6. AFTER LIFE PLAN. The key outstanding issues are:

Transcription

1 6. AFTER LIFE PLAN This Plan focuses on the Threats addressed by STREAM, related issues and future action required to address them. It outlines the other threats affecting the conservation status of the River Avon SAC and the Avon Valley SPA, and notes action underway, proposed or required, but does not detail these. In summary, STREAM has achieved its objectives for river restoration, reconciliation of management needs of the SAC and SPA, and dissemination of knowledge to key audiences. It has also catalysed a partnership project to develop a strategic framework for restoration of the River Avon SAC which is currently undergoing pre implementation consultation. The key outstanding issues are: the need for extensive river restoration to secure favourable conservation status (this will require significant funding) stakeholder concerns about the strategic framework for river restoration uncertainty over public funding both for capital works and to resource advice to river managers continuing tensions between environmental needs for the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SSSI/Ramsar Site which leads to conflicts in water level management and channel restoration requirements. 6.1 History (see summary table of the project s progress) STREAM and Living River were developed to implement recommendations of the River Avon SAC Conservation Strategy (produced for the LIFE In UK Rivers Project). The Conservation Strategy was developed by English Nature working with key stakeholders engaged in the management of the River Avon SAC. It reviewed threats to the conservation status of the River Avon csac, identified those that were or would be addressed by statutory or other measures, and prioritised action for those that would not be addressed by existing measures. The priority threats requiring additional measures were: Need for a strategic approach to ecologically led river restoration Conflicts between the management needs of the River Avon SAC and its floodplain, including the Avon Valley SPA which encompasses the floodplain of the lowest 30km of the River Avon Threats from non native invasive plants Lack of understanding by key users and wider audiences of the importance of the River Avon system, its ecology and its management It was agreed by the stakeholder group that had developed the Conservation Strategy that these threats should be addressed by partnership projects, and that English Nature (now Natural England) should lead the development of these projects. As a result two complementary projects were developed: STREAM addressed threats 1, 2, and 4. It demonstrated strategically planned river restoration, resolved conflicts between the management of the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA, and has disseminated the project results and lessons learnt to a wide range of audiences. Living River has three programmes: biodiversity, access and interpretation, and education and training and runs from The STREAM project ran from 1 August 2005 to 30 September It has completed its programmed actions as follows: 1

2 River Restoration 6 restoration projects have been successfully completed. A range of techniques were used to restore 7km of degraded river channels, and at one site to reconnect the river and its floodplain. By restoring the ecological structure and function of these river stretches, their integrity has been reinstated and a contribution made to the favourable condition target for the site. This is evidenced by the monitoring programme. Reconciling management of maintaining water level in the Avon Valley SPA and fish interests of the River Avon SAC a review has been carried out of methodologies that can be used. The issue is that restoration of the secondary channel network to maintain water levels for bird habitats can impede migration of fish, and trap fish, with potential impacts on the populations of salmon and sea lamprey, as well as other members of the characteristic fish community. The review has highlighted measures that can be used to avoid impedance and entrapment, and the results have been disseminated at a workshop for land managers. Reconciling water level management of the Avon Valley SPA and River Avon SAC STREAM has developed Hatch Operating Protocols (HOPs) for the operation of water level control structures (hatches and sluices) in ways that are sympathetic to both the SPA and SAC. The whole river system is impacted by the management of structures created for a range of historic reasons (e.g. mills, water meadow systems, land drainage and flood prevention); these are still used to regulate river flow and water levels in the river itself and the valley. The issue is that water level management required to maintain suitable wetland habitats for the designated interests of the SPA can adversely affect river flows and therefore the features of the SAC. The HOP methodology is considered very successful and HOPs are now to be developed for all major structures in the whole River Avon SAC, not just the 30km within the Avon Valley SPA. In addition the Environment Agency is using the HOP methodology as the basis for developing national guidance. Dissemination and publicity has included a wide range of events and materials some of which have been produced jointly with the linked Living River Project. Interpretive materials that have been produced include the website, an introductory leaflet, biannual newsletters and a portable display. The project website has been running since February 2007 and by 30 September 2009 had received 13,981 hits from unique users. A wide range of events have been held to disseminate the work of the project to targeted audiences. These have included a conference and technical workshops on river restoration and water level management for river regulators and managers. The Project Manager has also contributed to 35 additional events including World Wetlands Day and the ECRR Conference. Engagement with wider audiences has been achieved through public events, many in conjunction with Living River, and STREAM attendance at events held by other organisations including national and international conferences. A series of interpretation panels have been produced for the restoration sites and other publically accessible viewpoints for the river system to provide information on STREAM and wider aspects of the River Avon SAC. The project has been actively publicised throughout its duration. 12 press releases have been issued, with 20 published media reports including radio interviews and newspaper reports. It has won 2 awards including the Living Wetlands Award and was a finalist in the 2009 International Theiss Riverprize. Exchange with other EU member states has included trips to the CASS project in Scotland and the Houting project in Denmark. 2

