Habitats Regulations Assessment of the North West Leicestershire

Habitats Regulations Assessment of the North West Leicestershire Core Strategy Further Consultation

June 2009

HRA of the North West Leicestershire Core Strategy Further Consultation

Contents 1 Introduction 2 The Habitats Regulation Assessment process 3 Identification of Natura 2000 site and relevant information 4 Core Strategy issues 5 Initial scoping for impacts on the River Mease SAC 6 Next steps Appendices Appendix 1 River Mease SAC in NW Leicestershire, with 2.5

and 5km Buffer Zones Appendix 2 Natural England River Mease Environmental

Objectives


1 Introduction

1.1 Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is required under the European Directive (92/43/EEC) on the ‘conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora’. The Directive, ratified in the UK in 1992 seeks to protect the most valuable habitats and species in Europe. Alongside the European Birds Directive (79/408/EEC) this legislation sets the framework for the creation of a network of protected sites across Europe. These are known as Natura 2000 sites or European Sites.

1.2 These include sites designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for their species and habitats and Special Areas of Protection (SPAs) designated for the protection of birds. For the purposes of completeness it is also suitable to include those sites that are currently seeking full designation as part of the Natura 2000 network, namely candidate SAC sites, and potential SPA sites, although there are none in the district of NW Leicestershire.

1.3 Any plan or project that has the possibility of impacting on a Natura 2000 site must be assessed to ascertain the likelihood and significance of effects to the integrity of the site. The Habitats Directive Articles 6(3) and 6(4) sets the requirement for assessment as:

“Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the

management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans and projects, shall be subject to Appropriate Assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives…”

1.4 Initially the Habitats Directive was misinterpreted into UK legislation and did not require the assessment of land use plans for their potential to impact on Natura 2000 sites. A ruling from the European Court of Justice in October 2005 identified that this was incorrect and the Directive was being improperly implemented. The revised legislation, The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007, was adopted to rectify this situation and set out the requirement of the assessment of land use plans.

1.5 This Habitat Regulation Assessment is of the NW Leicestershire Core Strategy Further Consultation document (November 2008). A brief description of the HRA process and how this relates to NW Leicestershire’s sites is outlined within section 2.

1


2 The Habitats Regulation Assessment process

2.1 The HRA is used to describe the process of Appropriate Assessment required under The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendments) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.

2.2 The HRA process is set up of a number of key stages. This initial stage is ‘screening’ the Core Strategy proposals for growth and change (Nov 2008) to determine whether another stage of HRA is required. The indented outcome of this stage is a decision on whether it is necessary to proceed with further stages of HRA as there is a possibility of significant impacts, or whether impacts are unlikely as to make further study unnecessary. The stages of screening are:

• identification of all the sites in and round the plan area that may be affected by the Core Strategy (section 3)

• gain an understanding of the conservation objectives of the European sites (section 3)

• establish the main mechanisms by which the Core Strategy Further Consultation proposals could influence the Natura 2000 sites (section 4)

• drawing out what the specific impacts may be for each site and relevance to the Core Strategy (section 5)

• concluding the HRA and making decisions on what the next steps of HRA should be (section 6).

2.3 At this screening stage it is useful to identify strategic or spatial issues in the Core Strategy that may result in impacts on Natura 2000. This allows for the opportunity for these impacts to be avoided early on in the plan preparation process, by seeking alternative approaches or locations for growth.

2.4 If the local planning authority determines that the Core Strategy is not likely to have significant effects on European sites it may proceed without further reference to the HRA process. This should be agreed with the Natural England and the Environment Agency.

2.5 If it is determined that further HRA is required the next steps are likely to include the need for additional information on the proposals and policies of the Core Strategy. Consultation with Natural England and the Environment Agency will also be carried out to determine the method for the further assessment, as well as more detail on the Natura 2000 site and its sensitivities.

2.6 This stage of the HRA will be looking for ways that any significant effects can be avoided or mitigated against. In order for the Core Strategy to proceed it would have to be shown that this is possible. Where significant effects are identified it may be possible to mitigate against site specific

2


3

impacts using ‘conventional’ mitigation measures. This includes measures to prevent disturbance, use further appropriate assessment, setting planning obligations or conditions. If such an approach is shown to be necessary it will be essential to explicitly state this in the Core Strategy.

2.7 For strategic issues, where the impacts can not be identified on a site specific basis, it may be necessary to include specific policy in the Core Strategy to mitigate or avoid the potential for impact. This may particularly be where the implementation will require a more detailed level of assessment.

2.8 It is necessary for the outcomes of the HRA to be discussed and agreed with Natural England and the Environment Agency, and ideally consensus reached on the conclusions of the HRA.

2.9 It should be highlighted here HRA at this level does not preclude the need for subsequent appropriate assessment at a more site specific level if identified as necessary when seeking planning permission.

Determining ‘likely significance’

2.10 An important part of the HRA is determining whether the PLAN is likely to have a significant impact on the Natura 2000 sites. The draft assessment guidance on HRA from the Welsh Assembly Government is for Wales, but much of it is relevant to sites in England. It suggests that likely in this context is “readily foreseeable not merely a fanciful possibility” and significant means “not trivial or inconsequential but an effect that is potentially relevant to the site’s conservation objectives…The European Court of Justice has held that any effect likely to undermine the conservation objectives of a European sites should be regarded as a likely significant effect…” (paragraph 2.2.4) 1.

‘In combination’ effects

2.11 The regulatory requirements of HRA set out a requirement that in addition to determining if the plan would have a significant effect on Natura 2000 sites on its own, it is also necessary to assess if there would be any significant effects in combination with other plans and projects.

2.12 This ‘in combination’ assessment will need to look for other plans and projects that also require HRA, such as the LDFs of neighbouring local authorities, as well as projects proposed or underway in the area. In order to achieve this it may be suitable to adopt some type of cross boundary working on HRA issues, and the need for a system to be in place to flag up other strategies and plans in the area that may have relevance to the HRA of the Core Strategy. Other plans and strategies that may contribute ‘in combination’ with the Core Strategy on the SAC site is identified in section 5 of this report.

1 Welsh Assembly Government (October 2006) Draft Guidance – The Assessment of Development Plans in Wales under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations


2.13 The next section identifies the Natura 2000 site in the plan area (the River Mease SAC) that may be affected by the Core Strategy, and sets out the relevant conservation objectives of the European site.

4


3 Identifying Natura 2000 site and relevant site information

3.1 This is the initial step of the screening process and involves identifying the sites, in and around NW Leicestershire that the Core Strategy Growth and Change Further Consultation could have an impact on.

3.2 All sites within the district, or within 20km of the district boundaries, have been identified, these are:

Inside the district:

• River Mease – Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

Outside the district boundaries:

• Ensor Pool Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is approximately 17 km from the district boundary;

• (Cannock Chase SAC, Cannock Extension Canal SAC, Pasturefields Salt Marshes SAC and West Midlands Mosses SAC are all over 20 km from the border of NW Leicestershire).

3.3 An assessment was carried out to identify Natura 2000 sites within 20km from the local authority boundary. This 20 km threshold is indicative and does preclude the effects development may have on international designations further afield. However, this is a general and common threshold used by the majority of local authorities and other organisations.

3.4 Within North West Leicestershire there is one SAC, the River Mease, and the River Mease SAC flows beyond the border. There is one site, Ensor Pool SAC, within 20km of the NW Leicestershire border.

3.5 The information collated on the River Mease SAC and Ensor Pool SAC, particularly in relation to vulnerability has been collated from various sources: Natural England’s website, magic.gov.uk, Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), ‘Standard Data Form’ and the Appropriate Assessment of the Housing Land Release Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

Ensor Pool SAC

3.6 Ensor Pool SAC is an inland water body, with grassland, situated within a flooded brick-pit that has been abandoned for fifty years. The 3.5 ha area is located adjacent the built up area to the south of Nuneanton, approximately 17 km from the NW Leicestershire border. The crayfish population would be vulnerable to pollution and introduction of non-native crayfish. The strategic sites proposed within the NW Leicestershire Core Strategy Consultation report would not have a significant impact on this site. Potential impacts on the site would most likely result from development proposals within and adjacent Nuneaton.

5


River Mease SAC

3.7 Basic site plan showing buffer zones around the River Mease site are shown in Appendix 1. The buffer zones show distances of 2.5kms and 5kms from the SAC, which are only indicative measurements, but provides an indication of which settlements are in close proximity of the River Mease. The buffers illustrate that Measham and south of Ashby de la Zouch is within 2.5 km of the River Mease. The north of Ashby de la Zouch, west of Ibstock and extreme west of Coaville is within 5km of the designation. It is important to note that the map does not provide details of the tributaries that lead into the River Mease, such as tributaries that flow from Ashby de la Zouch.

