and deer welfare. This latter group includes local authorities, such as South Lanarkshire Council.

The aims of the LDNS are to:

• promote a better understanding of how deer interact with the environment and seek to manage the impacts associated with them
• establish a range of fora providing opportunities for increased collaboration and effective information exchange
• encourage adoption of best-practice standards in deer management.

The LDNS has already developed a range of initiatives to achieve these aims, including facilitating and supporting the establishment of Lowland Deer Groups (of which there are now 11 groups).

In South Lanarkshire, there is the South Lanarkshire Lowland Deer Group (SLLDG), which was formed to try and address deer-related issues e.g. proper training of stalkers, improved communication between stakeholders, etc, within the South Lanarkshire Council boundary.

Unlike areas further north, and typical of other lowland areas, the Group’s area includes hundreds of landholdings, making landscape-scale deer management collaboration extremely difficult, a problem partially offset by the fact that roe deer are the main deer species currently in the area, with the species being territorial and not therefore ranging as large herds over wide areas (although localised herds do form in winter).

The Deer Code and the revised WDNA report both set out more clearly the public interests in deer management and how land managers are expected to take account of these issues. South Lanarkshire Council, as the local authority covering the main area of this plan, have been closely involved with deer issues in the Hamilton Low Parks area, in partnership with NatureScot and in liaison the SLLDG, and have supported the production of this plan.

South Lanarkshire Council are currently at the early stages of considering a way forward for deer management within the council area.

3.0. Background Information on Hamilton Low Parks: Setting the Scene

This section describes the current relevant data available for the Hamilton Low Parks SSSI site, and immediate environs, and associated data relating to roe deer issues. This information is essential in order to allow the identification of clear objectives, which are based on sound evidence, to be carried out.

3.1. Land Ownerships, Responsibilities & Extent of existing Roe Deer Issues

The following ownerships are relevant to the plan (indicated on Maps 2 & 3)

Hamilton Low Parks SSSI, North & South Haugh, Land around Mausoleum, the Golf Course:

Most of the area is owned by South Lanarkshire Council. There is little active management at the moment within the Hamilton Low Parks SSSI itself, beyond the management of the adjacent Clyde Walkway access route. Volunteers do get involved in the management of the South Haugh section (south of Junction 6), whilst SLC staff monitor the heronry annually and monitor activities on the site. The Council also run and manage the Hamilton Golf Course and the land around the Mausoleum.

No roe deer shooting is currently permitted on these areas.

1. M74 (including Junctions 5 and 6)
2. This area is owned by Transport Scotland and managed by Scotland Transerve, with Roadchef managing part of the Hamilton Services.
3. No roe deer shooting is permitted in these areas.
4. Hamilton Race Course -the race course is owned by South Lanarkshire Council, and leased to and managed by Hamilton Park Racecourse.
5. No roe deer shooting is currently permitted on the race course.
6. Hamilton High Parks Flats – a large flat complex overlooking the golf course and race course. No roe deer shooting permitted on grounds.
7. Hamilton College -  The school includes mature woodland and rugby pitches within its grounds and sits adjacent to the golf course, flats and race course.

No roe deer shooting is permitted in these areas.

8. SSPCA Rescue Centre - The SSPCA centre is a large facility, managed by the SSPCA, which is largely cut off from neighbouring land by a large, tall security fence.
9. No roe deer shooting is permitted in this area.
10. Sewage Works
11. The sewage works are run by Scottish Water and are located between the SSPCA Centre and the River Clyde at Bothwell Bridge. Whilst surrounded by security fencing, this fencing has been breached and roe deer trails lead into the site.
12. No roe deer shooting is currently permitted in this area
13. Strathclyde Country Park
14. This large site is mainly owned by North Lanarkshire Council (although a small area is also owned by South Lanarkshire Council) and actively managed with the assistance of the North Lanarkshire Ranger Service. The area is managed for outdoor recreation and conservation.
15. No roe deer shooting is currently permitted in the park.

3.2. Consultees

The following bodies and individuals were contacted and consulted as part of this work:

1. Scottish Natural Heritage (Gail Foster, Roisin McLaren, Jamie Hammond)
2. South Lanarkshire Council (Malcolm Muir, Chris Waltho)
3. Transport Scotland (Scottish Roads Partnership) & Scotland TranServe (Angus Corby, David Allan, Graham Drummond, Isla Davidson, Brendan O’Sullivan)
4. David Quarrell (South Lanarkshire Deer Management Group)
5. Dick Playfair (Lowland Deer Network Scotland)
6. North Lanarkshire Council (Helen Boyle, Senior Ranger, Strathclyde Country Park)
7. Hamilton Race Course (Ms. Sulekha Varma, Racing Manager & Clerk of the Course)
8. Dr. Jochen Langbein (Langbein Wildlife Associates – national DVC database)
9. Hacking and Paterson (maintenance company for Hamilton High flats; Ms. Alex O’Donnell)
10. Roadchef – Hamilton Services (Mr. Ian Hamilton, Director)
11. Hamilton College (Mr. Kenny Gibson, Facilities Manager)
12. Golf range – shop staff/manager.
13. Hamilton Golf Course – grounds staff
14. SSPCA (local rescue centre staff)
15. Police Scotland – (PC Shona Mackinnon)

3.3. Herbivore Status at Hamilton Low Parks SSSI and immediate environs

The following section sets the scene on the level of knowledge known about herbivores in the Hamilton Low Parks area:

It is known that the whole Hamilton Low Parks area, prior to the urban expansion around it, was used for grazing livestock within the River Clyde floodplain. It is unclear when livestock last grazed in the Hamilton Low Parks area but no animals were mentioned in early reports from the 1980s on NatureScot files, so it has probably been livestock-free for over 40 years, and probably from 1966 when the M74 was opened. Since the removal of livestock, the main herbivores present within the site consist of small mammals, such as voles, grey squirrels, rabbits and brown hares, and roe deer (no other species of deer is present in the area at this time).

There is currently no scientific data for the populations of small mammals in the area, however, it is reasonable to expect that species such as voles, grey squirrels and rabbits will have an impact upon trees, seedlings and saplings to varying degrees from year to year, depending on their population cycles. The extent of this recent damage on new or existing seedlings and saplings in 2017/2018 was assessed during the herbivore impact assessment and found to be negligible (see Section 4).

16. Roe deer have undoubtedly been present on the site for some time, although like virtually everywhere within the Scottish Lowlands, there is no systematic monitoring of roe deer across all of their range. The earliest mention of roe deer in past woodland management plans is 1985, when their signs were being spotted more by local council countryside staff, with the first clear sighting of two roe deer in January 1986. Therefore, roe deer have been known to be present on the site for over 30 years.

At this time (1986), a Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) note from NatureScot files records concerns about the exploding population of grey squirrels, first recorded on site in 1981, and also states the following with regard to roe deer:

‘There have been some isolated instances of young tree damage which is attributed to the two roe deer seen more regularly of late. It is envisaged that this will continue from time to time and may become more predominant especially if the deer take up permanent residence..…….’

Along with grey squirrels and roe deer, other herbivore damage has been noted on the site, including in 1982, when mention of planted blackthorn being eaten by rabbits appears on NatureScot files. Most recently, NatureScot carried out a thermal imaging count on 9th January 2018 in order to get a more accurate count of roe deer numbers in the area. The results of this are shown in Appendix 3 and Table 9, however, the survey confirmed the presence of 22 roe deer in the main area of the Hamilton Low Parks site. This survey is a snapshot and is always considered a minimum count by the NatureScot team, but together with a similar survey in February 2013 by NatureScot and David Quarrell, which counted 24 in the same area (and a further immediately adjacent areas), it provides some systematic data on populations within Hamilton Low Parks area at this time.

On 9th April 2018, David Quarrell (South Lanarkshire Deer Management Group) reported (dawn) counting 43 roe deer (27 females and 16 males) also in the main Hamilton Low Parks area north of the Mausoleum, encompassing the golf course, race course and the SSSI up towards the sewage works. This count used both thermal imagery kit as well as binoculars. This is approximately 20 more deer than counted earlier in 2018 in the same area.

In addition to the above counts, 13 roe deer were spotted grazing on the north end of Hamilton Race Course on 1st February 2018 by staff there, whilst the Facilities Manager at Hamilton College counted 4 on their rugby pitch and 2 within their woods also in February 2018. Other sightings either collated or collected by LMK during the course of this work have been placed in Appendix 3 and add a little more to our understanding of roe deer at this location.

Roe deer numbers can vary widely between months and years depending on a wide range of factors e.g. food availability, extent of culling, whilst their secretive nature makes counts extremely difficult. However, all agree that such counts, including thermal counts, are always an underestimate of the number of deer present on a site.

Roe Buck and Doe photographed by trail camera beside Bothwell Bridge, beside sewage works, 2018

Unfortunately, as no counts in 2018 covered the entire SSSI and immediate surroundings over one continuous survey period, it is not currently possible to provide an approximate figure for the number of roe deer living on the overall Hamilton Low Parks area at this time, and certainly not break down the figure into the numbers of bucks, does and yearlings present.

The best estimate for roe deer numbers in one part of the area covers Barmichael Plantation and the north end of the race course. From field and casual observations, as well as trail camera information, all collected in 2018, it is estimated that there are at least 23 roe deer present. This area is approximately 75ha. The entire Hamilton Low Parks SSSI, and surrounding land (as per Map 2), and South Haugh has an approximate area of 300ha. It is unlikely that the roe deer density found at Barmichael Plantation is as high across the whole site as some other areas are less optimal for roe deer. However, from the trail camera work around Junction 6, the April 2018 count and the availability of good habitat around North and South Haugh, it is considered entirely feasible that there could be approximately 75 roe deer in the general Hamilton Low Parks area at this time.

3.4. Roe Deer Control & Associated Issues

During the consultation for this plan, the views of neighbouring land managers were sought on the roe deer numbers and any related issues. These are summarised in Table 1 below. It should be noted that, to date, there has been no formal culling of roe deer on the Hamilton Low Parks SSSI.

Table 1: Roe Deer issues in the Hamilton Low Parks Area

Ownership or Agent	Roe Deer Sightings	Comments
NatureScot	n/a	Concern over roe deer impacts upon woodland within SSSI and DVCs
SLC	n/a	Concern over roe deer inpacts upon woodland within SSSI and DVCs
Hamilton Race Course	High nos. – Group of 13 spotted on race course in Feb 2018; they are not afraid of people.	Like them but concern about the large recent increases of roe deer on the course as could increase risk of a collision/disturbance between a roe deer and race horse during a race (open between May-Sept); they eat the office flowers; live in scrubland in loop of golf course; seen no evidence of poaching on their land (gates locked at night & track manager lives on site); have concerns about possible DVCs.
Hamilton College	4 spotted on rugby pitch and 2 known in wood in Feb 2018	No concerns and like them
Roadchef (Hamilton Services)	See them regularly alongside the motorway and in/around their grounds	Never caused a problem and no issues to date.
Hamilton Golf Course (SLC)	See them regularly; LMK counted 7 on last fairway whilst groundstaff have counted a group fo 13 in 2018.	No concerns and like them.
Golf range (by Mausoleum)	Have the odd 1 or 2 on the range.	No concerns and like them.
Hamilton High Flats (overlooking golf course)	No information on numbers	Agents in charge of property grounds have had no complaints about roe deer to date.
Strathclyde Country Park (N. Lanarkshire Council Ranger Service)	See them regularly around park but not in huge numbers.	Not causing a problem at this time and getting plenty of regeneration of Ash and Holly within their woodland (H. Boyle, pers comm); never seen roe deer cross R. Clyde or footbridge but are known to appear on loch island.  Only see remains of deer from poaching activities, and aware of 1 or 2 incidents a year.
SSOCA Centre	Don’t see them in grounds.	No immediate local issues with roe deer.
Scotland TranServe & Transport Scotland	Maintain records of DVCs	Concerns at this time and keen to ensure that all can be reasonably done to reduce risk of DVCs.