3 6.2 Current Situation STREAM and Living River have addressed the priority issues identified by the River Avon SAC Conservation Strategy (see Appendix 1) as requiring additional action to the statutory and policy measures already in place. STREAM has successfully completed its actions with significant beneficial effects for the SAC, and has put in place good practice guidance for future management. The most recent condition assessments (2008) categorise both the River Avon SAC and the Avon Valley SPA condition as unfavourable. The reasons for unfavourable condition are as follows: River Avon SAC: Inappropriate ditch management, inappropriate scrub control, inappropriate water levels, inappropriate weirs dams and other structures, invasive freshwater species, water abstraction, water pollution from agricultural run off and point source discharges,. Avon Valley SPA: agriculture, drainage, fertiliser use, inappropriate cutting/mowing, inappropriate ditch management, inappropriate scrub control, inappropriate stock feeding, inappropriate water levels, inappropriate weed control, overgrazing, undergrazing, agricultural runoff, game management, forestry and woodland management. These issues affecting the conservation status of the SAC and SPA specifically relate to STREAM Threats: 1. Need for strategically planned, ecologically led river restoration: STREAM has restored 7km of river channel at 6 locations in the catchment which have trialled and demonstrated a range of techniques. Alongside this action, the Project participants have worked together to develop a Strategic Framework for Restoration of the River Avon (SFRRA). Based on hydromorphological analysis of the River Avon SAC, it identifies and prioritises reaches needing restoration and/or modification of water control structures in order to restore favourable condition. Public consultation has started (autumn 2009) and implementation will begin in Priority site restoration will be carried out by the EA (Biodiversity Outcome Measures), and by NE (Higher Level Scheme and Conservation Enhancement Scheme). 2. Conflicts between the management of the River Avon SAC and its floodplain: The project has developed and disseminated best practice guidance on managing water level control structures and fish exclusion, and the HOP which balances the water management requirement of the River Avon SAC and the Avon Valley SPA. These will improve management of individual structures throughout the catchment. However there remain conflicts between water level management for the flood plain SSSI/SPA and the River Avon SAC interests. These conflicts are exacerbated by high summer flows, which have been exceptionally high in the final three years of STREAM. The EA and NE are working with stakeholders to develop consensus. 3. Lack of understanding by key users and wider audiences: Both STREAM and Living River have worked extensively to increase awareness and understanding of the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA. The target audiences have been influencing bodies (e.g. regulators), river and land managers, local communities, and people living in the catchment. STREAM s communication programme included specialist events, public events, reports, newsletters, and communication with other UK and European river management audiences. However it is clear from recent work on the Strategic Framework and the ongoing issues with water level management requirements for the SAC and the SPA that work is still required to improve knowledge and understanding of the conservation objectives, and to improve dialogue between the wide range of partners and stakeholders in the management of these sites. Other issues adversely affecting the SAC and SPA are outlined in Appendix 2. 3