3.8 After consulting the Environment Agency on the potential Core Strategy sites, the Environment Agency have confirmed that all proposed sites in Measham and Ashby de la Zouch are within the River Mease catchment area and would currently have a negative impact on the River Mease SAC.

3.9 There are also 9 villages, identified in the Core Strategy for development, that are close to the River Mease: Oakthorpe and Packington are in close proximity; Donisthrope and Appleby Magna are within 2.5kms; and Moria, Heather, Ravenstone, Swannington and Blackfordby are within 5 kms. Although it has not been established the level of impacts each of these settlements would have on the sites. Therefore further work should be undertaken in developing the options further for the Core Strategy, in partnership with the Environment Agency and Natural England.

3.10 The paragraphs below sets out the relevant conservation objectives of the European designation for the River Mease.

3.11 River Mease – Special Area of Conservation

Site code: UK0030258 Total area: 21.86ha

Primary reasons for designation

The River Mease SAC is an inland water source within a lowland clay area of North West Leicestershire. The river flows westwards over Sherwood Sandstone and Mercia Mudstone, into the River Trent at Croxall. The overall form of the river contains a range of physical in-channel features, which provides channel diversity compared to other similar rivers, and bankside tree cover.

The River Mease is important for its population of Spined loach Cobitis taenia and Bullhead Cottus gobio, which is the primary reason for selection of this site in Annex II of the Habitats Directive.

6


The site contains habitats listed under Annex I of the Habitats Directive and these are a qualifying feature. They are water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ruanunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation. The site also contains a variety of species listed under Annex II of the Habitats Directive which are also primary reasons for selection. These species include White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes and Otter Lutra lutra.

The site also supports valuable habitat used by these protected species, such as floating sweet-grass Glyceria gobio found in the lower reaches of the Gilwiskaw Brook, and other vegetations such as common club-rush Schoenoplectus lacustris, Glyceria fluitans, reed canary-grass Phalaris arundinacea, branched bur-reed Sparganium erectum, greater pond sedge Carex riparia and bulrush Typha latifolia, for example.

The current condition of the SAC is unfavourable (no change).

Natural England have assessed the River Mease in terms of its status as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This assessment is relevant to the species and habitat identified as protected by the SAC designation. The required SSSI environmental objectives for the water course, including specific principles for individual habitats and species, are defined by Natural England and set out in Appendix 2.

Environment Agency’s River Basin Management Plan Annex D identifies the protected water objectives and Natura 2000 actions relating to the River Mease, as set out in Appendix 3. These reflect the vulnerabilities listed below relating to water issues.

The Environment Agency’s Tame, Anker and Mease Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy identifies the Measham Ground Water Management Unit as over licensed. The Environment Agency has identified that the sewerage works at Packington are at maximum capacity and have an impact on phosphate conservation targets. Stage 4 management options are currently being developed by the Environment Agency relating to water quality.

The ecological status of the water course is a major determinant of Favourable Condition Status (FCS) for all features. The overall objective for the SAC is to protect and improve the water or water-dependent environment to the extent necessary to achieve favourable conservation status for all the water dependent features for which the protected area is designated.

The integrity of the site needs to be maintained and its main vulnerabilities have been identified as:

• Abstraction levels of water can effect water levels and the species population.

7


• Water quality is a particular vulnerability for the River Mease, due to the capacity of the sewerage works at Packington, which means conservation targets for Phosphate can not be currently met.

• Dumping, storage, spreading or discharging of any material or substances can be problem comes from agriculture, but can also come from roads and development.

• Development pressure can cause temporary physical, acoustic, chemical and sediment barrier effects that need to be addressed in the assessment of specific plans and projects. Noise/vibration e.g. due to impact piling, drilling, will have an impact on the river. Contamination of the river can arise when contaminated land adjacent the river is disturbed e.g. as a result of development. Contamination can also arise from pollution events (which could be industry related).

• Modification of the structure of watercourses – including their banks.

• Extraction of minerals – including peat, shingle, sand and gravel, or soil.

• Removal of habitats – the destruction, removal or cutting of plant or plant remains within or adjacent the River Mease.

• Recreational activities – recreation can damage or disturb features of special interest.

• Invasive species – invasive freshwater species.

3.12 As outlined above the River Mease SAC has many vulnerabilities which can be effected by development, therefore it is important to assess the growth options and potential strategic allocations outlined in the Core Strategy Further Consultation document. Section 4 considers the different options and the potential impacts on the Natura 2000 site.

8


4 Core Strategy issues

4.1 The Core Strategy Further Consultation document (Nov 2008), of the Local Development Framework (LDF), sets out the various options for strategic growth in the district. It sets the level of growth of 12,200 new homes, which the Core Strategy must provide over the plan period, and options for the spatial distribution of this growth around the district. The document also selects a preferred option for the distribution of development to identified settlements. This part of the HRA considers how these different options, in particularly the different options for strategic sites, have the potential to impact on the River Mease SAC.

4.2 Reviewing the Core Strategy document it is possible to identify some principle matters that are driven by the strategy that may have an impact on the River Mease SAC. These are:

• an expected housing growth of 12,200 new homes in the County in the plan period (9,600 new homes subtracting the number of homes built up to 31st March 2008).

• identifying the towns that are to the focus for the majority of new development. These are areas to be the focus of development, this is likely to include Coalville, Ibstock, Ashby de la Zouch, Measham and Castle Donington.

• potential strategic sites identified in Coalville, Ibstock, Ashby de la Zouch, Measham and Castle Donington.

• 15 'sustainable villages' have been identified where development will be permitted in these villages - 'restricted to infill sites of 0.1 ha, rural affordable housing exceptions sites or local needs developments'.

• setting policy for guiding the location of non-housing uses, such as employment and gypsy and traveller sites.

• setting policy to mitigate the impact of extra traffic which would effect the River Mease catchment area.

• setting policy to ensure the highest protection of the natural environment, including the River Mease SAC.

• the preferred option selected by the Council would deliver 500 dwellings in Ashby de la Zouch, 50 dwellings in Measham and development (infill and for local needs) in selected villages which are either within the River Mease catchment area or have an impact on water quantity and quality from abstraction.

Potential impacts of policies and proposals

9


4.3 To enable the screening assessment it is necessary to identify the potential impacts of strategic sites and relevant policies on the SAC. The impacts are:

• water quality – the impact of development can have an effect on water quality particularly where growth outstrips treatment capacity, landfill sites, industry and quarrying may also impact on water quality. Water pollution can cause direct impacts on sites and also nutrient enrichment can cause vegetation composition on sites to alter impact adversely affecting the conservation objectives.

• direct disturbance from development – this includes development directly causing the loss of whole or part of a site, although this is controlled through national protection policies.

• human disturbance from recreation – where new housing or development for recreational use is located near to protected sites it may lead to increased recreational pressures that may cause disturbance of sites and designation features.

• water quantity – new development gives rise to increased water supply demands, this can result in lowering of water tables that can adversely impact on sites that depend on high water tables to support them, the Groundwater abstraction areas underlying Measham and south of Ashby de la Zouch is already over licensed.

• changes in surrounding supporting habitats – loss of nearby open spaces and habitat links, such as hedgerows, can cause negative impacts on species on site through the loss of supporting breeding populations, linking habitats or shelter features particular where the SAC is divided into a number of distinct areas.

4.4 Section 5 identifies specific sections of the current Core Strategy document which may bring impacts specifically to this site, and then provides guidance to how the Core Strategy should address these specific impacts.

10


5 Initial scoping for impacts on the River Mease SAC

5.1 At this stage of the Core Strategy there is still much detail yet to be defined. Therefore, only a preliminary assessment can be made as part of the HRA. When the Core Strategy reaches more advanced stages in preparation where strategy, policies and proposals are more complete it will be necessary to reconsider the HRA assessment.

5.2 In addition to providing an initial overview of the vulnerability of the SAC site, this stage of assessment can help in the Core Strategy preparation by identifying the matters that the spatial strategy will need to address. By identifying where impacts may arise as part of the appraisal it may be possible for the Core Strategy to better direct development through the spatial strategy and provide policies to reduce the impact and provide better protection for the River Mease.

5.3 This section summarises the mechanisms by which development, directed through the LDF, could have an impact on the identified sites. In addition to these impacts there always remains the possibility of sites being destroyed or partly destroyed through development directly on the SAC site. However the high level of protection Natura 2000 sites have through national policy make this extremely unlikely.

5.4 This section shows the initial screening assessment of the options of the Core Strategy document which are most likely to have the potential for significant impacts on the River Mease SAC. It considers where impacts may arise, and the possible ways of mitigating against them. The assessment shows that there is the potential for some of the options within the Core Strategy to have an impact on the River Mease SAC.