3.5. Public Access and Deer Poaching:

Hamilton Low Parks is surrounded by urban areas and therefore has a high level of public use. However, the majority of people stick to the main paths in the area, primarily located along the Clyde Walkway, by North Haugh, and local paths at South Haugh, as well as formal footpaths and bridges criss-crossing Junction 6.

Beyond footpaths, there is obviously a high human presence given the urban nature of the area, with residents in the Hamilton High Flats overlooking the golf course, a large local school adjacent to the site (Hamilton College), not to mention Hamilton Race Course, the golf course itself and adjacent golf range and playing fields. However, these are concentrated around the western and southern boundaries of the area, such that more undisturbed areas i.e. few people wandering about, are located in the centre of the site where it sits beside the M74 and more quiet areas in North Haugh (both of which are hazardous to walk over due to wetlands and ditches).

Elsewhere, public access is informal and includes dog-walkers in the woodland, illegal fishing alongside the length of the River Clyde, the odd drinking-den and other anti-social activity.

In addition to this, there is the occasional roe deer poaching incident, with Police Scotland involved with two crime reports raised between March 2016 and March 2018 in terms of illegal poaching activities involving deer in the areas near to Junctions 5 and 6. These are believed to have involved people with dogs hunting for roe deer. The North Lanarkshire Council rangers at neighbouring Strathclyde Country Park only reported rare incidents of poaching with signs being found about once a year. During the course of the survey work, poles (possibly used in poaching activities to attach nets to catch roe deer) were found on North Haugh. Therefore, roe deer poaching remains a live issue on the site.

In terms of risks beyond DVCs relating to deer and the public, the obvious topical concern is that of an increase in ticks in the area with an increase in deer, and the consequent risks of Lyme Disease transmission. At this present time, there is little information on ticks in the Hamilton Low Parks area, however, it is recognised that low deer densities can reduce tick numbers and consequent risk of Lyme disease transmission (Kilpatrick, H. et al, 2014).

4.0. Woodland Management and Woodland Herbivore Impact Assessment

4.1. Background Ecological Information for Hamilton Low Parks

4.2. Overview of Plan Area:

The core of the plan area is comprised of the Hamilton Low Parks Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), sitting at between 20-40m altitude, and with an area of 105ha (Maps 1 and 3).

To the west of the SSSI, there are several significant areas of greenspace, including Hamilton Golf Course, which comprises several belts of young and mature woodland between fairways, as well as Hamilton Race Course and Hamilton College, which also have belts of mature woodland. In addition, there is the completely fenced-off SSPCA centre adjacent to a Sewage Treatment Works located beside the River Clyde. These areas are delineated by Bothwell Road (B7071), which separates them from more built-up urban areas. However, Backmuir Plantation, a significant area of woodland, is located within a few hundred metres further west of the SSSI, whilst to the north west, there is the River Clyde corridor, which supports further wooded areas and greenspace.

To the south of the SSSI, there lies further significant greenspace areas, including parts of Hamilton Golf Course, a golf driving range, parkland and playing fields around the Mausoleum, and semi-natural woodland, planted woodland, scrub and wetter areas adjoining the River Clyde. All this area is dissected by roads coming into and from Junction 6, M74.

The eastern edge of the SSSI is cut by the M74, but Strathclyde Country Park (and Loch) lies across from the River Clyde, and further to the east, alongside Motherwell.

To the north of the SSSI, the Junction 5 and associated new motorway carriageways, are located, often bound by tall fences to attenuate noise and cutting off the SSSI from further large areas of greenspace, including farmland, wooded areas and wetland.

It is also worth noting, in the context of this plan, that the SSSI is located at a key internode in a strategic corridor of high quality greenspace (Map 4).

4.3. Hamilton Low Parks SSSI

Hamilton Low Parks SSSI was originally designated for its bird assemblage and its heronry, which is the largest in Scotland, in 1956 and 1971, then re-notified again in 1986 and reviewed in 2010, with the bird assemblage feature being de-notified/taken off from the citation.

The site includes both mature policy woodland and elements of semi-natural woodland. However, most of the site is low-lying and subject to periodic flooding. There are several pools of open water on the site, some apparently caused by ground subsidence, and the boundary is largely defined by a series of drains connecting with the River Clyde. This wet low-lying area means the SSSI vegetation is dominated by transitional vegetation from open water/fen habitats through to extensive stands of willow scrub and occasional grassland areas. The SSSI also bounds the River Clyde in places and also has areas of planted landscaped woodland (with conifers) which appear to relate to the time of the construction of the M74.

The main areas of mature policy woodland within the SSSI are contained within the Barmichael Plantation and Low Park Wood sections, whilst there are significant areas of mature willow scrub alongside hawthorn/blackthorn scrub in wetter lower-lying parts of the SSSI.

The grey heron, Ardea cinerea, nest within the mixed plantation woodland known as Barmichael Plantation (Map 3). Annual monitoring by SLC staff has shown that the heron nests have been overwhelmingly found on the mature yew trees in the last 5 years. Prior to this, the herons were found predominantly on mature broadleaves. This shift is considered to be as a result of higher spring winds making the broadleaf nests less successful than the yew tree nests. As a result, more new adult recruits have stayed faithful to the yew trees from where they were born. The population of breeding herons corresponds to approximately 0.5% of the breeding population for this species in the UK, whilst also being the biggest heronry in Scotland.

The NatureScot -commissioned National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey, conducted by D H Ecological Consultancy in September 2006 (report dated 2008), identified several different woodland plant communities on the site, although they were not easy to classify into recognised existing woodland types. These included W1 (Salix cinerea-Galium palustre) wet woodland, which was dominated by willows but also had alder, downy birch, sycamore, ash and hawthorn in places, very small areas of wet W6 (Alnus glutinosa-Urtica dioica) alder woodland, and on drier areas, more grassy W7 (Alnus glutinosa-Fraxinus excelsior-Lysimachia nemorum) woodland.

Mature Willow scrub and wetland communities at North Haugh.

W9 (Fraxinus excelsior-Sorbus aucuparia-Mercurialis perennis) woodland was present within Barmichael Plantation but it was noted that this woodland was dominated by mature beech, sycamore and with a significant proportion of yew, although other canopy species included ash, pedunculate oak, lime, holly, wych elm, with an understorey of elder and hawthorn. It was noted that ancient woodland indicator species were present in places.

W10 (Quercus robur-Pteridium aquilinum-Rubus fruticosus) woodland and W21 (Crataegus monogyna-Hedera helix) scrub were also present in some parts of the site, with W10 being located on the small raised areas around the lochs. Finally, it was noted that there was much planted woodland on the site, including by the golf course, where downy birch, rowan, blackthorn and gean had been planted and which appeared to be on W9-type ground communities.

A full description of the SSSI and associated interests can be found within NatureScot files at their Hamilton Office or on https://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/,with the citation included in Appendix 1.

4.4. History of Management at Hamilton Low Parks:

This section will focus on the woodland within Hamilton Low Parks, as this is the only feature that has been subject to the herbivore impact assessment and it is where the heronry is located within the site.

When looking at woodland condition it is essential to look at the history of the woodland so that judgements on its current structure and composition take all factors and not just current factors i.e. possible current high levels of roe deer browsing, into consideration during any assessment. This is particularly important when deciding on the best way forward for its management. Any decisions on future woodland management must therefore be supported by robust data and sound historical information, whilst actions must also be backed up by sound, robust monitoring in order to allow an honest review of any management work.

In the case of Hamilton Low Parks SSSI, there is much recorded information, not always clearly dated, within NatureScot files, whilst other information was gained from conversations with SLC staff. Unfortunately, SLC did not have any woodland management plans available for examination.

The main mature woodland at Hamilton Low Parks SSSI is centred on Barmichael Plantation and Low Parks Wood to the south. Within Barmichael Plantation, it is widely considered that the (over)mature broadleaves were planted approximately 300 years ago, with the yew trees present forming part of the second cycle of original plantings (possibly over 170 years ago). Both plantings are associated with the Dukes of Hamilton and original Hamilton Palace designed landscape (no longer on the relevant inventory), and sit alongside the old avenue, just discernible within the woodland.

However, it is likely that these plantings were on the site of older native woodland, as the southern half of Barmichael Plantation (that part within the SSSI) is considered to be Ancient (of semi-natural origin) within NatureScot’s Ancient Woodland Inventory of Scotland, as is Backmuir Plantation nearby. The presence of ancient woodland indicators on parts of this site, as found during the NVC survey in 2006, would appear to support this view, whilst some older plans on NatureScot file suggest that the Dukes also ‘took the occasional crop of hardwoods’ from the woodland.

The NatureScot Ancient Woodland Inventory of Scotland classifies the adjoining part of Barmichael plantation to the northwest and adjacent to the River Clyde as Long-established (of plantation origin) along with the Low Parks Wood to the south (and also within the SSSI) and the woodland adjoining the race course. It would certainly be useful for a full desktop study of original documents to be carried out on the history of the woodland over the early period of its management as this would confirm or otherwise these observations from recent documents, which are otherwise unsourced.

Studies of aerial photos provide extremely useful information. Photos from 1944-1950 (below), for example, show a generally treeless landscape prior to the construction of the M74 in 1966, but with Barmichael Plantation and Low Park Wood clearly present, along with woodland beside Hamilton Race Course and Hamilton College.

Hamilton Low Parks 1944-1950 aerial image showing location of Hamilton Park Racecourse.

Since that date, the woodland has been subject to active management during the 1970s and 1980s, with much focus on controlling the extensive sycamore regeneration present within the woodland whilst trying to create a more varied woodland structure. The latter also involved some selective felling of yew trees away from the main avenue, regular planting of native broadleaves, as well as coppicing of hazel. However, post-1980s, active management within the woodland lessened, such that there has been little active management for the last 20 years beyond occasional monitoring visits and regular annual monitoring of the heronry.

In the meantime, there has been no active management of the willow and hawthorn scrub within the wetter parts of the site, and there are now extensive areas of both, which have developed, along with an increase in the wetlands, over the last 65 years. These sit alongside plantings from the construction of the M74, and which together, now form a contiguous woodland area effectively surrounding Junction 6.