4 6.3 Problems that Remain With STREAM issues The STREAM Partners carried out a SWOT analysis of STREAM remaining issues. Key points are: Strengths Successful completion of river restoration and protocols Strong partnership developed between project participants Skills developed in partners and in local river restoration specialists Development of SFRRA Opportunities The EA and NE have initiated major programme of river restoration, guided by SFRRA and funded by BOM Future works will be based on techniques developed by STREAM Future works will benefit from enhanced technical knowledge and understanding within project participants and wider river restoration community The Review of Consents will address major impacts from abstraction and discharges Weaknesses River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA still in unfavourable condition Project impacts limited by time and resources available for development and implementation Implementation sometimes hindered by regulatory processes Project focussed on Upper Avon catchment, limited impact on lower Avon Some resistance to SFRRA by local stakeholders, especially fishing clubs and riparian owners Threats Partnerships could decay without focus of STREAM and Living River Projects, and continued funding of WCSP. Work in Upper/Lower Avon may become less integrated Continuing tensions between management of River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SSSI/Ramsar; and between conservation objectives for designated sites and private land and river management Impacts of climate change including the likelihood of increased frequency and impact of extreme weather events The high cost and long time scale of getting rivers in favourable condition makes it low priority for spend at NE. The full results of the SWOT analysis are provided in Appendix 2. Factors underlying the findings of this analysis, and remaining issues related to STREAM Threats are: Capacity needs: limited staff time in EA and NE dedicated to work on the SAC and SPA, likewise voluntary conservation organisations; limited technical knowledge of staff due to complex and specialist ecology of rivers and wetlands. Lack of experienced ecological river restoration specialist contractors. Leading on from STREAM, the EA and NE will be finalising and implementing priority river restoration as directed by the SFRRA. The SW River Basin management plan identifies restoration of the River Avon SAC as a specific measure. This is likely to require dedicated staff input and a project approach to achieve a significant programme of restoration. Although both organisations are committed to completing the priority restoration projects, there are likely to be capacity issues relating to both the amount of time available and the technical demands of the work. STREAM project team staff have been reassigned to other work, although core staff within both the EA and NE have had direct involvement with STREAM and with the ongoing development of the SFRRA. Both organisations have wide remits and many statutory responsibilities so that core staff time dedicated to the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA is limited, and relatively small numbers of staff have detailed technical expertise, notwithstanding the learning gained from the STREAM project. However these organisations do have national policy and technical teams that can support local staff. The long timescales and high cost of getting rivers into favourable condition makes work on rivers a lower priority than terrestrial sites at Natural England. Non Governmental Organisations (including the Wildlife Trusts) have roles directly delivering conservation work, providing advice to landowners, and as facilitators between statutory bodies and private interests. However their engagement with River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA, either with ongoing work or new 4

5 projects, is largely dependent on funding for Avon specific projects, which can be intermittent or driven by funding body objectives. For example the Wessex Chalk Streams Project which has coordinated the SFRRA stakeholder consultation only has short term secure funding. It is possible that shortage of specialist labour will become an issue during the implementation of the SFRRA. Ecologically sensitive river restoration is technically demanding and, again notwithstanding the enhanced capacity developed during STREAM, there are limited numbers of companies able to carry out the design and execution of these projects. Institutional issues: rivers and wetlands are administered and regulated by several different government and public bodies, covering a range of activities and statutes some of which are conflicting: for example flood risk management, promotion of economic fisheries, conservation (including restoring to a more natural state), provision of water supply, potentially hydropower generation, protection of the cultural heritage. The River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA are administered by NE, acting on behalf of DEFRA. The EA has public body obligations relating to the SAC and SPA, as well as regulatory responsibilities that are highly relevant to the conservation status of the SAC and SPA, in particular for flood risk management, abstraction and discharge. Water Company engagement in the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA is determined by their duties and regulation. The Review of Consents (Habitat Regulations) will require some modifications to existing abstractions and discharges to meet conservation objectives for the SAC and SPA. The River Avon catchment lies in two English regions (South West and South East) and is administered by three planning authorities. These oversee allocation of housing development requirements, approval of development proposals at large and small scale, and at a local level may need to approve river restoration projects. Planning guidance for local authorities was produced by the River Avon Planning Forum, but will need to be kept up to date. In addition the EA and NE have responsibility for abstraction and discharge consents for new developments. There are a number of Wildlife Trusts and other NGOs based in two Regions and three Counties. There is a clear need for reconciliation of conflicts at a strategic level, and coordination of operations between and within these bodies. No one organisation has a remit to lead coordination of operations across the whole catchment. A Wessex Chalk Rivers Trust is newly established, however this body is voluntary and as yet has not fully developed its engagement with statutory bodies, water companies and other stakeholders. It is now acknowledged that river channel condition is a strong influence on the way that riverine communities respond to changes in flow. Thus unfavourable invertebrate and plan communities can be improved through restoring flows (both low flows and extreme flows) and by restoring the river channel. However the funding options for these two options may differ. The WFD places a requirement for the most cost effective solution to be used to achieve ecological status. Political challenges: public funding for river and wetland conservation depends on government priorities. More locally, there are tensions between water level management needs of the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SSSI/Ramsar Site and some stakeholder resistance to the SFRRA. There is also a widespread expectation that the river and valley will continue to be highly managed and water levels controlled. As state organisations both NE and the EA are affected by national political priorities, which ultimately determine the funding allocated for river and wetland conservation, including capital works programmes, sensitive management, and the provision of advice to river and land managers. Public funding cuts which may affect conservation funding are likely in the current political and economic climate. The long 5