River Mease SAC

5.5 The Environment Agency confirm that all development options at Ashby de la Zouch and Measham would have an impact on the River Mease and associated tributaries. Development within (and adjacent) villages in close proximity to the River Mease would also have an impact on the site.

5.6 Development can cause water pollution and have an impact on species and habitats that are integral to the site designation, as identified in section 4 and Appendix 2. These impacts can be from poor water quality, which result from increased sewerage works, unmitigated construction techniques and/or run-off from increased traffic generation. Therefore, it can in part addressed through the Core Strategy, although this would need to be in combination with the implementation on other measures to control pollution and manage sewerage works.

5.7 There could also be impacts of water quantity from abstraction effecting the designated species’ population. Therefore, water demand from new built development could have an impact on this. So suitable polices will need to

11


be in place to ensure the efficient use of water in new development, as well as ensuring new abstraction are not in locations that would adversely impact on the groundwater feeding the river.

5.8 Core Strategy options that may bring impacts specifically to this site are:

• Issue 3 identifies Ashby de la Zouch and Measham as settlements where new development should take place, and provides 4 options to distribute the housing growth across 5 settlements including Ashby de la Zouch and Measham. The preferred option (Option 1 ‘The Coaville Focus’) allocates 500 dwellings to Ashby de la Zouch and 50 dwellings to Measham;

• Issue 3 identifies 15 sustainable villages to take new development of infill up to 0.1ha, local needs development and exceptions sites. 9 of these villages could potentially have an impact on the River Mease:

In close proximity: Oakthorpe, Packington

Within 2.5km: Donisthrope, Appleby Magna

Within 5km: Moria, Heather, Ravenstone, Swannington, Blackfordby

• Issue 5 - strategic sites identified in and around Ashby de la Zouch and Measham, which are within the River Mease catchment area;

• Issue 7 – sets out the need to guide the location of gypsy and traveller sites throughout across the district. Options for the location of these sites have not been provided in the Core Strategy document and therefore could potentially impact on the site;

• Issue 9 and 11 – sets out the need to meet regional and local economic needs. This includes the possibility of guiding employment in the future, and identifying potential Strategic Distribution Sites, including 1 site ‘Lounge’ within Ashby de la Zouch, which is subject to a current planning application;

• Issue 15 – problems of congestion is associated with trunk roads, such as the A42 which crosses the River Mease, where there may be occasions where new or improved roads are required;

• Issue 19 – identifies network of green spaces which sit within and contribute towards high quality natural and built environment. This policy area currently does not include the River Mease.

Matters for consideration in the Core Strategy

5.9 The Core Strategy is within the early stages of production and there are still choices to be made in relation to the distribution of growth and location of specific strategic sites. There are also other strategic and development management type policies that should consider the need to protect and

12


enhance the River Mease SAC. The list below provides some considerations that should be made in making further decisions on both the spatial strategy and strategic policies in the Core Strategy:

5.10 Direct impact – Significant adverse effects (alone or in combination) on the SAC, from development, need to be avoided.

5.11 Issue 3, 5, 7, 10 and 13: Selecting strategic locations/sites - Any option which seeks to allocate sites in Ashby de la Zouch, Measham and within the 9 villages listed above could have a significant effect (alone or in combination) on the River Mease SAC. This particularly applies to issues relating to water quality and sewerage capacity. Further policies relating to these locations should be planned in conjunction with the Environment Agency, Natural England and Severn Trent Water.

5.12 Issue 3 - Development Strategy (Para 8.23). This paragraph provides different development scenarios for each option. The HRA of these options is found below:

• Option 1 (preferred option) – option could/would be likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination on the SAC.

• Option 2 – option could/would be likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination on the SAC.



5.13 Issue 3 - Favoured Development Strategy (Para 8.30) is option 1 which provides the least amount of development to Measham and Ashby de la Zouch. However, even this option could present a significant effect on the River Mease without mitigation measures and robust Core Strategy policies in place.

5.14 Issue 5 - Options for Coalville (Para 10.16):

• Options 1 – 4: will have no significant adverse effect (alone or in combination) on the SAC

5.15 Issue 5 - Options for Ashby de la Zouch (Para 10.22):

• Options 1 – 4: option could/would be likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination on the SAC

5.16 Issue 5 - Options for Castle Donington (Para 10.28):


5.17 Issue 5 - Options for Ibstock (Para 10.30):

13



5.18 Issue 5 - Options for Kegworth (Para 10.33):


5.19 Issue 5 - Options for Measham (Para 10.35):

• Options 1 – 4: option could/would be likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination on the SAC

5.20 Issue 6 – Affordable housing:

• Options 1 and 2: will have no significant adverse effect (alone or in combination) on the SAC

5.21 Issue 7 – Gypsy and traveller sites:

• Options 1 and 2: option could be likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination on the SAC, depending on which settlements were selected for development, as outlined for Issue 5

5.22 Issue 8 – Favoured Housing Strategy:

• Policy approach could be likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination on the SAC, depending on which settlements were selected, as outlined for Issue 5

5.23 Issue 9 – Economic needs:

• Options 1 and 2: option could be likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination on the SAC, depending on which settlements were selected for employment development in the Core Strategy, as outlined for Issue 5

5.24 Issue 10 – Location of strategic distribution uses:

• Option 1: option could be likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination on the SAC

• Options 2 and 3: will have no significant adverse effect (alone or in combination) on the SAC

5.25 Issue 11 – Local economy:

• Option 1: will have no significant adverse effect (alone or in combination) on the SAC

• Option 2: option could be likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination on the SAC, depending on which settlements were selected for employment development in the Core Strategy, as outlined for Issue 5

14


5.26 Issue 12 –East Midlands Airport:


5.27 Issue 13 – Town Centres:

• Options 1 and 2: option could be likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination on the SAC, depending on schemes proposed in town centres of Ashby de la Zouch and Measham

5.28 Issue 14 – Town Centre boundaries:


5.29 Issue 15 –Transport issues:

• Options relating to new or improved roads could be likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination on the SAC

5.30 Issue 16 – Town Centre boundaries:

• This options will have no effect at all, or only positive effects on the SAC

5.31 Issue 17 – Securing new infrastructure:

• Section 106 relating to the provision of new built infrastructure could be likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination on the SAC

• Section 106 relating to protecting and enhancing the SAC will have no effect at all, and only positive effects, on the SAC

• Sewerage works - The sewerage works at Packington is at maximum capacity and having an impact on phosphate conservation targets, and a major impact on the River Mease. Therefore the Environment Agency is recommending that limited/no development is permitted in the River Mease catchment area, until the conservation target is met. Before proceeding with the Core Strategy, the Council should work in partnership with the Environment Agency to ensure the right options are selected in the Core Strategy to protect the SAC, and/or robust policies are put in place to ensure necessary mitigation measures are put in place.

• Water quantity - New abstraction has the potential to impact on the River Mease by reducing water flows in the river with potential negative impacts on the integrity of the site. Therefore, development in Measham, south of Ashby de la Zouch and potentially any site within the 9 villages, where water abstraction would be required, could have an impact on the SAC.

• Water quality – the impact of development can have an effect on water quality particularly where growth outstrips treatment capacity.

15


Increased development and higher levels of car use can have an adverse impact on water quality at the combined site from nutrient enrichment, through water and air pollution.

5.32 Issue 18 – Climate change:

• Option could be likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination on the SAC, depending on locations selected for renewable energy projects in relation to the SAC

5.33 Issue 19 – Green Infrastructure

• Issue 19 - SAC policy protection - The Core Strategy needs to secure the protection and enhancement of the River Mease SAC. In order to protect the integrity of this SAC it will be necessary for the Core Strategy to consider how to protect green space and linking features along the river.

• Issue 19 - SAC policy protection: This section outlines the issues for the network of multi-functional greenspace, which currently does not mention the River Mease. As a key part of the green network in NW Leicestershire, it is extremely important to raise the issues of the River Mease. Especially as the River Mease SAC is the only international environmental designation, not only in NW Leicestershire, but within the whole of the County. It is important that the Core Strategy identifies the River Mease SAC as part of the strategic green infrastructure network, and provide the SAC with policy criteria that ensures development protects and enhances the reasons for designation.

• Recreational pressures - New housing development in the vicinity could give rise to increased recreational pressure on the site, with possible negative impacts if levels of use are too high or not managed carefully.

HRA next steps

5.34 Impacts of the different Core Strategy options on the River Mease SAC cannot be ruled out at this stage and therefore further assessment of impacts will be necessary at the next stage of Core Strategy preparation.

In-combination effects

5.35 It is important to consider other plans and projects that may also have an influence over the Natura 2000 site, and how the Core Strategy could affect these to change the significance of impact on the site. This is a requirement of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.