4.5. Current Condition of Hamilton Low Parks SSSI Woodland & Heronry

Both NatureScot and SLC have been involved with survey and monitoring activities at Hamilton Low Parks over several years since its notification as a SSSI, in order to improve knowledge of the site and in order to assist with its management. Several management plans have been produced at varying times by SLC (and its predecessor) which have highlighted various issues.

The main qualifying feature on the site relates to the heronry. The heronry is considered by NatureScot to be currently in a ‘Favourable Maintained’ condition and this is backed up by the annual monitoring data counting occupied nests. Table 2 shows the 5-year mean counts of occupied nests over regular periods of nest recording. It can be seen that the heronry has actually increased since the 1800s, late 1980s and 1990s and remains stable with an average of 51 nests.

The condition of the mature policy and semi-natural woodland at Barmichael, the site of the heronry, and Low Parks Wood further to the south, has been ‘unfavourable’ for at least 40 years. From the Strathclyde Country Park Woodland Management Plan (1975), it was stated that:

‘..[Low Park Wood]…Prevalence of Elder and Sycamore in the understorey is probably a relatively recent development. In other places they are growing to the virtual exclusion of other species…

[Barmichael Plantation]….Long-term management should be directed towards re-establishing mixed deciduous high forest……dominance of Beech in the main canopy…sometimes Ash, Elm and Sycamore share canopy space with Beech…’

The plan goes on to state…

‘..Sycamore is dominant in terms of sapling regeneration, competing with Elder and Hawthorn, occasional Ash and Elm saplings, and in places Yew and Rhododendron for understorey space. Under-canopy development is restricted by the dense shading imposed by Beech and the fairly uniform canopy closure by large old trees throughout the plantation…’

Typical mature woodland at Barmichael Plantation, showing Yew in background and leaf litter.

Finally concluding, after highlighting the need to avoid disturbing the heronry during woodland operations, that…

‘An effort should be made to resolve the biologically poor situation prevailing in terms of species and structural diversity…’

This theme of the need for sycamore control (and even selective yew felling away from main avenue), underplanting with mixed broadleaves and ‘raking off leaf litter to assist in the promotion of ground flora’ is repeated in notes relating to the SSSI woodland within the NatureScot files from the late 1980s.

More recently, the NVC Survey (2006) noted the following points with regard to the woodland at Barmichael Plantation on the site, namely: “Canopy cover is dense so that there is little field and ground cover” whilst it also referred to areas with 100% bare ground but that in other areas, bramble and woodland indicator species were present. In other areas of the SSSI, it was noted that areas of rush-pasture were ‘apparently being colonised by Alnus glutinosa [Alder] and it is edged by Salix cinerea and S. viminalis [Willows].’

In terms of other areas, the NVC survey did give mention to evidence of browsing or grazing activities and also referred to the draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Fairhurst, 2006), which apparently provided evidence that ‘grazing of parts of the site ceased some time ago’, resulting in ‘the vegetation becoming rank’.

Typical mature willow scrub at Hamilton Low Parks

The FCS Native Woodland Survey of Scotland (NWSS)(2014) did NOT classify either Barmichael Plantation or Low Parks Wood within its survey, but did include small parcels of woodland within other parts of the SSSI and the general Hamilton Low Parks area.

Whilst the classification of native woodland here appears a little inconsistent, the herbivore impact assessments of these parcels at least provide some useful indications of condition. The majority of woodland in the area was classified as being ‘Medium’, with occasional Low and High impacts (strip on west side of North Haugh) (categories were Low, Medium, High, Very High) herbivore impact: a description of the overall impact of herbivores on a woodland. It was based on visual estimates of the extent of browsing (epicormic shoot or basal shoots), bark stripping/fraying on trees and some shrub species, the extent of any visible poaching or ground disturbance caused by herbivores and an assessment of the canopy fragmentation. All herbivore damage was classified as that by roe deer, with one woodland on west side of M74 also having rabbit/hare damage too.

NatureScot has carried out Site Condition Monitoring (SCM) and Site Checks at Hamilton Low Parks SSSI over a number of years, which provide useful information.

The NatureScot SCM assessment report (2003), for example, made no specific remark about roe deer on the site but did refer to over-grazing as being a negative influence, however, it did not recommend a review of management. The site was considered to be ‘Favourable Maintained’.

In 2008, a NatureScot memo SIT/SSS/761/MON (dated 31/07/08/finalised on 29/09/10) on the site considered that ‘some areas of the haugh within the SSSI have scrub encroachment…’

The Site Check form (Dec 2013) noted that:

‘..very sparse ground flora across plantation, particularly in areas dominated by Yew where canopy cover was 90%........Scattered hazel regeneration noted in more open areas but thick layer of Sycamore leaf litter could be suppressing regen…..Good Ash regeneration noted at south-east plantation but browsed. Evidence of browsing across site and bark stripping also…’

Aerial photos from 2004 and 2016 (Source: Google Earth Pro) were also examined as part of this study to assess whether there has been any significant change in the extent and character of the woodland at Hamilton Low Parks.

Three areas were examined as a sub-sample of the site and its immediate environs; Barmichael Plantation area, North Haugh and South Haugh. These photos are included below. All clearly indicate that woodland cover/extent between 2004 and 2016 has not reduced, whilst interestingly, there is clear evidence of an expansion of tree/scrub cover at South Haugh. However, this could be due to the presence of more unpalatable Alder (Malcolm Muir, pers comm) as well as good Hawthorn growth on existing plants too tall to be affected by roe deer now. The photos do not obviously show the quality of woodland between these dates.

Barmichael Plantation

North Haugh

South Haugh

4.6. Woodland Herbivore Impact Assessment

4.6.1. Introduction:

In order to assess the extent to which roe deer browsing may be affecting new tree recruitment within woodland within Hamilton Low Parks SSSI, a Level 2 Woodland Herbivore Impact Assessment (HIA) was carried out within the site. This provided current information on the degree to which the woodland has been recently regenerating itself as well as the degree to which herbivores, and especially roe deer, have been and are impacting upon the development of the woodland. This will obviously have knock-on effects for the long-term health of the woodland in the SSSI.

4.6.2. Methods:

Following discussions and a review of the original proposed methodology for the work with NatureScot, Parnassus Ecology was asked to collect data using the modified Woodland Grazing Toolbox (WGT) Level 2 method described within ‘Assessing Herbivore Impact in Woodlands: An Observation-based Method: Revised 21 December 2017’ by Armstrong H., Black B., Holl K. & Thompson R.. This method and the background to it can be found on the following website: http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/woodland-grazing-toolbox . The key aim of the method is to assess woodland structure and current herbivore impacts. Unlike the Woodland Profile Surveys, based on Forestry Commission Information Note 45 (Kerr et al. 2002), and used on several other sites, this new method uses fewer but bigger plots to collect information and concentrates on younger tree age classes only, whilst aiming to describe historical herbivore impacts upon the site.

Ideally, this survey would be completed at the end of winter/early spring in order to obtain a full up-to-date picture on all browsing, especially as roe deer tend to pick on tree and shrub shoots at this time, however, by leaving fieldwork until the beginning of March it was hoped that we would catch some of the most recent browsing damage as well as that from last year, which would still be evident, and that an accurate assessment would still be possible. The earlier time of year also allowed small seedlings to potentially be found more easily before they got hidden in any tall ground vegetation later in spring.

A total of 10 plots, each with a 25m radius, were established across the woodland, and located in order to obtain a representative sample of the woodland types, including mature willow scrub, where accessible (many areas were difficult to access due to standing water). However, the areas of planted woodland clearly related to the M74 construction were avoided on this occasion. Each plot was marked using a painted and treated wooden stake, at its centre, with its location noted using a Garmin G64S, to allow its future re-location for future monitoring. Each plot was also broadly delineated using 10 marked canes around its boundary.

Within each plot, a Level 2 Herbivore Impact Assessment Field Sheet (See Appendix 5) was completed, providing the framework for a systematic herbivore impact assessment using the 7 ‘impact indicators’ listed in Table 3, as per the WGT method. After a thorough examination of each plot, each indicator was evaluated on a scale of ‘absent’ to ‘very high’ impact and also which herbivore species was responsible for the impact, with details of the impact upon each tree species present also noted. The palatability of each tree species was taken into account during this process (Appendix 6). During the recording and analysis, due cognisance was taken that the indicators could have been absent or not applicable for reasons other than herbivore impacts.

In addition, the following information was collected for the plot:

Tree structure classes were also recorded. The classes provide an indication if the plots are developing a more complex woodland structure, particularly with regard to the shrub layers, without the need for the measurement of individual trees. The classes are listed in Table 4.

Within each plot, the number of seedlings (less than 50cm tall) and saplings (50cm-2m tall) of each species were recorded and quantified, using the DAFOR scale as well as counting individuals where there were few plants. Over time we would expect that the number of seedlings and saplings would increase and that there would be a progression of a cohort of seedlings through to large saplings in a healthy woodland. The measure is recognised as being not very sensitive, but it is viewed as being sufficient for the purposes of demonstrating whether regeneration is or is not being successful within Hamilton Low Parks SSSI. A table was used to assist easy quantification of seedling and sapling numbers/density (Table 5), as per WGT method:

Table 5 (Ref: ‘Assessing Herbivore Impact in Woodlands: An Observation-based Method: Revised 21 December 2017’ by Armstrong H., Black B., Holl K. & Thompson R.)

Typical plot with yellow-painted marker post at its centre

In addition to the above data, other more general information was collected in order to provide further information of use in the interpretation of the field woodland profile and browsing data. This included:

Plot vegetation - an average measure of height was recorded for the plot based on an average of 5 measures in a ‘W’ formation across the plot.

Plant communities - The ground vegetation in the plot was recorded at a general level, especially as many plants were still not showing themselves due to the time of year, with a note taken of dominant vegetation types present e.g. Luzula sylvatica (Great Wood-rush), rank grassy sward, etc. Classification to the NVC community level was not carried out during this work as it had already been carried out by DH Consultancy in 2006 and was judged extremely unlikely to have changed in the meantime.

Other aspects – Other aspects that could affect the performance of the regeneration (e.g. shade, water logging, drought, bracken) or provide useful information to aid the analysis was also recorded.

Deer Pellet Groups - The number of deer pellet groups were noted as a broad, crude indicator of herbivore activity but this does provide some raw data to allow some cautious comparisons with levels of roe deer activity in the future.

Photos – 5 photos were taken within each plot: one of the location of the marker post to aid re-locating it, and one in each of four directions (north, south, west and east), taken from the centre (post) of the plot.

Past & Historic Browsing Impacts – notes were taken for each plot on the presence of evidence demonstrating past and historic herbivore impacts, in order to aid understanding of the woodland condition.

For a full description of the background and method approach, please visit the WGT website: 

4.6.3. Results and Discussion:

The following 10 plots were marked out within Hamilton Low Parks, in order to obtain a representative sample of the woodland habitats, as per Map 5 and Table 6.

Map 5: Plot Locations: See Appendix 5 for Enlarged Map

The full detailed Level 2 field sheets for each plot, together with the associated photos, are included in Appendix 5 to this report. A summary of the results for each plot is presented in Table 7 and Table 7(a).