6 timescales and high cost of getting rivers into favourable condition makes rivers a lower priority than terrestrial sites at NE. The river channels and land and are almost completely privately owned and managed. In general terms the natural environment of the river system is appreciated and valued. However there are many and differing views on how it should be managed: not all are compatible with each other or with the ecological interests of the SAC and/or SPA. There are some local interest groups representing either managers or river users these groups are keenly interested in the regulation and administration of the SAC and SPA. Considerable effort has been expended to build understanding and consensus over environmentally sensitive management. However the whole river system has been heavily modified for many centuries and landowners, river managers and local communities are accustomed to the river channels being managed for fishing, and to serve land drainage, and the floodplain being managed for agriculture, with water levels controlled by sluices and hatches. This perpetuates a view that the ecosystems depend upon intensive management. The SFRRA has reviewed the habitat restoration needs to restore the River Avon SAC s natural functions. It identifies major restoration works and significant changes to water level management to rehabilitate the natural functioning of the river system. Currently there is concern from a number of river and land managers and users and other stakeholders to the SFFRA, including direct opposition. The key issues are Reduced control of water levels and flow in the river and flood plain Potential impacts on landscape and historic environment assets Potential impacts on economic uses of the river and land. The primary economic use of the River Avon (including tributaries) is for fishing, dominated by coarse and salmon fishing in the lower reaches and fly fishing in the upper reaches; there is also a commercial net fishery at the river mouth (all salmon are returned to the river to conserve the population). These fisheries are an important source of local income for riparian owners; they are renowned for the quality of the fishing experience, which is carefully managed (including cutting channel vegetation, maintenance of fishing paths and fish stocking). The primary land use in the Avon Valley SPA, is extensive cattle production, with pasture and hay meadows. These have developed over centuries and depend on an ability to control water levels especially in summer. In the wider catchment agriculture includes extensive and intensive stock rearing (cattle, sheep and pigs), and arable. Diffuse agricultural pollution to the river system is an issue in some parts of the catchment causing sedimentation and eutrophication. Financial outlook: Public and private funding is likely to be reduced in current economic climate. Funding is required to implement the SFfRRA and to support ongoing environmentally sensitive management. There are government commitments to restore favourable condition of the SAC, SPA, SSSI and Ramsar, with funding earmarked for target driven major projects (EA BOM). Funding is very uncertain for NGO projects and potentially for EA and NE river work if public spending is cut. Foreseeable funding won t be enough for full capital and revenue hard to identify other sources. Work required to restore favourable condition to the River Avon SAC is identified by the SFRRA, and is estimated to cost a minimum of 35 million. This will be partly funded by the EA, with support from NE. 6.5m Euros (approx 6m) has been earmarked between , although there will be severe pressure on public funding during that period. NE can contribute funding via the Higher Level Stewardship and Conservation Enhancement Schemes, although the extent of this funding may be limited compared to the high cost of getting rivers into favourable condition. Funding for NGO activities in the coming years is likely to be limited, due to the economic climate affecting funding sources. 6

7 Technological needs: skills gap within organisations and consultants Within the EA and NE the Information Technology systems and support are sufficient to meet the technological and communication needs for river restoration. However time and skills constraints mean that technological capacity is not fully exploited. STREAM discovered that there is a limited number of consultants and contractors with expertise in river restoration design and management. This may be a problem in implementing the SFRRA. Future requirements/further actions The key remaining issues to address are Longstanding and inter related causes of unfavourable condition there is no single solution, and a clear vision of what is required to restore and maintain favourable condition is needed Tensions between management of River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SSSI/Ramsar need to look at long term scenarios and sustainable management objectives Capacity constraints within NE and EA need a project approach, especially to SFRRA, and lack of experienced ecological river restoration specialist contractors. Tensions between conservation objectives and economic land uses specifically opposition to SFRRA need for further stakeholder engagement Multiple regulation, need for regulators/public bodies to share objectives Financial pressures in short and medium term WWT are developing a landscape scale river corridor restoration project this would encompass the WCSP and may alter its focus Future actions required to address the Threats partly addressed by STREAM are shown in Table 1 overleaf. 7

