Trial reintroduction of European beaver to Knapdale Forest - Advice and Recommendations to the Scottish Government by Scottish Natural Heritage.

8 May 2008.

DOCUMENT 1

LICENCE APPLICATION TO THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT FROM SCOTTISH WILDLIFE TRUST AND ROYAL ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND RELATING TO A PROPOSED TRIAL REINTRODUCTION OF EUROPEAN BEAVER TO KNAPDALE FOREST - SNH COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

CONTENTS:

1. INTRODUCTION

The following document sets out general comments, specific comments and recommendations relating to the licence application package submitted by RZSS and SWT.

The Scottish Government may wish to use the SNH recommendations set out at the end of this document, if judged appropriate, as conditions in any licence provided to RZSS/SWT. Note there are also recommended conditions listed in Document 2 (SNH's appraisal of the proposal in relation to possible effects on Taynish and Knapdale Woods SAC and Knapdale Lochs SPA) and Document 3 (SNH's appraisal of the proposal in relation to possible effects on Knapdale Lochs SSSI, Knapdale Woods SSSI, European Protected Species, Schedule 5 species, Badger and Knapdale NSA).

2. GENERAL COMMENTS

3. SPECIFIC COMMENTS

The following comments refer to the main document of the licence application package submitted by RZSS and SWT.

p.1 - Summary - Reference is made to the collection of three beaver families. There may be merit in adding a fourth family as a useful back-up, in case of any mortality during the quarantine period. If all four families survive, then the fourth family could be released or kept in captivity.

p.3 - Section 2 - Statutory and Strategic Framework - Reference is made to the information provided in Annex 3 of the licence application. This is a document originally produced by SNH and which is described as still being “valid”. Although this is largely the case, it should be noted that this SNH document was produced in early 2005, and some of the information is now out of date. We have, however, produced an update on the European experience with beaver as part of this package of advice to the SG.

p.4 - Section 2.1 - Legal position - Reference is made to the legal protection which may be applicable to beaver during any trial. We understand this issue is being clarified by the SG.

p.4 - Section 2.1 - Legal position - It states that the “Trial animals will remain the property of the project partnership”. We assume they will actually be the property of the licence applicants, RZSS and SWT. Again, we understand this issue is being clarified by the SG.

p.4 - Section 2.1 - Legal position - Reference is made to the issue of species protection which may be applied to beaver in the longer term. This could include consideration of the addition of beaver as a European Protected Species (EPS) on Schedule 2 of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994, as amended. EPS of animal are derived from Annex IV of the Habitats Directive. It is worth noting that European beaver is also listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive. Again we understand that the legal status of the animals is being clarified by the SG.

p.6 - Section 2.2 - Public consultation

p.24 - Section 7.8.3 - Fishing interests

p.25 - Section 7.10 - Project Management Structure

Sections 2.2 and 7.10 refer to a proposed “Beaver Steering Group” and a “Beaver Project Team” (to implement work on the ground). Section 7.8.3 also refers to a “Knapdale Beaver Forum”, and Section 2.2 refers to a “stakeholder forum” which we understand are the same - apparently this has already been established “to allow others to feed into the management process”, although we are unaware of how this forum has been operating and who is represented on it. Finally, Section 2.2 refers to a “beaver supporter's group” to allow people to “contribute practically to the trial”.

SNH agrees the need for the Beaver Steering Group and a Beaver Project Team, and we envisage being represented on these groups as observers. There is also a need for the involvement of the local community in the project. The proposed Knapdale Beaver Forum would therefore play an important part of the management of the project, as would any associated, more informal beaver supporter's group which could encourage wider local involvement.