In addition, a commentary on each of the impact indicators, and the woodland as a whole, is included below:

1). Basal Shoots: Overall Impact = HIGH.

One of the biggest impacts from roe deer upon the trees and shrubs surveyed was upon the basal shoots of trees and shrubs, with all species with basal stems being heavily browsed, especially in Barmichael Plantation. This is not surprising as basal shoots are often the most accessible part of a mature tree to roe deer.

Plot 3: Willow – localised heavy browsing of basal stems showing signs of recent basal growth (left); Plot 2: Heavy browsing on basal tree growth (right)

All species appeared subject to heavy and sometimes very heavy basal browsing, including Holly, Sycamore, Ash, Elm, Hazel and even the less palatable Downy Birch. In the mature Willow areas, there was less basal growth available and present for the roe deer, but at the north end of the area, by the River Clyde, there were localised areas of heavier basal browsing on the Willow too.

2). Epicormic and Younger shoots: Overall Impact = MEDIUM

On many trees, the epicormic growth and/or young shoots (growing from fallen or horizontal-growing stems aka ‘phoenix stems’) below the browse-line, were subject to roe deer browsing.

Much of this browsing was considered to be less heavy than that seen on the basal growth, and patchy in nature. For example, in some plots, the level of browsing damage was light or moderate, whilst in other areas, it was very heavy, for example, on Holly: a favourite of deer in general. In such situations, clear browse-lines were evident on both Holly and Sycamore growth at times. In one or two plots within Barmichael Plantation, this type of browsing was evidently heavy, with even low-growing branches of largely unpalatable Rhododendron ponticum agg. exhibiting signs.

Within the mature Willow scrub, evidence of such browsing on phoenix stems was present, if generally more rare than elsewhere, but was sufficient to be viewed as ‘moderate’ in places.

Plot 1: Typical browsed lower shoots on holly (above) and Rhododendron (below)

This type of browsing was common throughout the woodland, and as a result of the degree to which relatively unpalatable species were browsed, it was considered that the overall impact upon this indicator was Medium.

3). Seedlings (<50cm tall) & Saplings (50-200cm tall): Overall Impact = HIGH

Due to the largely bare nature of much of the woodland floor (resulting from heavy shade and leaf litter in many places), there was confidence that most of the seedlings present within a plot would have been picked up by the surveyors. Unfortunately, there was a general lack of seedlings across all plots for most of the species present, with occasional seedlings present for Beech, Hawthorn and Holly.

The main exception to this was Ash, with several plots having large concentrations of small seedlings and ‘old seedlings’ where old trees had gone and there were significant gaps in the canopy. These flushes of regeneration were clearly attractive to the roe deer and many older seedlings had been subject to sustained browsing in recent years. As a result, the patches resembled ‘miniature forests’, complete with mosses growing up seedling stems. However, seedlings were getting away in a few places and browsing was not always considered heavy, and indeed was light on occasion (albeit on the few individual seedlings present in such instances).

The above chart shows the number of saplings (50-200cm tall) recorded on plots, clearly showing that there had been some regeneration going on in the last 10 years or so. It was not possible to produce a similar figure for seedlings as large patches of smaller seedlings/older seedlings were described, using DAFOR ratings.

Plot 5: Ash old seedlings (browsed): miniature forest garden: a typical scene in several areas of the woodland

Within the mature Willow scrub areas, there was next to no seedlings, however, as Willow often typically sustains itself by growing vegetatively from fallen and existing stems, this was not viewed as cause for concern and these areas were viewed as in a healthy state overall.

There was also a general lack of naturally regenerated saplings in the plots, with those that were present often belonging to either Sycamore, Beech, Hawthorn or Elder, and having moderate and sometimes slight browsing signs upon them. The exception to this was the occasional mini-flush of Ash saplings spotted in parts of the woodland (often outwith the plots), whilst Ash saplings that were present within the plots often showed signs of heavy browsing pressure. Unpalatable Alder saplings showed no signs of browsing in Plot 4.

Plot 5: Ash old seedlings (browsed): miniature forest garden: a typical scene in several areas of the woodland

Within the mature Willow scrub areas, there was next to no seedlings, however, as Willow often typically sustains itself by growing vegetatively from fallen and existing stems, this was not viewed as cause for concern and these areas were viewed as in a healthy state overall.

There was also a general lack of naturally regenerated saplings in the plots, with those that were present often belonging to either Sycamore, Beech, Hawthorn or Elder, and having moderate and sometimes slight browsing signs upon them. The exception to this was the occasional mini-flush of Ash saplings spotted in parts of the woodland (often outwith the plots), whilst Ash saplings that were present within the plots often showed signs of heavy browsing pressure. Unpalatable Alder saplings showed no signs of browsing in Plot 4.

Plot 8 (just outside area): Surge of ash regeneration, including older saplings that have got away from heavily browsed ‘ash seedling garden’.

It was noticeable that in some parts of the mature woodland, there were taller saplings (~3m) present, including Sycamore, Beech and Ash, as well as Elder, Elm and Hawthorn. These looked approximately 10-15 yrs old and may well have got away during a period of less roe deer browsing i.e. when roe deer densities were lower than now. Other young trees, such as Gean and the odd Hazel, looked like they had been planted in the past, with old tree tubes nearby or even around the tree testament to that.

Therefore, on balance, whilst this indicator was considered to be a borderline Medium/High impact, it was given an overall rating of High to take account of the general lack of recent tree seedlings and saplings.

4). Preferentially browsed or grazed plants: Overall Impact = VERY HIGH

Across the woodland, there was little Bramble or Buckler-fern (except in one or two plots), or Golden-scaled Male-fern present, and where found, it was invariably very heavily browsed. No honeysuckle nor Ivy were present in any plots. Raspberry was also rarely found in plots, except within two plots in Low Park Wood, where there were some sizeable patches. However, within these patches, despite a large number of older canes, there was evidence of much recent browsing on shorter canes.

It is common to find species such as bramble and ferns in policy woodland, however, it was apparent that anything that did manage to grow beneath the heavy shade was being hammered by the roe deer. Where there was more light, there was localised good growth of such preferentially browsed species, although bramble was still not common. On the whole, preferentially-browsed species were absent from the mature Willow areas, but this had probably as much to do with regular flooding in these areas as roe deer.

Typical heavily browsed Bramble (left) and Buckler fern (plot 9) (right)

Overall, such preferential species, when present, were heavily browsed, having a Very High impact upon them, being indicative of a heavy roe deer presence for some time as well as factors such as heavy shade and flooding.

5). Bark stripping, fraying and stem damage: Overall Impact = LOW

Roe deer do not usually strip bark, whilst stem damage, in the form of fraying or breakages, tends to be on smaller stems of young sapling size, as bucks (and especially young bucks) contest for territories and remove antler velvet.

At Hamilton Low Parks, most plots had some evidence of recent fraying, with three plots having a little more, such as Plot 8, where there was much fraying on several hazel, hawthorn, beech and ash sapling-sized stems. However, the general lack of saplings of suitable size undoubtedly affected the extent to which fraying was evident in some plots.

Outwith the plots, localised heavy fraying around key access/territorial areas, such as beside underpasses, was sometimes spotted.

Typical roe deer fraying and stem damage on a sapling beside a motorway underpass

6). Sward: Overall Impact = LOW

Due to the time of year, there were few herbs and fresh grass growth present, beyond wild garlic, bluebells and the odd herb. In addition, the heavy shade and wide coverage from sycamore, beech and yew, had clearly restricted ground flora growth in many plots. Where ground flora was present, it was largely left ungrazed or lightly grazed, presumably because much of it was unpalatable. The one exception was in Plot 1, Barmichael Plantation, where around 40% of bluebells had signs of browsing upon them.

Plot 7: Typical bare area under mature Beech, Sycamore and Yew within the SSSI woodland.

It is probable that the roe deer will eat more of the ground flora later in the year when flowers and fresh buds are evident, and as such, this indicator was less helpful at this time.

As a result, there was a Low impact upon this indicator, but this impact should be reviewed later in spring/summer.

7). Ground Disturbance: Overall Impact = LOW

Roe deer, by their size and nature, do not tend to cause much ground disturbance beyond light, often vegetated trails, and scrapes where they like to lie down (on bare soil). Within Barmichael and Low Park Wood, there was much more bare ground caused by the effects of heavy shade and sycamore spread than anything caused by roe deer.

Roe deer trails were regularly spotted across almost all the plots but were not viewed as causing any significant impact upon the woodland itself. On some plots next to the golf course area and by the main willow area to the north end of the site (which was adjacent to a movement pinchpoint under the M74), there were more obvious trails, reflecting the importance of these areas for deer movement in the area. Similar obvious trails were spotted around Junction 6 and North & South Haughs, showing strategic movement corridors for the roe deer in the area.

All trails spotted did indicate, along with the regular groups of deer pellets (see chart below), that most of the woodland was well used by roe deer. Occasional badger trails were also present within the woodland as there are active badger setts present.

Typical roe deer trail (this one coming from Low Park Wood into golf course) (left); big roe deer trail going into willow scrub near plot 10 (right)

Overall, there was a Low impact for this indicator due to the general lack of ground disturbance resulting from the number of trails across the woodland.

Graph showing number of deer pellet groups per plot.

Total = 32

8). Woodland Structure Class

All 6 mixed woodland plots fell into the ‘Mature Woodland, no understorey regeneration’ (Class 6) structure class.

Graph showing woodland structure class: no. of plots in each class

Mature Woodland, no understorey (plot 8)

The 3 mature Willow scrub plots were considered to fall into ’Mature woodland, understorey regeneration’ (Class 5) due to the extent of thick young willow growth on lower and fallen stems, whilst Plot 4 came into the ‘Open canopy, open-grown trees, simple’ (Class 10) category due to the few mature trees present and no regeneration present.

Plot 9: Mature and self-regenerating willow scrub: Mature woodland, understorey regeneration (Class 5)

However, there were elements of other class structures present within almost all the Class 6 (mixed woodland) categories. In three plots, there had been some loss of mature canopy coupled with some level of regeneration (and past tree planting) that appeared to have taken place approximately 10+ years ago (patches of sycamore, beech, and on one occasion, ash saplings present). Whilst the extent of such canopy loss and regeneration was not viewed as being sufficient to push the Class from Class 6 to Class 7 ‘Post-mature woodland, dead canopy trees, complex’, it was felt that this structure change did need to be noted within the assessment.

Similarly, in two other plots, there was sufficient sycamore regeneration (again from approximately 10+ years ago) as well as relatively recent tree planting (allowing younger trees to be present) to require recognition that elements of Class 5 ‘’Mature woodland, understorey regeneration’ were also present, but again, not to a level that was sufficient to fundamentally alter the classification of the plot.

Post-mature woodland, dead canopy trees, complex (Plot 6)

Plot 4: Open canopy, open-grown trees, simple (Class 10)

Overall, beyond the mature willow scrub areas, the woodland structure was not considered currently favourable to sustain the long-term development of a species-rich, multi-structured woodland at Hamilton Low Parks. However, it was noted that there were localised areas of thick (frequently heavily browsed) regeneration where the canopy had opened up, but not enough of such areas existed over the whole woodland to address concerns, especially around the heronry.