8 Table 1 Proposed further actions STREAM threat Issues Current action Future action needed Lead Funding Need for Strategic River Restoration EA, NE Conservation Objectives and the River Basin Management Plan requires restoration of natural river functioning SFRRA strategic plan developed, stakeholder consultation underway (led by WSCP on behalf of all partners) Implementation of SFfRRA need to engage stakeholders further, identify key issues and where possible resolve EA (BOM) NE (HLS) required for WCSP Restoration may conflict with amenity/aesthetic and historic environment assets of the river (including gardens) Capacity constraints within NE and EA NE and EA national joint river restoration project to implement restoration at priority sites to meet PSA target for SSSI condition (currently funded to March 2010) EA and NE need to develop joint project approach, with commitments of financial and staffing resources to deliver programme Secured to Sep 2010 Tensions between River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA Lack of Understanding and Knowledge about the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA Restoration requires significant funding Main SPA/SAC issues addressed by protocols SAC objectives perceived to conflict with Avon Valley SSSI/Ramsar Need to increase appreciation of value of rivers and wetlands Need to increase understanding of ecological river and wetland management, including value for ecosystem services EA and NE produced Position Statement on weed cutting in lower Avon. Consulting with stakeholders to develop understanding Public understanding addressed by Living River Dissemination of STREAM project findings Advice provided by WCSP, and Avon Valley Advisor Need to review conservation objectives for River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SSSI/Ramsar, in light of predictable climate change impacts and ecological trends; develop shared objectives for sustainable management of SAC and SPA/SSSI/Ramsar Legacy products from Living River Project, maintain website Maintain STREAM website post project Secure funding for WCSP and Avon Valley Advisor NE (EA) Living River, then NE NE, WWT, HWT NE/EA staff resource in place (limited) NE web staff time Required 8

9 STREAM threat Issues Current action Future action needed Lead Funding Issues common to the NE, EA Threats Longstanding and inter related causes of unfavourable condition ; no single solution Tensions between conservation objectives and economic land uses specifically opposition to SFRRA need for stakeholder engagement Good understanding developed of individual causes of unfavourable condition; statutory measures in place to address key issues (e.g. water resource management, discharges, river and wetland management); some financial support for favourable management of Avon Valley through Environmental Stewardship Need to develop clear vision, shared between regulators and stakeholders, of conservation objectives for the river and valley. These need to address restoration needs and future adaptations to likely climate change, focussing on funding requirements. Staff resource in place (limited) Multiple regulation, need for regulators/public bodies to share objectives Financial pressures in short and medium term NE/EA will convene a Stakeholder Forum in autumn 2010, at close of Living River project. This will review issues identified by the River Avon SAC Conservation Strategy, and progress of STREAM/ Living River in meeting the priorities identified by the Strategy. Use of ecosystem services valuation for decision making. Living River staff time 9

10 Responsibilities: NE and the EA have statutory responsibilities to secure favourable conservation status of the SAC and SPA/Ramsar, to the underpinning SSSIs. They have regulatory powers to control adverse impacts. Other public bodies (e.g. water companies, local authorities) have statutory responsibilities to further the conservation status of the sites. Voluntary conservation organisations make a valuable contribution to both conservation management and liaison with land and river owners, managers and users. The key responsibility for both directing and funding conservation measures lies with NE and the EA. Funding mechanisms: STREAM and Living River are partnership projects secured a total of 2m Euros for measures to address the priority threats in the River Avon SAC Conservation Strategy. At the close of these projects the available funding sources are: NE s Higher Level Stewardship (HLS)for agricultural and associated land uses, and Conservation Enhancement Scheme (CES) for non agricultural works including river restoration. Both schemes prioritise SACs/SPAs/Ramsar and SSSIs EA s programme funds, including specifically the BOM programme which will fund some of the key SFRRA projects this is a source of funding that has arisen during the life of STREAM Water company funding, in particularly through the AMP which provides funding for agreed conservation measures none proposed Potentially, funding could be secured for conservation works from grant programmes such as LIFE, ALSF. This would require a targeted project consistent with the programme aims, often developed and delivered through a partnership of relevant organisations. The current funding position for river restoration and environmentally sensitive land management is relatively healthy due to commitments by EA (BOM) and NE (HLS). However these public funds are vulnerable to political pressures and at present to potential public funding cuts. The Stakeholder Forum (Autumn 2010) will assess whether further projects are needed to further the conservation objectives for the SAC and SPA, and which funding sources may be appropriate, especially to enhance joint working by NE and the EA with stakeholders. 10