5.36 Most significantly in this instance it will be important to consider the Appropriate Assessment of the South Derbyshire Core Strategy, which also concludes that proposed development is likely to have significant effects on the River Mease SAC. These key development plans are at various stages

16


of completion, at the present time possible in-combination impacts that may need to be monitored are:

• Appropriate Assessment (screening and scoping) Consultation Report for the South Derbyshire Core Strategy (October 2008) – the Core Strategy for South Derbyshire could give rise to likely significant effects on the River Mease SAC. It concluded that as the Core Strategy is developed it will need to be subjected to additional assessment work to ensure the plan has the least possible impact on the site either through avoidance or mitigation. The later stage of appropriate assessment will focus on the water quality issues (and water quantity if new development increases pressure on water resources from the River Mease WRMU).

• South Derbyshire Core Strategy – will set out the spatial strategy for the provision of 15,250 new homes which would potentially have allocations in Derby City and sub-regional centres such as Swadlincote, which could have an impact on the River Mease.

• Habitats Regulations Assessment of the East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS) March 2009 – There are several sites for which water quality changes represent a risk and for which effectiveness of SUDs and adequacy of water treatment infrastructure needs to be monitored including the River Mease SAC.

• East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS) – sets out the spatial distribution of development growth across the East Midlands of 21,109 new homes per annum, of which 12,200 are allocated to North West Leicestershire over the plan period to 2026. There are no specific employment land requirements set out in the RSS for the district.

• Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework and the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Core Strategies – The HRA concludes that there are no likely effects on the River Mease SAC.

• Minerals Plan for Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework (Core Strategy and Development Control Policies) up to 2021 – The Plan identifies mineral resources located within the River Mease catchment area as Sand and Gravel Resource, Brick Clay Resource, Coal (at or near surface) Resource Area and Oil Exploration Licence Area.

• Waste Plan for Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework (Core Strategy and Development Control Policies) up to 2021 – The plan provides the long term strategic waste management strategy and land use planning framework for waste in Leicestershire. The key diagram identifies one Waste Disposal Site within the River Mease catchment area.

17


• Leicestershire Local Transport Plan – Sets out the strategic framework for transport across Leicestershire. Major schemes identified are all within Leicester and will not have a direct impact on the River Mease.

• The Tame, Anker and Mease Catchment Area Abstraction Management Strategy (March 2008) and associated work on the HRA - In this CAMS the River Mease and the underlying Measham groundwater unit are being assessed under the Habitats Regulations due to the SAC status of the River Mease. The initial investigations are due to be completed by 2008 but further research may be required. Where required, management options will be considered and put in place by 2010.

18


6 Next steps

6.1 The Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening for North West Leicestershire Core Strategy Further Consultation document has identified that there is one Natura 2000 site within the district, which could be significantly affected by proposed development. The characteristics and vulnerabilities of the site, the River Mease Special Area of Conservation (SAC), have been set out in this HRA, as well as the potential for negative impact on site by some of the options presented in the Core Strategy document.

6.2 The overall objective for the SAC is to protect and improve the water or water-dependent environment to the extent necessary to achieve favourable conservation status for all the water dependent features for which the protected area is designated.

6.3 The Core Strategy Further Consultation (November 2008) provides a number of options (and a preferred option) for the distribution of growth to selected settlements and provides a number of strategic policies which are being consulted upon.

6.4 The Habitat Regulations Assessment concludes that any option presented in the Core Strategy which proposes development of sites in and around Ashby de la Zouch, Measham or within the 9 sustainable villages, potentially in the River Mease catchment area, has the potential to have a significant adverse effect (alone or in combination) on the River Mease SAC. This particularly applies to issues relating to water quality and sewerage capacity.

6.5 The Core Strategy Further Consultation also presents strategic options relating to employment, gypsy and traveller sites, town centres and other strategic policy issues. Many of the options presented for these issues could have a significant effect on the SAC. However, this is often dependant on the spatial strategy distribution of development as outlined in section 5.

6.6 The Core Strategy provides an opportunity to protect and enhance the quality of the SAC from future development through robust planning policies. The HRA concludes that the ‘green infrastructure’ section could do more in providing protection and enhancement of the River Mease SAC in the Core Strategy.

6.7 It remains possible that development could happen in the River Mease SAC catchment area (including in and around Ashby de la Zouch and Measham) if it is possible to entirely avoid or mitigate possible impacts. This, however, would only be done through the choice made in further developing the Core Strategy, specifically relating to policies that will have an influence the spatial distribution of development.

19


6.8 There are a number of options currently presented in the Core Strategy document which could have an impact on the SAC. Therefore, further assessment will be necessary at the next stage of Core Strategy preparation.

6.9 The later stages of HRA should focus on the water quality issues and water quantity, if new development increases pressure on water resources from the River Mease Water Resources Management Unit (MRWU). From this it may be possible to find ways of mitigating against potential impacts, meaning development could proceed.

6.10 There are a number of other plans that could have an impact on the SAC in-combination with the impacts which could result from the Core Strategy. In particular, Core Strategy for South Derbyshire could give rise to likely significant effects on the River Mease SAC. The later stage of appropriate assessment will focus on the water quality issues (and water quantity if new development increases pressure on water resources from the River Mease WRMU). Therefore, it will be important for the Council to work closely with South Derbyshire and assess the effects of both Core Strategies in-combination. It will also be imperative to keep up-to-date with other key organisations who are producing plans which will in-combination increase the impact on these sites.

6.11 In addition to working with neighbouring local authorities it will be important for the plan making team, in further preparation of the spatial strategy and strategic policies, to work in close partnership with other relevant organisations. This will include the Environment Agency, Natural England and Severn Trent Water, who should be able to advise on developing the Core Strategy and additional assessment work to ensure the plan has the least possible impact on the SAC.

6.12 This will help to establish ways to avoid or mitigate the effects of future development in these locations. For example, through the choices made in developing the spatial strategy, preparing protective and mitigation Core Strategy policies, setting planning obligations or conditions to provide measures to prevent disturbance or adverse impact on the Mease or even in-combination with their own infrastructure improvements that could increase capacity for development.

20

Appendix 1

Buffer Zone map of the River Mease Special Area of Conservation

Appendix 2

Natural England River Mease Conservation Objectives

Conservation Objectives: River Mease SSSI Consultation Draft 7 October 2008 Format Version 2.1 Page 1 of 23

Conservation objectives and definitions of favourable condition for designated features of interest

These Conservation Objectives relate to all designated features on the SSSI, whether designated as SSSI, SPA, SAC or Ramsar features.

Lincolnshire, Leicestershire & Northamptonshire Team

The Maltings, Wharf Road Grantham. NG31 6BH

01476 584800 01476584838

[email protected]

Name of Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

River Mease SSSI

Names of designated international sites

Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

River Mease SAC

Special Protection Area (SPA)

Ramsar

Relationship between site designations

Version control information

Status of this Version (Draft, Consultation Draft, Final)

V1.0 Consultation draft

Prepared by Vanessa Tindale

Date of this version 7 October 2008

Date of generic guidance on favourable condition used

EN CSM Guidance Freshwater July 2005 CSM Guidance for Freshwater Fauna August 2005 EN CSM Guidance Mammals Feb 2004

Other notes/version history

Quality assurance information

Checked by Name Nicola Orchard

Date 15 December 2008

Signature

www.naturalengland.org.uk


Conservation Objectives and definitions of Favourable Condition: notes for users Conservation Objectives SSSIs are notified because of specific biological or geological features. Conservation Objectives define the desired state for each site in terms of the features for which they have been designated. When these features are being managed in a way which maintains their nature conservation value, then they are said to be in ‘favourable condition’. It is a Government target that 95% of the total area of SSSIs should be in favourable condition by 2010. Definitions of Favourable Condition The Conservation Objectives are accompanied by one or more habitat extent and quality definitions for the special interest features at this site. These are subject to periodic reassessment and may be updated to reflect new information or knowledge; they will be used by Natural England and other relevant authorities to determine if a site is in favourable condition. The standards for favourable condition have been developed and are applied throughout the UK.

Use under the Habitats Regulations The Conservation Objectives and definitions of favourable condition for features on the SSSI may inform the scope and nature of any ‘appropriate assessment’ under the Habitats Regulations. An appropriate assessment will also require consideration of issues specific to the individual plan or project. The habitat quality definitions do not by themselves provide a comprehensive basis on which to assess plans and projects as required under Regulations 20-21, 24, 48-50 and 54 - 85. The scope and content of an appropriate assessment will depend upon the location, size and significance of the proposed project. Natural England will advise on a case by case basis. Following an appropriate assessment, competent authorities are required to ascertain the effect on the integrity of the site. The integrity of the site is defined in paragraph 20 of ODPM Circular 06/2005 (DEFRA Circular 01/2005) as the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified. The determination of favourable condition is separate from the judgement of effect upon integrity. For example, there may be a time-lag between a plan or project being initiated and a consequent adverse effect upon integrity becoming manifest in the condition assessment. In such cases, a plan or project may have an adverse effect upon integrity even though the site remains in favourable condition. The formal Conservation Objectives for European Sites under the Habitats Regulations are in accordance with paragraph 17 of ODPM Circular 06/2005 (DEFRA Circular 01/2005), the reasons for which the European Site was classified or designated. The entry on the Register of European Sites gives the reasons for which a European Site was classified or designated.