Small patch of thick regeneration at Barmichael Plantation (late 2017)

9). Historic and Past Browsing History

The survey also looked at historic and more recent past browsing history as well as indicators of current herbivore activity. In this, the WGT guidance tables, within the website are excellent reference points and guidance.

The long-term impact of roe deer at Hamilton Low Parks is masked by the significant impact of heavy shade from key tree species within large areas of the woodland. Nevertheless, there was much evidence within Hamilton Low Parks of heavy browsing pressure in the last 10-15 years or so.

There was an overall general lack of recent seedlings and saplings in the woodlands, and where present, many fell into the category of ‘old seedlings’ due to the extent of heavy browsing over recent years. This was particularly the case with Ash in more open areas i.e. ‘miniature forest gardens’. However, another key reason for the lack of growth is also due to the heavy shade being exacted upon large areas by mature Yew, Beech and Sycamore. Indeed, this is likely to be as big a factor for the lack of seedlings and saplings as the current roe deer browsing.

Where smaller trees were present, they showed clear signs of excessive browsing in the recent past. This included few stemmed hazels as well as ash that resembled hazel due probable browsing of leading tips in the last 10 years or so.

Heavy long-term basal browsing within Barmichael Plantation

Plot 8: ‘Coppiced’ Ash: probably as a result of past roe deer activity.

There were also distinct and long-term browse-lines present on Sycamore and Holly trees whilst other Holly bushes (with saplings getting away in places) had a ‘topiary’-look to them, where present. Elsewhere, outside plots, there were examples of topiary oak and beech saplings.

Plot 6: Classic holly browse-line

In more open areas, it would have been expected that there would have been more Bramble, but this was largely absent, and where present, very heavily browsed. Indeed, it was almost on the edge of disappearing in many areas, again suggestive of long-term albeit relatively recent browsing.

Typical browsed Holly: note one sapling has got away (left); Heavily browsed basal growth on oak within North Haugh area.

At ground level, it was too early in the season to conclude the effects of roe deer browsing on the sward but the long-term domination of the heavy shade has probably had a bigger impact upon this feature than roe deer.

What was apparent was that the mature willow scrub has developed successfully over the area over the last 50+ years alongside relatively recent hawthorn, blackthorn and alder plantings in areas such as North and South Haugh. Whilst alder is not very palatable and hawthorn/blackthorn have some protection from browsing due to their thorns, willow is a very palatable species. This, together with the presence of some young trees and shrubs of approximately 10-15 yrs old in some plots, suggests that heavy roe deer browsing is a relatively recent phenomenon at Hamilton Low Parks, and that sightings of roe deer from 1986 may indeed be an accurate reflection of their first presence in the area, with high densities maybe not establishing until many years later. Evidence of more recent heavy browsing of hawthorn and blackthorn around edges (such as beside Hamilton Services and North Haugh) would support the feeling that roe deer browsing is now at a level that will likely keep such species to a very slow growth and expansion.

Therefore, whilst historic herbivore impacts at Hamilton Low Parks could be viewed as being low to medium in nature, due to the fact that roe deer have only likely been on the site for 30 years or so, the evidence of slightly longer-term browsing pressure suggests a High herbivore impact over the last 10-15 years.

4.6.4. Conclusions: Overall Herbivore Impact Level = HIGH

The overall assessment of the current extent of the impact from herbivores at Hamilton Low Parks takes into account the field evidence, the nature of the herbivores present, as well as the spatial distribution of impacts.

The current evidence points to high and very high impacts upon basal shoot growth, preferentially browsed species, such as bramble, and upon new seedlings and young   saplings across much of the mixed mature woodland. The general paucity of seedlings and smaller saplings also demonstrates a lack of recent tree and shrub regeneration over much of Barmichael Plantation and Low Park Wood. Many areas also fell into Woodland Structure Class 6 (mature woodland, no understorey).

There were lower impacts relating to epicormic and lower shoot growth, ground disturbance and damage to trees (beyond fraying), the latter two indicators simply reflecting the nature of roe deer, which, due to their light weight, do not damage the ground like more heavy herbivores, whilst damage from roe tends to be fraying of suitably-sized smaller stems only. At this time, no reliable conclusions about the condition of the sward can be made as it was too early in the season for its growth and thus any obvious impacts to be evident.

Finally, throughout the woodland, there were frequent signs of roe deer, from regular droppings, trails, scrapes and fraying.

However, it was felt that the mature Willow scrub areas at Hamilton Low Parks were currently in a healthy condition, by virtue of their manner of growing via vegetative means.

Therefore, on balance, it is considered that there is a current High overall herbivore impact upon woodland at Hamilton Low Parks at this time. It is considered unlikely that had this survey been carried out at the ideal time i.e. April, that the conclusion would have significantly altered on this occasion.

If the current browsing situation in the woodland continues, alongside the continued problems of heavy shade, the following condition would be expected to apply to Barmichael Plantation and Low Park Wood, as per the WGT guidance. Parnassus Ecology would agree with this scenario on the basis of the work carried out as part of this study:

Implications of current impact level on established woodland (structure types 4-10) if maintained over the long term (Table 9, WGT)

5.0. Woodland Management Constraints, Issues and Opportunities

From the consultations and fieldwork, the following key issues have been identified which will require to be addressed in order to achieve the vision and long-term objectives.

From the fieldwork and desktop studies, it is evident that there is little significant regeneration going on across the woodland at this time, whilst deer browsing has increased in intensity over the last 10-15 years. The impact from the roe deer is therefore cumulative, sitting on top of the existing problems from heavy shade and the ‘wrong type of regeneration’ emanating from Yew, Beech and Sycamore, which the woodland has suffered from for many years. In short, roe deer cannot be blamed for the overall poor long-term structure of the woodland but will certainly be a key factor in hindering rapid recovery by the woodland in the future.

However, the other major factor at Hamilton Low Parks is the long-standing lack of a detailed woodland management plan for the site, which would enable funding and actions to be well-directed into the long-term management of the mature mixed woodland at Barmichael Plantation and Low Park Wood. The continuing problems of heavy shade by Yew, Beech and Sycamore have been identified in previous management plans going back to the 1980s but have not been fully addressed to date. Instead, there has been some limited management carried out from time to time. There will be no significant change in the woodland condition until these aspects are tackled head-on.

It should be remembered that the woodland at Hamilton Low Parks SSSI is not the reason for its designation, rather, it is the herons that nest on the woodland that are the key nature conservation consideration. Therefore, management must give the heronry the highest priority whilst also striving to establish a more structurally-diverse, species-rich mixed woodland. The heronry can only benefit if the long-term condition of the woodland is conserved, whilst it will likewise deteriorate as the woodland does so.

Hamilton Low Parks SSSI does not support a ‘wild wood’ in the sense that man has had little impact on its structure and processes. The opposite is true and this needs to be recognised when judging the future evolution of the woodland. Most areas of the woodland have been subject to extensive planting in the past and it is therefore entirely acceptable for major interventionist woodland management to take place in the future until the heronry and the woodland diversity are conserved.

6.0. Woodland Management Vision

As already stated, there is no current detailed management plan for Hamilton Low Parks SSSI or the woodland within this area.

Previous Council plans from the 1980s focussed on ‘increasing the variety of flora and tree species’ at Low Parks Wood, including some thinning and control of sycamore and elder, whilst ‘long-term management should be directed towards re-establishing mixed deciduous high forest in continuity with the main part of Barmichael Plantation’.

Within Barmichael Plantation, Council plans from the late 1980s state a ‘policy of selective felling, thinning and coppicing should eventually produce a more diverse woodland habitat, so ensuring the safety of the Heronry……no major felling will be done in close proximity to the Heron’s nest sites…..’. Much work was again focussing on sycamore and native tree-planting at the time.

Also, ‘subject to the above conditions [obtaining agreement from Nature Conservancy Council (the predecessor of NatureScot) on proposed woodland operations around the Heronry], an effort should be made to resolve the biologically poor situation prevailing in terms of species and structural diversity. Two proposed ‘wildlife refigure zones’ are designated, and it may be permissible to implement a long-term felling/replanting scheme in areas outwith these zones’…..

The overall strategic aim of NatureScot is to ensure that the condition of the qualifying feature of the SSSI, namely the breeding herons, is maintained in a favourable condition. In 2010, NatureScot stated the following within the Site Management Statement for Hamilton Low Parks SSSI:

We wish to work with the owners and occupiers to protect the site and to maintain and where necessary enhance its features of special interest. NatureScot aims to carry out site survey, monitoring and research as appropriate to increase our knowledge and understanding of the site and its natural features and monitor the effectiveness of management.

To maintain the population of grey herons by minimising disturbance from development or inappropriate recreational use of the areas favoured by the herons….

Also:

The diverse breeding bird community within the site is a result of the diverse range of habitats present. It may be necessary in the future to manage scrub encroachment and the growth of non-native tree species, which are undesirable within the context of the successional wetland system. Thinning of young sycamore trees and clearance of scrub from North Haugh and the riverside strip may be deemed appropriate in the future to maintain and enhance the breeding bird community within the site.’

At that time, there was no mention of roe deer by NatureScot, probably because the woodland was not a qualifying feature in the SSSI citation, and thus not monitored closely, and DVCs had not been identified yet as a major issue in the area.

A management vision for the site needs to take account of both the SSSI qualifying feature but also the health of the woodland, neighbouring habitats and the ongoing issue of DVCs on the neighbouring road network.

The following management vision is proposed for the site, including the SSSI and immediate environs:

In terms of woodland condition, management should seek to reach a LOW herbivore impact rating. This should translate into the following on the ground, as per Table 9, Woodland Grazing Toolbox (WGT) Guidance:

Implications of a LOW impact level on established woodland (structure types 4-10) if maintained over the long term (Table 9, WGT)

It is considered that a detailed woodland management plan could address any adverse impacts upon more open woodland species referred to in the above description.

7.0. Woodland Operational Objectives

The following objectives are recommended at Hamilton Low Parks SSSI in order to achieve the dual aims of conserving the woodland and the heronry in the long-term. They will only achieve success if the work is carried out alongside sustainable roe deer management.

7.1. Tree-planting to conserve Heronry

Much of Barmichael Plantation contains mature Yew, which is the most favoured tree to be used by the nesting herons at this time, presumably because of their canopy structure as well as associations with successfully reared herons. In busy years, the herons will use other species, such as Beech and Sycamore, occasionally.

It is known that herons have regularly nested on conifers, including Sitka Spruce, with a locally important heronry at Inverewe Gardens existing on top of Scot’s Pine within the formal garden there.

Therefore, it is recommended that a programme of conifer planting, using Scot’s Pine (a native species) or another fast-growing conifer, like Sitka Spruce, be established as soon as possible at Barmichael Plantation in and adjacent to the existing heronry. These species (and especially Sitka Spruce) are quick growing and it would be reasonable to expect that they could be utilised by the herons within 30-40 years.