11 Appendix 1 Threats to favourable condition of the River Avon SAC Threats in STREAM bid Addressed by Action Completed, ongoing, action required Partners and Resources THREAT 1: HISTORIC LAND DRAINAGE AND FLOOD DEFENCE ENGINEERING WHICH HAS DAMAGED ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF THE RIVER AVON SAC STREAM SFRRA PSA targets BOM WSCP Restored 7km of river in 6 demonstration projects secured management of project sites for future. Whole river strategic restoration plan identifies priorities for river channel restoration. Reporting October 2009, implementation 2010 onwards. Joint EA/NE statement of action over next 2yrs for SSSI rivers. Developed programme of restoration works required for favourable condition of SSSI/SAC/SPA features BOM will include Implementation plan to deliver restoration projects Project provides advice to landowners and river managers on river restoration; also coordinate reach scale restoration, in Wiltshire Wessex Water, NE, EA, WCSP funding initial study. Implementation will require resources from range of organisations. EA has budget for next 5 years NE introduced CES (includes rivers) + HLS for most land management Future funding for major projects unclear/vulnerable. WSCP partners: Wessex Water, WWT, NE, EA, Wiltshire Fishery Association. Funding required beyond Threat 2: Conflict between water level management in SPA and SAC qualifying fish interests WFD STREAM Morphological condition is a WFD issue, addressed in river basin management plans Review completed of fish exclusion measures at water control structures, to safeguard SAC fish species Methodology widely disseminated. Workshops held for landowners and regulators on new methods EA extended methodology upstream of SPA to safeguard migrating fish Led by EA. Funding of WFD river basin management plan actions unclear. 11

12 Threats in STREAM bid Addressed by Action Completed, ongoing, action required Partners and Resources Threat 3: Damage to SAC watercourse habitat due to inappropriate water level regime and lack of ditch management in SPA STREAM Hatch Operating Protocol completed to balance interests of SAC and SPA Methodology disseminated to stakeholders EA held national WLMP/HOP workshop to disseminate HOP methodology widely within EA EA Incorporated HOP methodology into WLMP implementation EA seeking bid to WLMP national programme funding EA BOM implementation EA Future HOP implementation to be take forward by BOM team. EA Review management of watercourse vegetation: high summer water levels adversely affect traditional management of SPA land. Has caused tension between agencies and landowners Serious water level management issues remain WLMP conflicts with SFFRA. Further action to be identified. All potential solutions (including SFFRA, WLMP & BOM) need strategic appraisal of in combination effects on water levels in SPA EA/NE have agreed position statement; working to resolve conflicts EA, NE representatives of landowners/ managers 12

13 Threats in STREAM bid Addressed by Action Completed, ongoing, action required Partners and Resources Threat 4: Widespread lack of awareness and understanding of the SAC/SPA features and their requirements by landowners/ managers, farmers, and fishing clubs, wider public audiences STREAM Living River WSCP and New Forest projects working with EA and NE Local Planning Authority STREAM project has disseminated results to wide range of target audiences: landowners/ managers, farmers, and fishing clubs, also wider public audiences, linked to Living River Products available via website Programmes of access and interpretation, and education and training. Aimed at wide range of audiences, complementing STREAM. Includes volunteering (1200 volunteers involved), 100 events and talks reaching 900 people, 200 people trained in ecological skills, working with 32 local communities to connect them to River Avon; river related issues integrated into parish strategies Projects promoting value and importance of river system to wide range of stakeholders for biodiversity and ecosystem services (water supply, flood protection etc) WCSP leading consultation on SFFRA, developing landowners acceptance of strategic vision for river restoration and implementation of restoration projects River Avon Conservation Strategy established River Avon Planning Forum: agreed consistent policies and produced planning guidance. From 2009 planning forum will deliver river related training so planners better equipped to asses river projects NE, WWT, HWT Salisbury International Arts Festival, Wiltshire Council, Hampshire County Council, EA, Wessex Water WCSP as above New Forest Project New Forest National Park Authority, NE, HWT Planning Forum Wiltshire, Hampshire and New Forest Councils 13