Explanatory text for Tables 2 and 3

Tables 2, 2a and 3 set out the measures of condition which we will use to provide evidence to support our assessment of whether features are in favourable condition. They are derived from a set of generic guidance on favourable condition prepared by Natural England specialists, and have been tailored by local staff to reflect the particular


characteristics and site-specific circumstances of individual sites. Quality Assurance has ensured that such site-specific tailoring remains within a nationally consistent set of standards. The tables include an audit trail to provide a summary of the reasoning behind any site-specific targets etc. In some cases the requirements of features or designations may conflict; the detailed basis for any reconciliation of conflicts on this site may be recorded elsewhere.

Conservation Objectives

The Conservation Objectives for this site are, subject to natural change, to maintain the following habitats and geological features in favourable condition (*), with particular reference to any dependent component special interest features (habitats, vegetation types, species, species assemblages etc.) for which the land is designated (SSSI, SAC, SPA, Ramsar) as individually listed in Table 1.

Habitat Types represented (Biodiversity Action Plan categories)

Rivers and streams

Geological features (Geological Site Types)

(*) or restored to favourable condition if features are judged to be unfavourable. Standards for favourable condition are defined with particular reference to the specific designated features listed in Table 1, and are based on a selected set of attributes for features which most economically define favourable condition as set out in Table 2, Table 2a and Table


Table 1 Individual designated interest features BAP Broad Habitat type / Geological Site Type

Specific designated features

Explanatory description of the feature for clarification

SS

SI d

esig

nate

d

inte

rest

featu

res

SA

C d

esig

nate

d

inte

rest

featu

res

SPA bird populations dependency on specific habitats

Ramsar criteria applicable to specific habitats

An

nex 1

sp

ecie

s

Mig

rato

ry

sp

ecie

s

Wate

rfo

wl

asse

mb

lag

e

1a W

etl

an

d

ch

ara

cte

risti

c

s

2a H

osti

ng

rare

sp

ecie

s

&c

3a 2

000

0

wate

rfo

wl

3c 1

% o

f

po

pu

lati

on

Rivers and streams

Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation

Slow flowing lowland river

(*) *

Bullhead, Cottus gobio

Presence of bullhead * *

Spined Loach, Cobitis taenia

Presence of spined loach

* *

Otter, Lutra lutra Presence of otter *

White clawed crayfish, Austropotamobius pallipes

Presence of white clawed crayfish

*

NB. Features where asterisks are in brackets (*) indicate habitats which are not notified for specific habitat interest (under the relevant designation) but because they support notified species.


Table 2 Habitat extent objectives Conservation Objective for habitat extent

To maintain the designated features in favourable condition, which is defined in part in relation to a balance of habitat extents (extent attribute). Favourable condition is defined at this site in terms of the following site-specific standards:

Extent - Dynamic balance

On this site favourable condition requires the maintenance of the extent of each habitat type (either designated habitat or habitat supporting designated species). Maintenance implies restoration if evidence from condition assessment suggests a reduction in extent.

Habitat Feature (BAP Broad Habitat level, or more detailed level if applicable)

Estimated extent (ha) and date of data source/estimate

Site Specific Target range and Measures Comments

River Extent =22.87ha No reduction in area and any consequent fragmentation without prior consent

Recoverable reduction = unfavourable; non-recoverable reduction = partially destroyed.

Audit Trail

Rationale for habitat extent attribute (Include methods of estimation (measures), and the approximate degree of change which these are capable of detecting). Habitat extent estimated using GIS software and aerial photographs 2001.

Rationale for site-specific targets (including any variations from generic guidance)

Other Notes


Table 2a Species population objectives Conservation Objective for species populations

To maintain the designated species in favourable condition, which is defined in part in relation to their population attributes. Favourable condition is defined at this site in terms of the following site-specific standards:

Population balance On this site favourable condition requires the maintenance of the population of each designated species or assemblage. Maintenance implies restoration if evidence from condition assessment suggests a reduction in size of population or assemblage.

Species Feature

List supporting BAP Broad Habitats

Population Attribute


Bullhead Rivers and streams

Population Single-pass electrofishing in August / September. Data analysis as in a-c. below. see sub-attributes below

For details see the LIFE in UK Rivers Project protocol


a. Adult population densities

Density estimates There should be no reduction in densities from existing levels, and in any case no less than 0.5 m

-2 in lowland rivers (source

altitude ≤100m).

Routine Environment Agency monitoring is not capable of providing suitable data. A least-cost methodology for monitoring this attribute has been developed by the LIFE in UK rivers project, involving the sampling of representative reaches within an SAC.


c. Reproduction/ Age Structure

Length-frequency analysis of selected samples Young-of-year fish should occur at densities at least equal to adults. Four age classes with 0+ individuals at least 40% of population Largest females attain a fork length >75mm

Young-of-year fish should be easily identifiable using length-frequency analysis. In September they are typically less than 30 mm long. Young-of-year are often much more numerous than adults, so the current target is rather conservative (to allow for natural variation in recruitment and habitat type). A ratio of 3 or 4:1 for Y-O-Y: adults is not unusual. It may be necessary to refine this target at a site-specific level.


Species Feature





b. Distribution within SAC

GIS analysis of distribution within catchment Bullheads should be present in all suitable reaches. As a minimum, no decline in distribution from current.

In the UK, bullhead are widespread in any flowing water at an altitude of less than 300 m. Well oxygenated water over a gravel / pebble / cobble substrate is preferred (and is essential for successful reproduction). Riffles are a favoured microhabitat. Very sluggish water with a clay / silt substrate or cold, steep-gradient upland sections with numerous cascades and boulder / bedrock substrate should be viewed as sub-optimal. Bullheads can occur in very small channels (<1 m wide) where they may be the only fish species present. Bullhead are very poor colonists, to the extent that catchments may contain many individual subpopulations. It is not feasible to assess each of these individually, but it is very important that there is no loss of these populations, and that access routes between them are not impeded (see environmental disturbance notes below).

Spined loach

Rivers and streams

Population Electrofishing in rivers, hand trawl in drains. There should be no reduction in densities from existing levels, and in any case no less than 0.1 m

-2

Routine Environment Agency monitoring is not capable of providing suitable data. A least-cost methodology for monitoring this attribute is being investigated, involving the sampling of representative reaches within an SAC.

Spined loach

Rivers and streams

Age structure Adult population densities >0.2/m At least three year-classes should be present at significant densities. At least 40% of the population should consist of 0+ fish Largest females attain a fork length >85mm

Otter Rivers and streams

Otter population – inland waterways

Otters present on site.

Population maintained or increasing.

Use LRR SAC monitoring scheme for river SACs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Annual survey recommended for first 5 years of LRR method.

White-clawed crayfish

Population Density

Trapping using baited small mesh traps (<8mm) in

Population of at least moderate abundance (CPUE between 0.1 - 1)

Insufficient data are available on typical densities for standing water bodies to set reliable targets. Population density is considered best expressed as catch per unit effort (CPUE) –


Species Feature




areas of favourable crayfish habitat. Trapping in conjunction with night viewing and hand searching where possible.

Berried females should be present during the period November to April

catch per trap night. A provisional qualitative scale is as follows:

CPUE Av. no. crayfish /trap night

Relative abundance of population

<0.1 moderate-low abundance

<1 moderate abundance

1-2.5 moderately high abundance

2.6-4 high abundance

>4 Very high abundance

This is likely to require some refinement once more surveys have been carried out and compared on a wide range of sites across England and Wales. It is accepted that crayfish densities may fluctuate naturally and thus caution should be taken in determining the condition of the site. Nevertheless, the site should be considered unfavourable if there is a dramatic reduction in density.


Population densities and health

Determined during population monitoring

Thelohaniasis (Porcelain Disease) should not affect >10% population.

This disease rarely causes mass mortalities and may be present in a population at low levels without apparent harm. However, a prevalence exceeding 10% is of concern.


Population densities and health

Determined during population monitoring

Absence of individuals infected with crayfish plague

Crayfish plague can be introduced by the entry of non-native crayfish species into a site, but also by a variety of other routes, including contaminated equipment (nets, boots, etc.) and stocked fish from infected waters

1.