In addition to these groups, we anticipate an independent group chaired by SNH to lead on the scientific monitoring. (see General Comments, and Recommendations `a' and `c', for more details)

p.6 - Section 2.2 - Public consultation - A proposal is made for wide engagement. While this is to be encouraged, it needs to be done in such a way that it does not undermine the core purpose of the trial, and does not have a detrimental impact on the SAC and SPA qualifying interests, the notified features of the SSSI or any other such features. Therefore the proposed involvement of film crews, universities etc. will need to be carefully planned and coordinated (the issue of visitor management is addressed in SNH's appraisal of the proposal in relation to possible effects on Taynish and Knapdale Woods SAC and Knapdale Lochs SPA, enclosed with this document). In the case of university involvement, there is also a need to ensure all data is shared and made publicly available, which can be done via the proposed monitoring group to be chaired by SNH.

p.6 - Section 2.3 - Local consultation - It is important, once and if the project is approved, to clarify precisely how the project will incorporate feedback from the local consultation into the trial design. This issue is referred to, in general terms, in the Local Consultation report (Annex 4 of the licence application package).

p.7 - Section 3.2 - Knapdale - Reference is made to the previous appropriate assessment. Note that the SG is the competent authority for this new licence application, with advice from SNH.

p.8 - 1^st line - Section 3.2 - Knapdale - Note that some of the lochs in the eastern part of the trial area flow north-east towards the Crinan Canal (i.e. the feeder lochs for the canal), rather than towards the south.

p.9 - Section 3.3 - Release points - The proposal is to release three families, which RZSS will review and augment if necessary. Efforts should be made to undertake one simultaneous release to ensure that the animals have the opportunity to establish territory at the same time. Consideration should be given to capturing and quarantining a fourth beaver family from Norway (see comments for page 1 above). The first animals released are likely to set up larger territories than those coming later, the consequence being that any further releases of new animals will result in an increased likelihood of the new animals being unable to establish territories, and therefore dispersing away from the site (this is unlikely to be such an issue for related juveniles of the existing families when they leave their parental groups to set up territories in the Knapdale area).

p.10 - Section 3.3 - Release points - Reference is made the extent of suitable habitat at Knapdale. Although the licence applicants do not refer to it, SNH have already modelled future beaver expansion at Knapdale and assessed this issue (Rushton, S, South, A & Lurz, P 2000 Predicting the outcome of a proposed re-introduction of the European beaver Castor fiber at Knapdale, Argyll. SNH Commissioned Report F022AC327, Battleby). The study concluded that the mean population size after 5 years, starting with three families, was between 26-28 animals, as predicted by two types of models. The carrying capacity of Knapdale was judged to be around 18 families (assuming approx. four animals per family). It is recommended that SNH maintains an overview of such beaver models in order that this can be made into a publicly available tool for Government and others.

p.10 - Section 3.3 - Release points - It is stated that “An agreement on behalf of the project partnership of RZSS and SWT has been drawn up with Forest Commission Scotland to accommodate the trial release on FCS property at Knapdale”, It may be necessary for the SG, and SNH, to see and comment on this in due course, in order to ensure it complies with the conditions set out in any licence.

p.10 - Section 4 - Business Case - The monitoring and research element is set at £655K and the “…majority of which will be led, carried out and paid for by SNH.” It should be emphasised that this figure has not been discussed or agreed with SNH.

The interpretation and communication costs are £140K - Although SNH sees the need for this element of the project, it needs to be emphasised that the project is a trial, with an exit strategy built in if required. Consequently this needs to be considered when planning the lifespan of any interpretation and communication infrastructure.

The overall project will be expensive, with so far no clear indication over how it will be funded. It is reasonable, however for the RZSS and SWT to argue that they need the certainty of a licence before they can fully engage in detailed fundraising. This can of course continue over the lifetime of the project. Once the beavers are released, the licence applicants must be able to ensure that they can implement the key elements of the trial, as set out in their application, and address any conditions set by the SG. If resourcing is insufficient to continue the trial as agreed, then the exit strategy will need to be implemented.