14 Other threats identified in the River Avon SAC Conservation Strategy, with actions Threats Addressed by Action Completed, ongoing, action required Partners and Resources Point source discharges (eutrophication) EA ROC, ECAP, AMP/PRO Statutory measures: ROC (Habitats Regulations) EA consulted NE on Stage 3 in autumn 2009, actions to then be taken forward Resources through AMP/PRO5 for public waste water. If from private industry compensation may need to be provided Diffuse pollution CSF Project ongoing in Avon Catchment to address agricultural diffuse pollution, new targeting includes River Avon SAC except the River Bourne. Works on farm tracks, roads and manure storage ongoing Test catchment to assess the effectiveness of on farm abatement measures on diffuse pollution. Abstraction Managing exploitation of fish stocks Problem species ROC,CAMS, AMP/PRO EA Catch & release, NLO Living River WCSP and New Forest Project Mink Swans Non native crayfish Statutory measures: ROC (Habitats Regulations) EA consulted NE on Stage 3 in autumn 2009, actions to then be taken forward SAP (March 2009) identified further actions to safeguard salmon stocks, continue existing actions on exploitation. Irish drift nets bought out 2007 Invasive Plants: Catchment wide Invasive Plants Forum established by Living River will develop catchment action plan to manage invasive plant species on SAC Invasive plants forum established through WCSP. WWT secured funding to tackle Wylye catchment volunteer engagement to control Himalayan Balsam; bid made to DEFRA to extend this project throughout the Upper Avon and continue support for the Invasive Plants Forum and the forum will develop 20 year control plans Wiltshire WT has coordinated mink control in Wiltshire for 8 years. Will continue post 2010, subject to funding Study of impacts of swans on SAC reported spring 09, resulting action plan being implemented. Non native crayfish not having widespread impact Relic native population at Fonthill to be protected, possibly partly moved to a safe site CSF partnership programme funded by RDPE until March 2011 Further funding will be required post 2011 Resources through AMP/PRO5 for public water supply. If private industry licences amended, compensation may need to be provided Environment Agency, land and fishery managers, WSRT, water companies. Resources co ordinated by EA and Salmon Action group. SAP solutions funded through AMP and to be implemented 2010 WCSP (WWT, NE,EA, Wessex Water, WFA) Wiltshire WT Invasive Plant projects secured additional funding and will maintain forum and provide advice/action to 2011 Need to secure long term administration of Invasive Plants Forum New Forest Non native plant project started May 2009 may encompass the Lower Avon after Living River finishes WWT, EA, NE, WFA, landowners and fishery managers Funding required to continue WWT co ordination of action. NE, Wiltshire Fishery Association, Game Conservancy Trust Funding for small scale habitat manipulation work required Native crayfish BAP group, EA. Funding required for translocation of part population to safe site. 14

15 15

16 Appendix 2 SWOT analysis full results Threat Identified In STREAM bid Need for Strategic River Restoration Strengths attributes of the project or project team that have aided or can aid in achieving the project s objectives Successful project delivery created demonstration sites; development of restoration techniques, improved understanding of river restoration. Partner bodies have developed understanding of and skills in river restoration, in particular EA operations staff have developed practical skills Good partnership working International exchange of experiences and learning benefits EU relationships and ensures dissemination of project learning across EU STREAM and WLMP partnership initiated SFFRA a scientific appraisal of the condition of river, prioritising channel restoration to achieve favourable condition in the River Avon SAC Weaknesses attributes of the project or the project team that have harmed or can harm the project s objectives River Avon SAC is still in unfavourable condition Focus of restoration work has been on upper catchment (narrower river sections); limited benefits and learning for larger scale restoration Initial selection of restoration sites compromised by time limitations; designs constrained by factors outside project control, lack of long term monitoring; weaknesses of techniques may not be detected/ managed, techniques with problems may be replicated Temporary disruption of fisheries had negative impacts on local fishing economy SFFRA consultation has been too fast to build acceptance and consensus, especially on removal/alteration of water control structures; currently not supported by anglers/ landowners Procurement processes in statutory agencies can be protracted and may hinder project development and implementation Opportunities external conditions that might be helpful to achieving the project s objectives Environment Agency and Natural England PSA, BOM and WLMP programmes will undertake prioritised river restoration as guided by SFFRA Knowledge base developed by STREAM will inform future management of River Avon SAC River restoration skills that have been developed in contractors and consultants will improve future restoration work in River Avon and other rivers Threats external conditions that might be harmful to achieving the project s objectives Strategic approach could be lost after STREAM project closes return to individual projects and ad hoc work programmes Focus of river restoration could return to fisheries led projects, rather than ecology led Many issues affecting the conservation status of the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA are not fully resolved 16