Outbreaks of crayfish plague typically result in 100% mortalities, unless there are isolated headwaters with crayfish in the catchment. This target requires that the utmost care be


Species Feature




taken in terms of fish stocking and general surveying/monitoring to ensure that plague vectors are not introduced. Disinfection or thorough drying of equipment (or perhaps dedicated equipment for use only in native crayfish rivers) and stocking fish from uninfected waters are vital elements. Nationally agreed EN/EA policy on stocking fish into crayfish SSSIs/SACs should prevent stocking from catchments containing signal crayfish or known to have experienced plague.

Audit Trail

Rationale for species population attributes (Include methods of estimation (measures), and the approximate degree of change which these are capable of detecting).


Other Notes


Table 3 Site-Specific definitions of Favourable Condition CONSERVATION OBJECTIVE FOR THIS HABITAT / GEOLOGICAL SITE-TYPE

To maintain the Rivers and streams at this site in favourable condition, with particular reference to relevant specific designated interest features. Favourable condition is defined at this site in terms of the following site-specific standards:

Site-specific details of any geographical variation or limitations (where the favourable condition standards apply)

These targets apply to the river and marginal vegetation only.

Site-specific standards defining favourable condition

Criteria feature

Attribute term in guidance

Measure Site-specific Targets Comments Use for CA

Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation Spined loach Bullhead

Habitat structure: substrate

Field observations Siltation No excessive siltation. Maximum silt content <20% in top 10cm of mid-channel gravels

Channel should be dominated by clean gravels Spined loach: Sand fractions in finer substrates reach at least 20% sand and no more than 40% silt

Bullhead: No excessive siltation on the surfaces of coarse substrates

Siltation levels vary naturally, depending upon the reach type and hydrodynamic regime. Most sites should have a variety of channel substrates. Localised accumulations of silt on the inside of bends or in back channels do not necessarily indicate a problem. However, widespread siltation of riverine sediments, caused by high particulate loads and / or reduced scour within the channel (due to artificial channel modifications, is a major threat to interest features. Many characteristic species of fish, invertebrates and even plants are susceptible to siltation at some stage in their life-cycle. Mechanisms of impact can relate to reduced interstitial spaces in coarse substrates, reduce water flow-through the substrate leading to poor quality of interstitial waters, and reduced sediment surface ‘roughness’ that eliminates refugia for animals with epibenthic habitats and prevents plant seeds and fragments from lodging in the substrate and taking root. Sources of silt include run-off from agricultural land, sewage and industrial discharges. A fluvial audit is recommended where specific problems have been identified, e.g. where there is a perceived risk of damage occurring or where species characteristic of the habitat are

Yes


Criteria feature



already believed to be in decline. Spined loach can tolerate silt and mud, it has a preference for sandy substrates, and these substrates should be maintained and/or restored in watercourses where sufficient hydraulic energy can be generated. If the organic content becomes too high, reduced oxygen availability near the sediment/water interface may lead to enhanced egg and juvenile mortality. High sediment cohesiveness is likely to affect the feeding process. Elevated silt levels can interfere with egg and fry survival in bullhead.

Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation Bullhead Spined loach

Habitat structure: channel and banks

Assess river morphology using RHS (see text and Appendices 4 and 5 of the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005). In addition, for planform: map data, aerial survey data, historical records and local knowledge.

Channel form Channel form should be generally characteristic of river type, with predominantly unmodified planform and profile. For planform the target is a score for the assessment unit of at least 3 (see Appendix 4 of the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005) i.e <10% of ECS river artificial, re-aligned or constrained. For naturalness of the profile using transect data the target is a score for the assessment unit of 4 or 5 (see Appendix 5 of the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005). i.e <0.2 No RHS site to have any of the eight categories of bank profile modification (Section I in RHS

The river should support all of the habitat features necessary for characteristic flora and fauna to thrive, in characteristic proportions. Widening or deepening of channels, and extensive artificial reinforcement of banks, are indicators of unfavourable condition. Headwater sections are particularly vulnerable to reprofiling. Watercourses with a high degree of naturalness will be governed by dynamic processes which result in a variety of physical habitat features, including a range of substrate types, variations in flow, channel width and depth, in-channel and side-channel sedimentation features, erosion features and both in-channel and bankside vegetation cover. The new version of Habitat Modification Score (HMS) enables a more sophisticated assessment to be made, based on the nature of modifications to a river and their estimated persistence. Details are being finalised by the Environment Agency, but a guideline target might be 90% or more of condition monitoring sites should fall within the semi-natural HMS class 1, with the remainder predominantly unmodified (class 2). Spined loach :A natural channel morphology provides the diversity of breeding/nursery habitat, cover from predators, refuge against high flows, and feeding opportunities that best meet the full life cycle

Yes


Criteria feature



2003 form) recorded as ‘extensive’. In-channel natural features present at frequent intervals (such as riffle/pool sequences, pools, slacks and submerged tree root systems)

requirements of the species. The close proximity of riffles and pools is particularly important for this sedentary animal. Operations that widen, deepen and/or straighten the channel reduce variations in habitat. New operations that would have this impact are not acceptable within the SAC, whilst restoration may/will be needed in some reaches.


Plant community: reproduction

Field observations during annual macrophyte survey. Mapping of flowering Ranunculus in sample sections every 3 years.

A sufficient proportion of all aquatic macrophytes should be allowed to reproduce in suitable habitat, unaffected by river management practices. Ranunuculus should be able to flower and set seed.

Flowering outside the normal period and weed cutting or other activities that do not leave patches of plants to flower (at least 25% in every 100m of river) and set seed are indicators of unfavourable condition. 25% of the total habitat / macrophyte population should be left uncut for the full duration of the growing season. Use of herbicides should be avoided.

Yes


Negative indicators: native species

Survey the macrophytes of representative stretches at intervals of ca. 5 km, using the method of Holmes (1983) and a standard check-list of macrophyte species (see Appendix 2 of the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005).

For blanketweed, epiphytic or other algae, Potamogeton pectinatus or Zannichellia palustris: Cover values over 25% should be considered unfavourable, and should trigger further investigation. Cover values should not increase significantly from an established baseline. ii) For taxa with STRs as follows: For taxa with STR values of 1 or 2, cover values

Taxa typically associated with enrichment are considered negative indicators of favourable condition. The species will vary depending on the River Community Type. Species that are characteristic of enrichment, or have atypically low Species Trophic Ranks (STRs) in the Mean Trophic Rank (MTR) system (Holmes et al., 1999) and that are recorded as dominant (3), are used as indicators. Note: in using MTR, each species is allocated a score dependent on its tolerance to eutrophication; this system cannot be used to assess acidification. Expert judgement will be important in assessing the ecological significance of cover values of these species. At some sites, it may be appropriate to set more stringent targets. Occasionally thresholds may need to be raised, according to wider conservation objectives. Alien species are assessed within the Negative indicators: alien/ introduced species attribute instead.


Criteria feature



over 25% should be considered unfavourable, but should trigger further investigation. Cover values should not increase significantly from an established baseline.


Negative indicators: alien/ introduced species

For aquatic and marginal macrophytes the presence of alien species listed in Appendix 10 of the JNCCCSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005 should be noted during the macrophyte survey and the scoring system for naturalness applied. For other organisms contact external organisations (e.g. EA, SEPA, EHS, fisheries trusts and boards) for local reports on alien or introduced species.

No impact on native biota from alien or introduced macrophyte species Aquatic and marginal macrophytes The mean SERCON score for naturalness (derived from individual survey sites) should be 4 or 5 (see Appendix 10 of the JNCCCSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005). i.e >95% of aquatic and marginal macrophyte sp are native No other alien/introduced species present at levels likely to be detrimental to the characteristic biological community.

Non-native species constitute a major threat to many river systems. For example, species such as signal crayfish have been responsible for much of the decline of native crayfish through competition, habitat damage and the introduction of crayfish plague. Note: ‘Introduced species’ include species that are native to the UK but outside of their natural range. The SERCON scoring system for naturalness of aquatic and marginal macrophytes is used to assess alien plant species. Note: This protocol applies to negative indicator species of the channel and channel margins. Negative indicator species found on banks and the riparian zone are assessed as part of the naturalness of banks and naturalness of riparian zone assessment and form part of the CSM structure attribute Expert judgement will be needed to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to generate an unfavourable condition assessment. For example, for signal crayfish, presence alone would constitute unfavourable condition. Other species, such as barbel, can be tolerated at low levels; higher levels would constitute unfavourable condition.

Yes


Criteria feature



Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation White-clawed crayfish Bullhead Spined loach

Negative indicators: In-stream barriers

Strategic assessment of barriers affecting the characteristic species of the SSSI.

No artificial barriers significantly impairing characteristic migratory species from essential life-cycle movements.