p.11 - Section 5.1 - Disease and water quality - RZSS/SWT propose to work with ABC on public health monitoring, a proposal which SNH supports. RZSS veterinary expertise may be of value in this regard. However, the independence of the public health monitoring will be important and we agree that ABC (in discussion with Scottish Water) should lead on this element, as stated. SNH's role would be limited to ensuring that any monitoring is effectively coordinated with other elements of the overall programme. Note that baseline public health monitoring has already been undertaken at Knapdale, and was published by SNH, (Morrison, A 2004 Trial re-introduction of the European beaver to Knapdale: public health monitoring 2001-3. SNH Commissioned Report 77, Battleby)

p.12 - Section 6.1 - Environmental education - In order for SNH to consider the proposal in relation to possible effects on Taynish and Knapdale Woods SAC and Knapdale Lochs SPA, further details were required, since the building of facilities, and visitor management, could have a `significant effect'. Following confirmation with the SG, SNH therefore approached SWT and received further information on this issue. This information has been incorporated into “SNH's appraisal of the proposal in relation to possible effects on Taynish and Knapdale Woods SAC and Knapdale Lochs SPA” which is enclosed with this document.

p.12 - Section 6.2 - Socio-economic - There are no specific proposals as to whether this might be investigated further during the trial. However, SNH has recently approved funding for a new SNH PhD based at the Scottish Agricultural College/ University of Edinburgh, entitled `Evaluating the socioeconomic implications of species reintroductions in Scotland'. If the beaver trial is approved, the studentship could be directed to give particular attention to the project.

p.13 - Section 6.3 - Biodiversity - Reference is made to the “SNH Species Action Framework” (SAF - although this is not only an SNH initiative, but one which a range of partners can contribute to). The applicants refer to the first aim set out in the SAF implementation plan for beaver, i.e. the reintroduction of beaver. However, they could also have usefully referred to the second aim of establishing associated conservation programmes for habitats and species. This omission is perhaps understandable since it is not part of the trial itself. It is worth noting, however, that there is the potential for the trial at Knapdale, particularly once it is well underway, to be used to stimulate wider thinking in relation to riparian woodland and wetland restoration, and to the management of species associated with these types of habitats.

p. 14 - Section 7.1.1 - Source population - Following recent scientific research, there has been discussion as to whether Norway necessarily has to be the sole source in biological terms. However, we would still support the use of Norwegian animals, as it is certainly an appropriate biological source.

p.14 - Section 7.1.3 - Practical issues,

p.15 - Section 7.4 - Release,

p.17 - Section 7.5.1 - Containment Options,

p.17 - Section 7.5.2 - Movement of animals outwith the trial area -

Reference is made to implanted tags. Following recent discussions with a range of specialists (also see Document 4), we believe a suite of tracking methodologies should be employed, rather than relying too heavily on radio-tracking techniques, which may sometimes have a number of practical and animal welfare limitations. Since the tracking of animals is an important element in the scientific monitoring, and practical management, of the beavers, it will be necessary to develop a suitable methodology which may use a range of techniques (such as various types of electronic transmitters, PIT transponders, visible tags, regular surveys, training and use of partners/public to report field signs etc.) This should be included as an element in the overall monitoring programme to be addressed by the proposed group chaired by SNH.

The Field Officer should regularly survey particularly `sensitive' areas as a routine part of their job (e.g. Crinan Canal and its feeder lochs etc).

p.15 - Section 7.1.3 - Practical issues - It states “The opportunity to select animals from rivers known to be free of diseases, such as Gyrodactylus salsii and Giardia”. It should be noted that this statement may not be strictly correct - although research to date has not detected Giardia in beavers from the proposed donor site, this does not mean to say that the entire river area (or some beavers in the catchment) is free of it. However, the issue of possible disease or parasite transmission should be covered in their proposals for quarantine after the import of the animals.

p.15 - Section 7.2 - Procurement of release animals - “A minimum of three family groups…” As stated above, we would recommend four family groups.

p.15 - Section 7.4 - Release - The applicants suggest the use of hard and soft release explain methods to allow a comparison (soft release techniques involve a period of acclimatisation to the environment into which the animal will eventually be released, whereas in hard release the animals are introduced straight into the wild with no transitional phase). However, this is a trial reintroduction, with containment of animals a key issue. It does not seem appropriate, therefore, to test different release methods in this trial. SNH recommend that a soft release should be used as this should decrease the likelihood of animals moving away from the trial area.