It is understood that there are on-going discussions between SLC and NatureScot about the creation of artificial heron nest platforms to address short term needs on the site. It is debatable whether this is absolutely necessary given that, in all probability, there should still be many potential nest sites over the next 30-40 years in and beside the woodland, even allowing for natural tree losses.

Consideration should be given as to whether to plant mature conifer saplings (thus outwith the roe deer browseline), or to plant conifers with tree guards, or even within very small deer-fenced exclosures. All options are relatively inexpensive, though small-scale deer fencing may also allow the recovery of other vegetation, such as brambles, and in this sense, would be the preferred option if general woodland condition is also a consideration.

7.2. Woodland Management

Fencing off the entire Hamilton Low Parks woodland from roe deer would be an expensive and impractical solution to resolve the lack of woodland regeneration, whilst it could have major knock-on effects on roe deer movements in the area, potentially displacing deer closer to the M74, with inherent risks in increasing DVCs.

Future woodland management requires the production and implementation of a detailed woodland management plan for the mature mixed woodland element in order to ensure that management is properly directed and funded. This plan should or could include some of the following elements:

1). It is recommended that a programme of thinning continue, building on previous felling and natural tree losses, in order to bring more light to the ground and increase regeneration Hamilton Low Parks Woodland Herbivore Impact Assessment and Roe Deer Management Plan opportunities. Thinning (or ring-barking if considered acceptable with regard to health & safety issues on the site) must aim to take out several of the mature Beech and Sycamore subject to these species not having a high value to saproxylic invertebrate species (further survey work beforehand is requested by South Lanarkshire Council to investigate this possibility). It is not considered realistic nor necessary to try to eradicate Sycamore from the woodland given its value to much wildlife and its likely role in filling the gaps resulting from ongoing losses to our native Elm and Ash due to pathogens. Nevertheless, it is recommended that the planting of species, such as Oak, Rowan, Hazel, Gean and Birch take place, probably using tree tubes and volunteer assistance, whilst allowing Ash regeneration to continue.

2). There are still mature Yews present in various parts of the woodland. Because the woodland has a strong cultural background and the yews are tied to this, a decision on their future, away from the heronry, is required.

3). There are currently pockets of regeneration, with frequently abundant Ash, and rare Holly and Hawthorn, within the woodland. It is recommended that areas underneath current gaps in the canopy be fenced off from roe deer in the short term and at the small-scale in order to allow the regeneration to take off more quickly and the ground vegetation a chance to recover. At the same time, it is recommended that honeysuckle plants be introduced to protected parts of the woodland along with woodland herbs in order to kickstart the woodland structure.

7.3. Willow Carr and Hawthorn Scrub areas (inc North Haugh)

There are significant and important areas of woodland cover beyond Barmichael Plantation and Low Park Wood. These currently have considerable local nature conservation importance due to their proximity to wetland habitats. At present, these areas appear to require little active management and simply monitoring them every 5 years should be sufficient. It is worth noting that at North Haugh and around the wetter areas at Hamilton Low Parks itself, roe deer could in fact be having a beneficial impact by maintaining a more open and diverse range of habitats through slowing down the expansion of willow and other scrub species into the locally important wetland communities.

Recommendations relating to monitoring and review are included in Section 10. Hamilton Low Parks Woodland Herbivore Impact Assessment and Roe Deer Management Plan

8. Deer Vehicle Collisions (DVCs)

8.1. Introduction

A key part of this project is to recommend management measures to address Deer Vehicle Collisions (DVCs) on the adjacent M74 and Junctions 5 and 6, and associated roads.

In recent years, there has been a regular number of reported DVCs along this stretch of road network, with an annual figure usually lying between 5 and 7 reported DVCs*, with notable exceptions e.g. in 2012, when there were 13 DVCs. (Table 8)

In common with other parts of the country, DVCs have been on the rise in recent years. As a result, there has been much more attention given to assessing the extent of the problem as well as the consideration of reasons behind DVCs and related management solutions to reduce the risk of them. A full account of the extent of this problem in Scotland can be found within ‘Deer Vehicle Collisions in Scotland Monitoring Project 2008-2011’ (Langbein, J. (July 2011)), and as such, won’t be repeated here in any detail.

This study therefore aimed to commence the investigation of the extent of the problem beside Hamilton Low Parks, the extent to which roe deer were using the land around the M74, and then from this information, produce a list of agreed management measures to try to reduce the risks of DVCs in the area.

*for the avoidance of confusion, all figures highlighted here relate to DVCs actually on Junction 5 (and associated slip roads), Junction 6 (and associated slip roads) and the stretch of the M74 that lies between the two junctions.  Reference is given to other stretches not lying immediately adjacent to the Hamilton Low Parks site, where relevant.

8.2. Methods

This part of this project was divided between a data and information collection exercise, including fieldwork, a series of consultations and then further meetings to discuss appropriate management measures. Whilst this work was separate to the Woodland Herbivore Impact Assessment (Section 4), the future management of the roe deer around woodland interests and around the road network are closely related to each other.

8.2.1. Data Collection

In terms of past DVCs, NatureScot were able to provide data from The Deer Initiative’s national database showing recorded DVCs in the area for the last 16 years (Appendix 4), whilst Scotland TranServe were also able to provide data for Junction 6 for the last 5 years (2013-2017), which corroborated that held by NatureScot – the motorway data, as well as that collected by the SSPCA, is regularly sent to the national database. Discussions were also held with Dr. Jochen Langbein, who effectively manages the database on behalf of both NatureScot and Transport Scotland, in order to allow a more detailed examination of the data.

However, it was not possible, despite requests for their involvement, to obtain any data from South Lanarkshire Council Roads Department for the number of DVCs they had recorded on non-trunk roads connecting into the area, whilst it was also not possible to get accurate geographical figures from Police Scotland, although they did provide data for the stretch of M74 around Junction 5 and Junction 6 between March 2016 and March 2018 (Table 8), which doesn’t quite fit with other data.

This situation suggests that the DVC data for the area, at present, should be considered an underestimate of the problem, especially if wounded animals running or dragging themselves off on the back of unreported incidents are also taken into account. This situation is a common problem across Scotland (J. Langbein, pers comm).

In addition to a desktop study of DVCs, NatureScot provided thermal roe deer count data from 2013 and 2018 for parts of the area in question (Appendix 3), and this was complemented by trail camera work (see below) and field observations by Parnassus Ecology between January-March 2018, aimed primarily at the identification of key roe deer routes beside the motorways as well as some quantification of deer numbers.

8.2.2. Fieldwork: (1) Trail Camera Survey Methods

It was decided, in agreement with NatureScot and SLC, to trial the use of trail cameras to try and understand the use of the site by roe deer in a little more depth. In particular, it was hoped that trail camera data could provide more detailed information on which corridors were being used by roe deer for movement across the site, and especially around Junction 6 and the top end of the site next to the River Clyde and the sewage works.

With this is mind, trail cameras were located for approximately 2-3 week periods at key points across the area. These points were either considered to be ‘pinch-points’ for potential roe deer movement across the area and/or had evident roe deer trails leading towards roads. In terms of camera siting, a compromise had to be made between the ideal Hamilton Low Parks Woodland Herbivore Impact Assessment and Roe Deer Management Plan. 

spot to locate a trail camera and the best place to locate it to avoid a high risk of theft or vandalism. However, on the whole, cameras were located carefully out on the site and in positions that would give useful information to help inform the initial investigation. It would have been good to have sited cameras overlooking the roads but this would have resulted in thousands of car photos (the trail cameras used could not be programmed to only come on at night), whilst permissions for access beside the motorway would also have been required.

The trail cameras used were simple Primos Proof Cam 03 cameras, chosen because they had ‘No Glow LEDS’ when taking photos at night (so could not be seen by animals or people out at night) and were not too expensive in case any were stolen (a high risk in an urban area). All cameras were attached to big trees using a lock and in a manner that kept them well-hidden from casual eyes. Only 4 trail cameras were out at any one time. None were stolen but one was submerged under 1m of water when the River Clyde flooded its banks (the SD card survived!).

Trail camera on ‘South Island’ (left) and ‘submerged’ trail camera by M74/R/Clyde Underpass (right); Primus 03 trail camera – after flooding! (below)

All SD cards were then examined to check for roe deer (and other wildlife), with the aim to identify actual individuals in order to allow a better idea of roe deer numbers and individual movements in the area.

Ideally, this work would also be carried out in May-July when yearling roe deer get pushed out from their maternal home ranges and when adults are more likely to move whilst looking for a suitable mate, or giving birth. However, as this contract had to be completed by the end of March 2018, the trail cameras were set up from mid-January 2018 into the beginning of March 2018. Nevertheless, this still provides extremely useful baseline information and will allow a comparison between different times of year in the future.

8.2.3. Fieldwork: (2) Field Observations

As mentioned, during the course of the trail camera and WHIA work, obvious signs of roe deer were noted and mapped. This included clear trails heading towards or around motorway areas as well as sightings. It should be noted that not all the land was walked over, due to access/H&S issues around the motorway areas, and also to avoid the risk of spooking any roe deer on to the adjacent motorway slip roads from the smallest (wooded) motorway islands.

8.2.4. Consultations

As part of this work, Parnassus Ecology also spoke to key stakeholders in the management of the motorway network at Hamilton, including Transport Scotland and ScotlandTranServ as well as neighbouring land managers, such as Roadchef, in order to gain an overview of general concerns, current issues and potential options relating to DVCs. A list of consultees is included in Section 3.2.

8.3. Results

The extent of DVCs in the area are presented on a detailed map in Appendix 4. The data is also broken down into Table 8, Table 8(a) and Table 8(b).

Early analysis of the data showed that DVCs in and immediately around Junction 5 had fallen to virtually zero over the period of the construction of the new ‘Raith Interchange’ road layout, possibly because of the greatly reduced traffic speeds over this period, but also because of new road layouts, works disturbance and the erection of new noise attenuation screens and other fencing acting as new barriers to roe deer movement. It was therefore decided that there was little to be gained from a detailed analysis of this section at this time and to adopt a ‘watch this space’ approach to see the extent of DVCs in this immediate area post-construction works and after the opening of the new road layout in 2017.

Therefore, consideration of DVCs concentrated on the main hotspot area of Junction 6 as well as the length of the M74 between Junctions 5 and 6. Consideration was also given to DVCs at the edges of this area, and especially to the west of Hamilton Race Course, as there was a feeling, from anecdotal information and field observations, that deer numbers had increased in that direction over the period of the Junction 5/‘Raith Interchange’ works.