Barriers may take the form of weirs, barrages or intakes/off-takes that entrain characteristic species. Species may be anadromous (e.g. salmon), catadromous (e.g. eels) or migrate over relatively short distances within the river system (e.g. bullhead, brook lamprey and invertebrates without flying life stages). A range of data sources may be used and brought together to make this assessment. Specific studies may be required in relation to some barriers where impacts are uncertain and remedial costs are potentially high. Free movement within the channel is necessary to ensure maintenance of genetic diversity (and therefore population viability) and to provide the potential for recolonisation of waters that have become artificially denuded of spined loach. Vertical drops of >18-20 cm are sufficient to prevent upstream movement of adult bullheads. They will therefore prevent recolonisation of upper reaches affected by lethal pollution episodes, and will also lead to constraints on genetic interactions that may have adverse consequences. New instream structures should be avoided, whilst the impact of existing structures needs to be evaluated.

Yes


Plant community: species composition and abundance

Survey the macrophytes of representative stretches at intervals of ca. 5 km , using the method of Holmes (1983) and a standard check-list of macrophyte species (see Appendix 2 of the JNCC CSM

(i) Species Composition The following should all occur for river type II

At least 60% of species with abundance V or IV in the constancy table should be present,

AND

Species with abundance V & IV: Agrostis stolonifera, Cladophora/Rhizoclonium agg., Enteromorpha sp. Epilobium hirsutum, Glyceria maxima, Lemna minor, Leptodictyum riparium, Mentha aquatica, Myosotis scorpioides, other tree species, Persicaria amphibian, Phalaris arundinacea, Potamogeton pecinatus, Rorippa amphibian, Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum/ microphylla agg., Salix spp, Scrophularia auriculata, Solanum dulcarmara, Sparganium emersum, Sparganium erectum, Vaucheria sp., Veronica beccabunga Species with abundance III: Alisma plantago-aquatica, Apium nodiflora, Callitriche stagnalis, Filipendula ulmaria, Iris pseudacorus,

Yes


Criteria feature



Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005). Evaluate the community against the target community in the constancy tables (Appendix 8 of the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005). Record measures of species composition and abundance on the form in Appendix 9 of the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005. Alien species, filamentous green algae (including Cladophora, Vaucheria, and Enteromorpha) and other species indicative of eutrophication are not included in these targets and are dealt with in separate targets below.

At least 25% of species with abundance III should be present.

(ii) Loss of Species 60% of species with cover >1 in the initial baseline survey should be at least present and all species recorded as dominant in the initial baseline survey should still be present. (iii) Abundant Species At least 25-35% of species recorded as dominant in the initial baseline survey should still recorded as dominant.

Juncus inflexus, Lycopus europaeus, Lythrum salicaria, Myosoton aquaticum, Myriophyllum spicatum, Nuphar lutea, Potamogeton crispus, Potamogeton perfoliatus, Ranunculus sceleratus, Sagittaria sagittifolia, Schoenoplectus lacustris, Symphytum officinale. In-channel vegetation of SSSI/SAC rivers should be dominated by characteristic species. Species composition and abundance should be assessed using data from two 500 m stretches in each assessment unit where possible. When assessing targets (ii) and (iii), the data from all macrophyte survey sites in the assessment unit should be pooled and compared against pooled baseline data/reference condition. Cover values are expressed using a simplified DAFOR 3-point scale. Where necessary, 5-point scale data converts into the 3-point scale as follows: 5/4 = 3, 3 = 2, 2/1 = 1. Any sections classified as Type IV are considered to be in unfavourable condition. Comparisons in (ii) and (iii) should be made with the initial baseline survey/reference condition, not with survey data from the previous monitoring cycle. Non-native species are not considered under this attribute, but are covered under Negative indicators. Rare species are not considered under this attribute, but are taken account of under Indicators of local distinctiveness. Note that this component of the generic habitat FCT need not be applied to sectional river SSSIs designated for river habitat where the plant community is not a specific notified feature.

Bullhead

Negative indicators:

Assessment of stocking consents in

No artificial releasing of fish unless it is widely agreed that this

Many characteristic species can be affected by fish introductions, through increased predation, competition or genetic introgression, or

Yes


Criteria feature



Spined loach Fish introductions

relation to guidance on acceptable stocking levels.

is in the best interests of the populations and then only with local stock. Fish introductions should not interfere with the ability of the river to support self-sustaining and healthy populations of characteristic species.

through disease transfer. Guidance is being generated on the levels of stocking deemed to be ecological acceptable within SSSIs. The presence of artificially high densities of salmonids and other fish will create unacceptably high levels of predatory and competitive pressure on juvenile and adult bullhead. Excessively high densities of predatory and benthivorous fish species can cause unacceptably high predation pressure and alter sediment characteristics and sedimentary food supply in ways that are highly detrimental to spined loach. Care needs to be taken to ensure that stocking exercises do not keep the densities of such species at unnaturally high levels.

Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation White-clawed crayfish Bullhead Spined loach

Habitat functioning: water quality (General assessments)

EA standard monitoring protocols

Biological GQA Class ‘A’ / ‘B’ for all reaches of the river Chemical GQA Class ‘A’ / ‘B’ for all reaches of the river

A wide range of water quality parameters can affect the status of interest features, but standard biological monitoring techniques provide a reasonably integrated picture in relation to many parameters. The Biological Module of the Environment Agency’s General Quality Assessment scheme is based on assessment of the macroinvertebrate community. All classified reaches within the site should comply with the targets given. The chemical module of the GQA scheme sets standards for dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand and total ammonia. It therefore covers a number of water quality parameters that commonly cause problems within river systems. Where modelling has been undertaken, the river should comply with the targets at all points along it length except within effluent mixing zones of acceptable size. Generally, water quality should not be injurious to any life stage. A wide range of water quality parameters can affect the status of interest features, but standard biological monitoring techniques provide a reasonably integrated picture in relation to many parameters.

Yes


Criteria feature



All classified reaches within the site that contain, or should contain, crayfish under conditions of high environmental quality should comply with the targets given.


Habitat functioning: water quality

EA monitoring Un-ionised ammonia <0.021 mg L-1 .as a 95-percentile

The un-ionised form of ammonia is highly toxic to freshwater fauna. This target is the same as the EQS used by the EA. Where modelling has been undertaken, the river should comply with the targets at all points along it length except within effluent mixing zones of acceptable size.

Yes

Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation Bullhead Spined loach


EA monitoring Suspended solids No unnaturally high loads. Spined loach and bullhead: <25mgl/litre annually

Many characteristic species of different river types are susceptible to elevated solids levels, through reduced light availability (for photosynthesis), the clogging of respiratory structures, impaired visibility or siltation of coarse substrates. Lowland clay and alluvial river sections are more depositional in character and resident biota are generally more tolerant. Suspended solids measurements are also essential to the estimation of particulate loads within the river network (in combination with gauged flow data), to provide an indication of the risk of siltation. Elevated levels of suspended solids can clog the respiratory structures of crayfish.


Criteria feature



The target of <25 mg L-1

(annual mean) is based on the EC Freshwater Fish Directive. Most river SSSIs/ ASSIs and SACs do not extend to the entire catchment. Some life-cycle stages are potentially susceptible to damage from siltation, the source of which may lie elsewhere in the catchment outside the site boundary. Sources of fines include run-off from arable land, land (especially banks) trampled by livestock, sewage and industrial discharges.

Yes

Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation Bullhead Spined loach White-clawed crayfish


EA monitoring Orthophosphate levels: < 0.10mg/litre as an annual mean

Elevated phosphorus levels interfere with competitive interactions between higher plant species and between higher plants and algae, leading to dominance by attached forms of algae, deterioration of vegetative habitat, and declines in abundance and/or diversity of characteristic plant species (which may include lower plants such as mosses and liverworts). The respiration of artificially large growths of benthic or epiphytic algae may generate large diurnal sags in dissolved oxygen in the water column and/or substrate fish and invertebrate species. Excessive benthic algal growth can also enhance the trapping of fine sediments within riverine gravels, enhancing siltation and exacerbating poor substrate conditions. Where modelling has been undertaken, the river should comply with the targets at all points along it length except within effluent mixing zones of acceptable size.

Yes


Habitat structure: channel and banks

For bank vegetation: a simplified Phase I habitat survey, carried out at 10 RHS transect locations or as part of the sweep-up survey (see Appendix 6 of the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005).