p.16 - Section 7.5.1 - Containment options - Reference is made to habitat manipulation. In light of the fact that there are still substantial stands of conifer plantation (which are unsuitable habitat for beaver) within the central part of the trial area, we would recommend that discussions are held with the local FES District to ensure future management of woodland takes into account beaver issues (i.e. balancing of beaver containment and dispersal within the site, with management for designated site interests etc.)

p.17 - Section 7.5.2 - Movement of animals outwith the trial area - The proposal is that animals outwith the trial area will be removed if the landowner wants it. Therefore consideration should be given as to whether all animals which move outwith the proposed trial area should be removed, or just those where the land owners request it. Clearly, this is an issue of practical management for the project to resolve in detail, taking the advice of any advisory group that may be established.

p.17 - Section 7.5.2 - Movement of animals outwith the trial area - It states “Training in beaver ecology and behaviour will be offered at a local level by SWT and RZSS early on within the trial, in order to assist local landowners and managers recognise beaver field signs.” SNH supports the need to educate, train and support project workers and other local people who may need to be aware of, or are interested in, beaver issues. We suggest that the project partners hold an organised training event in the Knapdale area immediately prior to the release of animals, which could involve experts from Europe who have had practical experience with beaver management issues.

p.18 - Section 7.6 - Exit strategy - The legal issues surrounding some of the exit strategy options proposed, (e.g. humane destruction), will need to be confirmed, as part of the clarification currently being sought from lawyers by the SG.

It is highly unlikely that repatriation of animals to their country of origin (part of option 1) will be possible. It would be helpful if the project partners could confirm what their preferred option is in relation to the exit strategy.

p.19 - Section 7.7 - Research & monitoring strategy - This issue will require careful coordination. Consideration is required as to what is essential and what is desirable. Clearly the aims of the research and monitoring programme should be to address the overall objectives of the trial, and it is therefore important that all individual projects, of SNH and all project partners, are coordinated and contribute towards these aims (see Recommendation `a').

We consider that the full-time Field Officer post will, in addition to providing on the ground management support for the project, be in an ideal situation to collate data for some of the monitoring work (e.g. hydrology). If the licence is approved, we will discuss this further with the licence applicants. Any programme of pre-release monitoring would ideally start during the late spring/summer months.

p.20 - Section 7.7.1 - Animal health - Reference is made to individual release animals being recaptured on an annual basis for testing. In fact, as stated above, if radio tracking methods are used, then some animals may need to be recaptured more frequently to allow the replacement of batteries on transmitters.

p.20 - Section 7.7.2 - Beaver ecology

p.21 - Section 7.7.5 - Terrestrial and aquatic habitats

p.22 - Section 7.7.6 - Features of conservation interest

p.23 - Section 7.7.8 - Land uses

Details on these aspects can be agreed in due course as part of the overall coordination of the monitoring elements of the trial by SNH.

p.20 - Section 7.7.3 - British Waterways - We agree that there is an important need for the Field Officer to regularly survey the canal, feeder lochs and burns, and indeed to visit any other `sensitive' areas on a regular basis. This should be made a condition of any licence.

p.22 - Section 7.7.6 - Features of conservation interest - Reference is made to the presence of mink at Knapdale. It should be noted that mink have been recorded predating beaver kits, and there is therefore a risk to any kits at Knapdale. In light of this, some localised mink control should be considered during the initial establishment of the population, although this would need to take account of the presence of otter (a European Protected Species and a qualifying feature for Taynish and Knapdale Woods SAC). The details of any mink trapping can be discussed with SNH in due course.

4. SNH RECOMMENDATIONS

The Scottish Government may wish to use these recommendations, if judged appropriate, as conditions in any licence provided to RZSS/SWT.

SNH Role

SNH, in collaboration with the group, will:

SNH will also lead, in collaboration with other partners where appropriate, on specific projects relating to the monitoring and modelling of the beaver population, and the monitoring of the effects of beaver.

Beaver management

Project management

Research, Survey and Monitoring

(Also see recommendation `a' above)