17 Threat Identified In STREAM bid Conflict between Avon Valley SPA and River Avon SAC fish Conflict between Avon Valley SPA and River Avon SAC water level management Lack of understanding of river conservation issues Other features of STREAM implementation Strengths attributes of the project or project team that have aided or can aid in achieving the project s objectives Successful methodology for resolving conflicts between fish passage and water level management Successful development and widespread uptake of HOP methodology, plan in place to take this forward Increased public interest in river conservation issues developed with engagement opportunities provided by STREAM and Living River Development of partnerships mutual understanding between agencies, water companies and Conservation NGOs: shared awareness of issues; shared good practice and increased knowledge in partner organisations Raised stakeholder awareness of importance of River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA, including awareness of ecological needs Weaknesses attributes of the project or the project team that have harmed or can harm the project s objectives STREAM and Living River Projects are temporary Complex range of stakeholders with multiple objectives, and complex land ownership with high % private ownership limits ability of agencies to undertake significant measures addressing widespread problems Opportunities external conditions that might be helpful to achieving the project s objectives HOPs Joint New Forest NPA, NE, HWT advice service for landowners (to include R Avon and Avon Valley) started Autumn 2009 Potential continued co operation between project partners ensure legacy and further action Potential support and actions from stakeholders encouraged by STREAM guidance and advice notes Threats external conditions that might be harmful to achieving the project s objectives Demands by landowners for lower summer water levels in Avon Valley SPA conflict with needs of River Avon SAC; also may not be sustainable in face of climate change Post STREAM communication between partners could deteriorate Wiltshire focus could return to R Avon work 17

18 Threat Identified In STREAM bid Other features of STREAM implementation (Continued) Avon catchment lies in one EA Region/Area Strengths attributes of the project or project team that have aided or can aid in achieving the project s objectives Avon catchment lies in 2 NE regions involving 3 area teams Avon catchment lies in 3 Wildlife Trust areas Weaknesses attributes of the project or the project team that have harmed or can harm the project s objectives Revision of PSA targets will provide policy driver for government bodies Review of Consents should address significant abstraction and point source pollution issues Opportunities external conditions that might be helpful to achieving the project s objectives Link to Living River Projects only temporary Project activities and positive media coverage has led to reputational gains for partners (STREAM) and better public understanding (Living River) Comprehensive knowledge base of ecological data has been developed for River Avon SAC Living River has developed a catchment wide Invasive plant forum and management plan to control invasive species WFD ensures statutory bodies must address risks to ecological status of water bodies WCSP continues strong role as mediator between various stakeholders and interests Lack of statutory body funding commitment to monitoring prevents post STREAM Project medium and long term monitoring of restoration measures limits learning Currently no funding allocated for water framework directive measures Review of Consents will address abstraction and point source pollution Work on Non Native plants could promote cross border coordination of agencies and stakeholders WFD provides long term statutory driver to ensure good ecological status; addresses range of issues WSCP has potential to coordinate R Avon matters Potential organisational restructuring especially NE and the EA, this can affect continuity of initiatives and planning of future projects Threats external conditions that might be harmful to achieving the project s objectives Implementation of policies requires public funding Invasive species still a significant threat; may worsen with climate change Current threats to public funding; reduced funding for agencies, NGOs and advice projects 18

19 New River Trust is currently not engaged with conservation, industry or public groups Potential development of Rivers Trust for Southern Chalk Streams could be a good way to coordinate stakeholder engagement 19