Bank and riparian zone vegetation Bank and riparian zone vegetation structure should be near-natural. For bank vegetation the target is a mean score for the assessment unit of 4 or 5. For riparian zone vegetation the

Note: The protocol in Appendices 6 and 7 of JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005 used to assess bank and riparian zone naturalness incorporates a modification due to negative indicator species. Spined loach: Extent of submerged and marginal plants: A mosaic of bare substrate and submerged beds of higher plants provides optimal conditions in relation to feeding, cover from predators and spawning (which occurs on submerged plants). Marginal emergents also provide important cover and feeding opportunities. Vegetation

Yes


Criteria feature



For the riparian zone: RHS transect data, assessed using the protocol in Appendix 7 of the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005.

target is a mean score for the assessment unit of 4 or 5.

management should be limited to no more than 50% of the channel width (submerged plants) and 50% of bank length (marginal fringe), cut in patches. Most river SSSIs/ ASSIs and SACs do not extend to the entire catchment.

Bullhead River morphology

Routine statutory agency consenting process

Woody debris removal should be minimised, and restricted to essential activities such as flood defence

Bullheads are particularly associated with woody debris in lowland reaches, where it is likely that it provides an alternative source of cover from predators and floods. It may also be used as an alternative spawning substrate.

Yes


Routine statutory agency consenting process

Weed cutting should be limited to no more than half of the channel width

The importance of submerged higher plants to bullhead survival is unclear, but it is likely that where such vegetation occurs it is used by the species for cover against predators. Weed cutting should be limited to no more than half of the channel width in a pattern of cutting creating a mosaic of bare substrate and beds of submerged plants.

Yes


Assess river morphology using RHS and fluvial audit

River habitat SSSI features should be in favourable condition. Maintain the characteristic physical features of the river channel, banks and riparian zone.

Slack water refuges should be present

Patches of high canopy tree cover should be present along channel banks with associated woody debris present within the channel

Unsilted coarse (gravel / pebble / cobble) dominated substrate should be present

The characteristic channel morphology provides the diversity of water depths, current velocities and substrate types necessary to fulfil the spawning, juvenile and dispersal requirements of the species. The close proximity of different habitats facilitates movement to new preferred habitats with age. Operations that widen, deepen and /or straighten the channel reduce variations in habitat. New operations that would have this impact are not acceptable within the SAC, whilst restoration may be needed in some reaches. Unsilted coarse (gravel / pebble / cobble) dominated substrate: males guard sticky eggs on the underside of stones. Larger stones on a hard substrate providing clear spaces between the stream bed and the underside of pebbles / cobbles are therefore important. Slack-water refuges provide important refuges against high flow conditions. Suitable refuges include pools, submerged tree root systems and marginal vegetation with >5 cm water depth.

Yes


Criteria feature



The relative importance of shade compared with the provision of woody debris is unclear, but the maintenance of intermittent tree cover in conjunction with retention of woody debris ensures that habitat conditions are suitable. In lowland reaches without any riparian trees, it may be desirable to introduce a limited amount of cover.


River morphology

Assess river morphology using RHS

Maintain the characteristic physical features of the river channel, banks and riparian zone.

Engineering works affecting crayfish habitat and refuges must at least replace the pre-works availability of such habitat and refuges.

Extent of large woody debris: Woody debris should be retained in-situ unless it poses a flooding or health and safety risk.

Vegetation management should be limited to no more than 50% of the channel width (submerged plants) and 50% of bank length (marginal fringe).

Extent of overhanging riparian vegetation: this should cover at least 10% of the bank length throughout the year, distributed in patches along the margins

A natural channel morphology provides a diversity of refuge and feeding opportunities. The proximity of different refuges facilitates foraging and the movement of individuals to different habitats with age. Operations that widen, deepen and/or straighten the channel reduce variations in habitat. New operations that would have this impact are not acceptable within an SAC, whilst restoration may be needed in some reaches. Extent of cobbles/ boulders: where they occur naturally, cobbles and boulders are used extensively by crayfish as refuge. Engineering works can result in the loss of large material – any works should at least replace the pre-works availability of such refuges. Fallen branches and trunks are used extensively by crayfish as refuge. Woody debris is typically removed during maintenance operations, but it is important to retain as much as possible, particularly where other forms of refuge are in short supply. Bankside refuges provide important refuges and are often lost during engineering operations. Any works should at least replace the pre-works availability of refuges. Submerged higher plants provide cover away from the banks, and also represent a valuable food source. Marginal emergents also provide important cover and feeding opportunities. Overhanging trees provide valuable shade and food sources and, in addition, supply woody debris to the river. Submerged tree-root

Yes


Criteria feature



Extent of bankside tree cover: overhanging trees should cover between 5 – 10% of the bank length, distributed in patches along the margins. provide valuable shade & food sources and, in addition, supply woody debris to the river. Submerged tree-root systems provide important cover & refuges from flood flows.

systems provide important cover and refuges from flood flows.

White-clawed crayfish Bullhead

Negative indicators

Crayfish surveys in catchments thought to be at risk

Non-native crayfish should be absent. If present, measures should be taken to control their numbers.

Once non-native crayfish species are established in a water body, native populations are usually eliminated quite rapidly, if not by competition and predation then by crayfish plague. If already present in an SAC, measures should be taken to control the spread of alien species and, if possible, reduce their numbers. Bullhead densities have been found to be negatively correlated with densities of non-native crayfish in the River Great Ouse, suggesting competitive and/or predator-prey interactions.

Yes

Otter Food availability

EA, local fishery trusts and/or SFCC data

Fish biomass stays within expected natural fluctuations.

Accurate information on fish stocks is difficult to obtain according to a recent review of data from England, produced by the Environment Agency (Research and Development Technical Report TR W256, Otters- Fish Prey Availability, Biomass and Sustainability) and may be extremely difficult to interpret. However, there is an obligation to monitor fish communities under the Water Framework Directive and a more comprehensive monitoring system is being instigated by the Environment Protection Agencies.

Yes

Otter Toxic chemicals

Monitoring by relevant Environment Protection Agency. Specialist group to meet at intervals to identify national trends

No increase in pollutants potentially toxic to otters.

Liaison between Country Agency Staff and EA/SEPA essential. Yes


Criteria feature



and extract information on individual SACs.

Otter Anthropogenic mortality 2 (Discretionary)

Road and rail casualties. Deaths due to fishing gear etc. Any site where there is a feature causing otter mortality. Data from EA’s reporting system. Obtain views from EA on implications of recent data. JNCC otter data on the CITES database.

Otter populations not significantly impacted by human induced kills.

Monitoring this attribute, where appropriate should provide data for installing mitigation.

Yes

Otter Disturbance Extent of public access to river

No significant change to river or bankside usage. No significant development

Yes

Otter Bankside cover

Proportion of bank lined with trees, scrub or thick vegetative cover

No overall permanent decrease Some change acceptable as long as no overall decrease. Yes

Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation White-clawed crayfish

Habitat functioning: water flow

Data on gauged and naturalised flows, flow accretion methods, and the Resource Assessment Method (RAM) Framework. Field observations

Flow regime should be characteristic of the river. Levels of abstraction should not exceed the generic thresholds laid down for moderately sensitive SSSI rivers by national guidance: Maximum acceptable % deviations from daily naturalised flows throughout the river: <Qn 50 – 20%

River flow affects a range of habitat factors of critical importance to bullhead and spined loach, including current velocity, water depth, wetted area, substrate quality, dissolved oxygen levels and water temperature. There should be >5 cm water depth over riffles in summer. The maintenance of both flushing flows and baseflows, based on natural hydrological processes, is vital. Detailed investigations of habitat-flow relationships may indicate that a more or less stringent threshold may be appropriate for a specified reach; however, a precautionary approach would need to be taken to the use of less stringent values. As a guideline, at least 90% of the naturalised daily mean flow should remain in the river throughout the year.

Yes


Criteria feature



Bullhead Spined loach

Qn50 – 95 – 15% >Qn95 – 10-15% Ecological flow criteria already laid down for the river should also be complied with. There should be no obvious problems with water availability within the monitoring unit.

Naturalised flow is defined as the flow in the absence of abstractions and discharges. The generic targets vary according to the specific sensitivity of the reach type, with large lowland rivers having somewhat lower sensitivity than headwater streams. Any relaxation of generic targets on regulated SSSI rivers should relate to the desirability and ecological sustainability of regulating structures. The availability and reliability of data is patchy – long-term gauged data can be used until adequate naturalised data become available, although the impact of abstractions on historical flow records should be considered.

Audit Trail

Rationale for limiting standards to specified parts of the site

Indicators of local distinctiveness removed from the standards as site-specific aspects are covered by other attributes.


Habitat structure: substrate target taken from EA Conservation Strategy for the River Mease SAC in Liaison EA File.

Rationale for selection of measures of condition (features and attributes for use in condition assessment) (The selected vegetation attributes are those considered to most economically define favourable condition at this site for the broad habitat type and any dependent designated species).

Other Notes

Appendix 3

extract from the Humber River Basin Management Plan

Habitats Regulations Assessment of the North West Leicestershire

Documents

Transcript of Habitats Regulations Assessment of the North West Leicestershire