Table 8: DVCs alongside the M74 at Hamilton Low Parks (2000-2016)

The data in Table 8, 8(a), and 8(b) show the following trends:

• DVCs around Junction 5 have virtually gone to zero over the period of the recent roadworks (workers tidying up roe deer bodies without telling anyone cannot of course be ruled out).
• The scale of the problem between Junctions 5 and 6 (straight stretch of M74) is unclear at this time, following receipt of Police Scotland’s data, but would otherwise be low if only considering data from the national database.
• The main consistent local hotspot would certainly appear to be Junction 6, where, on average, between 4-5 known DVCs have taken place each year in the last 7 years. This number of annual DVCs is no surprise as Junction 6 has all the key attributes that make DVCs most likely, which is best described by Found & Boyce (2011):

• The main months for DVCs between 2008-2015 appeared to be April-June, with a peak in May, when young are forced from their natal areas (with associated territorial disputes) and adult females move to secluded areas, often beside highways where thicker scrub can be more frequent, to give birth (J.Langbein, pers comm). However, there was also a peak period in February too in this area, which is not readily explicable at this time, but maybe due to deer movements looking for food.
• Table 8 also seems to show no DVCs over the period 2000-2007. This is most likely due to a lack of a systematic reporting system in the area at the time rather than no DVCs.
• In terms of thermal and other actual counts, including field surveys, casual observations and trail camera data, Table 9 shows the number of roe deer spotted within approximately 200m of Junction 5, 6 and the M74:

The survey also shows that one-off thermal counts can have significant limitations where road layouts and terrain, such as those found at Junction 6, are complex, but they are more effective on straight and/or uncomplicated motorway stretches.

The trail camera surveys did allow individual roe deer to be sometimes reliably identified, if they had distinctive features, whilst they also allowed reliable data on bucks, does and yearlings to be collected, compared to thermal counts (Table 10 and associated photos).

2 separate bucks photographed at South Haugh camera: note well-used trail, which was located about 20m from motorway.

The same doe and yearling were photographed at two separate locations two weeks apart, across Junction 6 slip road (South Haugh and South Island). The mature buck (previous page) was also photographed likewise, identified on basis of antlers and coat characteristics. Note distinctive marking on doe’s coat around shoulders in both photos. This demonstrates that resident roe deer are happily crossing the Junction outwith peak movement periods i.e. territories cross slip roads.

Six roe deer spotted within 10m of M74 and River Clyde Walkway. These same animals were seen on several occasions, including during the middle of the day. There was a well-defined trail running parallel and within metres of the motorway.

8.3.1. Underpasses & Trails:

The cameras, along with field observations of live deer and trails, also showed that roe deer are regularly using two of the biggest underpasses in the area (M74/Junction 5 & South Haugh/ Junction 6) – see Figure 1 & Appendix 3 for locations. These were very wide, open, and had much vegetation either within or beside them.

Aerial image showing Hamilton Deer Movement Corridors

There was debate as to whether roe deer will use the long, narrow, dark pedestrian underpass that connects Strathclyde Country Park with the Mausoleum area (M74/Strathclyde Country Park). In that area, there was instead a well-used roe deer trail (photo overleaf) going alongside the River Clyde north towards the M74/Junction 5 Underpass rather than towards the pedestrian underpass here. Another narrow underpass at N. Haugh (small) was judged to be usable by roe deer although no roe deer signs were found along it during this survey.

South Haugh/Junction 6 underpass: roe deer tracks were frequent in mud underneath whilst it had trails at both ends.

Well-used roe deer trails (hoof prints seen along them): one below the River Clyde pedestrian footbridge going across to Strathclyde Country Park (left), the other along the woodland at North Haugh (right): this latter location was where signs of potential deer poaching net poles were found.

In terms of other trails, in addition to the main trails mentioned above, an obvious trail was found located on the ‘West Island’ at Junction 6 (Figure 1 & Appendix 3).

West Island; Junction 6: trail on right hand side heading towards sliproads going north on to M74 and Hamilton Low Parks north.

Although the camera on the West Island did not pick up any roe deer (just two foxes), it is entirely feasible that this route is well-used in May/July time when roe deer movements become more common. This is supported by the DVC map (Appendix 4 and Figure 2), which shows a high number of DVCs directly next to this ‘island’. This area connects the South Haugh roe deer with the main Hamilton Low Parks deer population to the north. Interestingly, another trail camera (by the North Haugh footbridge) beside another well-used trail and DVC hotspot at Junction 6 only recorded one doe over a two week period, again suggesting that it could be used more often during May/June time.

Junction 6 DVCs (from NatureScot database): West Island, South Island & Junction 6 North Haugh footbridge (photo below) trail camera locations

Well-used trail leads to route over Junction 6 at South end of North Haugh, by footbridge, but only one roe deer was recorded here over a 2 week period.

Finally, it is quite possible that roe deer will cross the River Clyde when at low spate, especially alongside the South Haugh area, whilst the other stretches of the River Clyde were felt to represent more of an obstacle to roe deer, especially at high spate. Some migration between the Strathclyde Country Park roe deer populations and those at Hamilton Low Parks can be expected on occasion but are not felt to be significant at this time.

Therefore, it is evident that there are many well-defined and well-used roe deer trails leading to the motorway and running alongside it. It is quite possible the heavy use of some of these trails is highly seasonal and that this survey missed such periods e.g. May-June.

With regard to other species photographed by the trail cameras, foxes were by far the most frequent, whilst a Tawny Owl was spotted on the camera sitting next to the M74.

In terms of consultations, there was general concern in the area amongst all consultees about the possibility of DVCs happening in the area. The operations manager at the Hamilton Road Services reported no issues or recent incidents at this time, although he was aware of deer feeding around the land around the services. Both Transport Scotland and ScotlandTranServ continually monitor the situation and are keen to ensure that the risk of DVCs be kept to the minimum possible. Both organisations engaged in constructive discussions investigating possible options to reduce DVCs in the area and remain committed to working with other partners to address the situation.

8.4. Conclusions and Management Recommendations

At present, there are a large number of roe deer (at least 23 animals) living within metres of the M74 and Junction 6, whilst there are a regular number of DVCs per annum along this part of the M74. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that unless some management is implemented to reduce the roe deer risk, a serious or even fatal accident remains a distinct possibility at this location, whilst there are also deer welfare issues to consider with regard to injuries sustained from traffic accidents.

At this moment in time, it is unclear what the effects of the recent Junction 5 (Raith Interchange) works will be on the future movement of roe deer in the area and whether the risk of more DVCs will increase along the M74, or elsewhere, for example along Bothwell Road or the A725, as animals get pushed westwards. Information collected during this project does show that there are significant numbers of animals around Hamilton Race Course (max of 13 counted at one time in February 2018), with staff there feeling there has been a recent increase in numbers. In addition, there were 2 DVCs around Bothwell Road near this location in 2016: the highest number on record. Therefore, further monitoring of this area is required, as this project showed there is no safe green corridor connecting the north of Hamilton Low Parks SSSI with the significant greenspace west of Bothwell Bridge, such that any animals heading in that direction need to go over roads.

Large group of ~12 roe deer; Hamilton Race Course, January 2018 (Photo: S Varma)

There are a number of possible management options to help address and reduce the risk of DVCs in the Hamilton Low Parks area, and these are set out in summarised form within Table 11.

Table 11 references:

1 = Cordery, J. (South East Region Deer Liaison Officer, The Deer Initiative) from talk during South Downs Tree Health Conference, July 2013

1 = Quarrell, D. (2012): ‘Controlling Urban Deer’: guidance published on www.stalkingdirectory.co.uk

2 = Brieger, F., Hagenl, R., Kroschel, M., Hartig, F., Petersen, I., Ortmann, S., Suchant, R. (Aug 2017): ‘Do roe deer react to wildlife warning reflectors? A test combining a controlled experiment with field observations’ Eur. J.Wild. Res; DOI 10.1007/s10344-017-1130-5.

3 = Found, R. & Boyce, M. (2011): ‘Predicting deer-vehicle collisions in an urban area’; Journal of Env. Mgt. 92(2011) 2486-2493

4 = Found, R. & Boyce, M. (2011): ‘Warning signs mitigate deer-vehicle collisions in an urban area’; Wildlife Society Bulletin, Sept 2011, 10.1002/wsb.12

5 = Personal communication with Dr. Jochen Langbein.

6 = Putman, R.J., Langbein, J., Staines B.W. (2004): Deer and Road Traffic Accidents: A Review of Mitigation Measures: Costs and Cost-Effectiveness [Report for the Deer Commission for Scotland; Contract RP23A]

Following discussions between Transport Scotland, ScotlandTranServ, NatureScot and SLC, a number of management recommendations, based on these options, have been suggested by Parnassus Ecology at this time:

1. A reduction cull of roe deer takes place as soon as possible by an experienced stalker with the aim of indirectly pulling deer away from the motorway areas at Hamilton Low Parks, and especially Junction 6; and

2. Mobile Vehicle Messaging Signs (VMS) be erected on key slip roads at Junction 6 between April and July, warning drivers about roe deer crossing (Figure 3); and

3. If proven to be effective in trials, consideration be given in the future to the installation of the DD series of Deerdeter lights at key points in the area.

4. In addition, it is considered vital that all this work is underpinned with some further work to assess roe deer usage in the area around Junction 6 in order to provide the baseline data on which to judge the success or otherwise of these proposals. This work would also hopefully provide useful information for other such schemes in the future. It is suggested that a combination of trail camera surveys (trail camera stations located at key points around the junction) and field observations (thermal counts) be used to provide this information alongside more robust DVC reporting.

9.0. Roe Deer Management at Hamilton Low Parks

In order to manage any population of large mammals, including deer, good quality data requires to be available. In the case of roe deer management in Scotland, it is also necessary to take full account of the principles within the Deer Code.

In terms of habitat, Hamilton Low Parks is highly favourable for roe deer, giving both shelter and a wide availability of food at different times of year, due to the high diversity of habitats present e.g. wetland fen, willow scrub, mature woodland, grassland, etc. It has much woodland edge in particular, which is often preferred by roe deer.

The area also sits at a strategic point in the surrounding landscape, such that roe deer movements will naturally lead them into the Hamilton Low Parks pocket (now potentially closed off to the north by the new Junction 5 (Raith Interchange) works, as well as by the River Clyde at times of full spate).

Therefore, any roe deer management at Hamilton Low Parks will have to be long-term in nature to account for the high deer productivity in the area arising from healthy does (due to good habitat), as well as the constant migration of new individuals, especially from the South Haugh area. Short-term roe deer management will be a pointless exercise as any reductions in numbers over a short period will be offset within a short space of time by these factors.

Ash Seedling growing at Barmichael Plantation, late 2017.

At present, there is some patchy data on roe deer in and around Hamilton Low Parks, whilst there is now good quality data on the extent to which roe deer are having an impact upon the woodland in the area i.e. a high overall current impact. From the evidence to date and discussions with consultees, it is considered that the high roe deer numbers at Hamilton Low Parks is a relatively recent phenomenon, with roe deer numbers probably lower about 15+ years ago. This picture is probably a common one throughout many areas of lowland Scotland, especially in places with no regular hunting. (The illegal poaching in this area is viewed as minor at this time in terms of the impact upon overall roe deer numbers, however, it is still a significant issue that should still be stamped out due to deer welfare and public safety issues).

In terms of management recommendations relating to roe deer at Hamilton Low Parks, it is clear that what will be good for the woodland (overall) will also serve to reduce the risk of DVCs along the adjacent stretches of the M74, notwithstanding the need to implement other recommendations specific to the needs of both, and highlighted in the relevant sections of this report.

Therefore, it is recommended that the following management measures be implemented in order to address current roe deer issues at Hamilton Low Parks:

9.1. Establishment of a Hamilton Low Parks Roe Deer Management Group and Commissioning of Stalker(s):

A Hamilton Low Parks Roe Deer Management Group needs to be established as soon as possible in order to bring together local land managers, and/or their agents and relevant government agencies, in order to co-ordinate roe deer management in the immediate locality.

The Group would also act as a natural forum to discuss and agree all issues relating to roe deer within the Hamilton Low Parks area. It is recommended that membership of such a group commence with those consulted as part of this project in the first instance, but that the group itself then decides the most appropriate membership. In the event that such a group cannot be established, then it is recommended that NatureScot, SLC, Transport Scotland and Transerve form a smaller group to commence the implementation of roe deer management. However, there is much to be gained from involving as many interested land managers as possible with regard to roe deer management at this location, as roe deer will be present on their land, whilst it may serve to help deal with any future local community issues.

In addition, it is suggested that the Group may be the best forum to develop a local venison market in order to ensure that all roe deer shot as part of the roe deer management work are used in a productive manner locally.

As much of the land is under the ownership and management of South Lanarkshire Council, they will need to take the lead in determining the way forward for roe deer shooting on their land in collaboration with NatureScot and partners.

In the first instance, and at the same time as establishing a local deer management group, it needs to be a priority for South Lanarkshire Council to confirm they will permit shooting on their land at Hamilton Low Parks. Without this commitment, the issues raised in this report cannot be resolved satisfactorily.

Once shooting has been accepted by the Council, it will need to be a priority to agree a contract with a Fit and Competent person(s) to carry out the roe deer control. Given the sensitivity of the site, in terms of its urban nature as well as DVC motorway issues, it is imperative that the stalker(s) commissioned to do this work are experienced, and have a proven, respected record of working in urban areas, are able to deal with the public sensitively and adhere to the strictest standards of deer welfare as well as record keeping (cull data). In short, the Deer Code must be strictly adhered to as part of this work. The additional benefit from having regular experienced stalkers on the ground is that they should reduce the risk of illegal poaching, both by their presence acting as a deterrent and an extra pair of eyes, but also by making the area less attractive due to fewer roe deer.

As part of the commissioning and contract stage, agreement should be made on the exact locations for roe deer shooting over the area, taking full account of the aim to encourage roe deer away from the motorway and junctions by this means, thus hopefully reducing DVCs (Quarrell, D. 2012; Cordery, J. 2013).

At present, the main open, wetland area to the east of Barmichael Plantation looks an ideal spot, with a stop to the west and the possibility to use portable high chairs in the area. There are also more open areas with opportunities for portable high chairs at North Haugh and South Haugh too, however, these areas are closer to public footpaths and roads and will need very careful consideration.

Therefore, as part of the contract with the stalker, a plan needs to be agreed detailing how, when and where stalking will take place in the area, and ensuring that robust data on the deer shot is provided to the Hamilton Low Parks Roe Deer Management Group and NatureScot annually. The Deer Code compliance checklist should also be used to test that the contract meets all necessary standards.

9.2. Roe Deer Reduction Cull

It is clear that there are high numbers of deer at Hamilton Low Parks and that a small annual cull will not make a significant appreciable difference to their population at this time.

It is widely considered that an annual cull of 60% of animals is required to offset annual roe deer production (Waber et al, 2013). In the first 2-3 years, it will likely be necessary to aim for this level of culling until the local roe deer population can be maintained at lower levels of culling e.g. 30%.

In the first instance, the cull will need to focus more on does (and yearlings) than bucks in order to bring the annual production of roe deer in the area under control, whilst also selecting in a manner that allows a population of ‘fine roe deer’ to be maintained in the area i.e. strong bucks, thereafter the cull being informed by the woodland herbivore impact assessments and DVC reporting, along with any roe deer monitoring information. Eradication of roe deer is NOT the purpose of this work (and would be impossible as well as undesirable).

If the figure of roe deer on the site is accepted as 75 as a starting point, then a 60% cull would aim to take 45 individual animals in the first year (migration into the area can be expected over this time too).

It is recommended that this breaks down into the following indicative Year 1 cull targets:

Year 1 Cull Proposals:

Adult Bucks	Adult Does	Female Yearlings	Male Yearling	Total
9	23	10	3	45

 

It is recommended that this target also be retained in Year 2. However, due to the uncertainties in count accuracy and the effects of other factors on roe deer numbers, as well as the practicalities or otherwise of shooting that number of deer around Hamilton Low Parks, it is strongly recommended that this figure be re-visited monthly with the stalker commissioned to do this work (under contract) in Year 1.

After Year 1 and Year 2, a review of the woodland herbivore impact assessment and DVC data, any data on roe deer numbers, and the views of neighbouring land managers, will be required before decisions can be made on the Year 3 cull targets.

After this initial period, it is recommended that annual cull targets (30%) look to maintain a healthy roe deer population in the area with the aim to achieve a LOW impact rating upon woodland interests in the area and keep annual DVCs at a very small number (1 DVC per annum on adjacent M74/Junctions 5&6) after 5 years. Failure to keep carrying out an annual ‘maintenance cull’ will simply result in roe deer numbers quickly returning to former high levels.

The overall area of the main Hamilton Low Parks site, including the Hamilton Race Course, Golf Course and adjoining land is approximately 300ha, including the North and South Haughs. At present, there is not enough detailed roe deer data to provide a meaningful and accurate assessment of the likely number of roe bucks, does and yearlings in these areas. The earlier estimate from Section 3.3. (75 animals) is considered a first attempt whilst it has no breakdown of roe deer in terms of sex or age. This current lack of detailed deer data will need to be remedied in the future in order to assist with local roe deer management alongside the woodland herbivore impact assessments and DVC reporting.

For example, from the Woodland Herbivore Impact Assessment, we know that the impact from roe deer upon mature woodland impacts is currently HIGH, whilst those in North Haugh are not seen as serious at this time (indeed, the roe deer may be conserving the diversity of habitats there by slowing down scrub expansion), such that these assessments will at least permit some level of fine-tuning of roe deer control measures to take place.

10.0. Monitoring, Review and Further Research

The sensitivity of the site as well as the need to ensure that decision-making is based upon sound, robust data means that work must be carried out to collect more baseline information and to continue monitoring work on the back of the studies in this report. This work will allow an honest review and fine-tuning of management measures to be carried out.

The following is therefore recommended to address these issues:

1. The full Woodland Herbivore Impact Assessment should be repeated every 5 years, but that SLC (or others) annually monitor the woodland using the much quicker Level 1 WGT approach to assess how the woodland is responding to increased roe deer control across the site. [The aim is to have a LOW level of impact by 2023]

2. It is essential that thermal and field counts (both on foot) of roe deer at Hamilton Low Parks be repeated twice a year (in March and October) and also phased to coincide with the full Woodland Herbivore Impact Assessment above. It is suggested that this work forms part of a contract with the stalker. Whilst it is considered that annual thermal counts have too much error in them to reliably detect annual changes in roe deer numbers, they can be effective over a longer period, detecting dramatic changes (> 33%) in roe deer population numbers (Smart et al, 2004). However, due to the public scrutiny that will be on this site, it is considered advisable to have some data available annually to support annual cull target decision-making, whilst this data will also provide more information on deer around the motorway. It is hoped that by doing the count at least twice a year, more accurate count data can be obtained than just once a year.

3. It is recommended that further trail camera work be commissioned in May/July, and again in October/November in order to help further investigate how roe deer are using the land in and around Junction 6 and the M74, and in order to continue trials into the efficacy of trail cameras to support roe deer management beside roads.

4. The Hamilton Low Parks Deer Management Group review cull data and cull targets on an annual basis to ensure that hunting is maintaining a healthy and sustainable roe deer population in the locality. This review should take account of the woodland herbivore impact assessments and the number of DVCs at Hamilton (and elsewhere, if relevant) as well as data on stalker effort.

5. A local system be agreed in order to ensure that all known DVCs are reported to the main national database and are also available to assist the proposed Hamilton Low Parks Roe Deer Management Group in their decision-making.

References

Armstrong H., Black B., Holl K. & Thompson R (2017): ‘Assessing Herbivore Impact in Woodlands: An Observation-based Method’; Revised 21 December 2017

D.H. Ecological Consultancy (2007): National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey, selected Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Strathclyde & Ayrshire. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.276 (ROAME No. F05LI01).

Found, R. & Boyce, M.(2011) Warning signs mitigate deer-vehicle collisions in an Urban area. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2011; 35 (3): 291 DOI: 10.1002/wsb.12

Kerr, G., Mason, B., Boswell, R. & Pommerening, A. (2002) Monitoring the transformation of even-aged stands to continuous cover management. Information note. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Kilpatrick, H., LaBonte, A., Stafford, K. (2014): The relationship between deer density, tick abundance, and human cases of Lyme disease in a residential community; J Med Entomol. 2014 Jul;51(4):777-84.

Prior, R. (1995) The Roe Deer: Conservation of a Native Species, Quiller, Shrewsbury

Putman, R.J. & Moore, N.P. (1998): Impact of deer in lowland Britain on agriculture, forestry and conservation habitats, Mammal Review 1998.

Putman, R., Langbein, J., Green, P. and Watson, P. (2011), Identifying threshold densities for wild deer in the UK above which negative impacts may occur. Mammal Review, 41: 175–196. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.2010.00173.x

Quarrell, D. (2012): Controlling Urban Deer; www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk

Scottish Natural Heritage (2011): ‘The Code of Practice on Deer Management’

Scottish Natural Heritage (2008 & 2014): ‘Scotland’s Wild Deer: A National Approach’ (WDNA)

Scottish Natural Heritage (2016): Deer Management in Scotland: Report to the Scottish Government from Scottish Natural Heritage 2016; October 2016.

Scottish Parliament. (2013) Daily Written Answers Wednesday 2 October 2013, S4W-17132. Available at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_ChamberDesk/WA20131002.pdf [Accessed 7 November 2013]

Smart, J. C. R., Ward, A. I. and White, P. C. L. (2004) Monitoring woodland deer populations in the UK: an imprecise science. Mammal Review, 34: 99–114

Wäber, K., Spencer, J. and Dolman, P. M. (2013), Achieving landscape-scale deer management for biodiversity conservation: The need to consider sources and sinks. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 77: 726–736. doi:10.1002/jwmg.530)

Yalden, D. (1999) The History of British Mammals, T. & A.D. Poyser, London

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following people for their great help and assistance during this study: Duncan Stevenson for his assistance with the fieldwork; Gail Foster, Roisin McLaren and Kate Holl (all NatureScot) for their guidance, support and provision of much background information; Malcolm Muir and Chris Waltho (South Lanarkshire Council) for their guidance and provision of much helpful information; David Quarrell for taking time out to chat about and show me local roe deer management issues in the area; Jochen Langbein for providing information and advice on roe deer data and mitigation; Angus Corby (Transport Scotland) and Isla Davidson (ScotlandTranServ) for provision of much useful information and constructive input into DVC discussions; and all other local managers and staff of partner organisations, for being happy to answer my questions and discuss roe deer management, supply of information, etc. on DVCs, poaching, etc around Hamilton Low Parks.

Document downloads