Draft for Comment and Consultation

Transcription

1 River Lugg Restoration Plan Management Report Draft for Comment and Consultation January 2015 Revision 2

2 Document Control Sheet BPP 04 F8 Version 16; October 2013 Project: Wye and Lugg SSSI Restoration Client: Environment Agency Project No: B228B001 Document title: River Lugg SSSI Restoration Management Report Ref. No: ORIGINAL Originated by Checked by Reviewed by NAME NAME NAME Niamh Burke Helena Parsons Helena Parsons NAME As Project Manager I confirm that the INITIALS Approved by above document(s) have been subjected to Andy Lee DATE April 2014 Document status: First Draft Jacobs Check and Review procedure and that I approve them for issue REVISION NAME NAME NAME 1 Niamh Burke Alison Flynn Alison Flynn Approved by NAME Helena Parsons As Project Manager I confirm that the above document(s) have been subjected to Jacobs Check and Review procedure and that I approve them for issue INITIALS DATE Nov 2014 Document status: First Revision for Client Comment REVISION Approved by NAME NAME NAME Niamh Burke Sera Roberts Helena Parsons NAME Helena Parsons As Project Manager I confirm that the above document(s) have been subjected to Jacobs Check and Review procedure and that I approve them for issue INITIALS DATE Jan 2015 Document status Draft for consultation Jacobs U.K. Limited This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs U.K. Limited ( Jacobs ) in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs contract with the commissioning party (the Client ). Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document. This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this document. Should the Client wish to release this document to a third party, Jacobs may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that (a) Jacobs written agreement is obtained prior to such release; and (b) by release of the document to the third party, that third party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against Jacobs and Jacobs, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that third party; and (c) Jacobs accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Jacobs interests arising out of the Client's release of this document to the third party. LuggManagementReport_DraftForConsultation

3 Executive Summary The River Lugg is a cross-boundary catchment straddling the Welsh-English border flowing eastwards from its source at Pool Hill in Powys, Wales through the towns of Presteigne and Leominster, then flowing south where it reaches its confluence with the River Wye at Mordiford near Hereford. The river shows a good example of a transitional river type, with both upland and lowland river morphologies represented. The River Lugg is designated as a SSSI and forms part of the River Wye SAC (illustrated in Figure 3.1). The Lugg is also bordered by two SSSIs near to its confluence with the River Wye, the Lugg and Hampton Meadows Unit 1 and Unit 2 (both in favourable condition). The Rive Wye SAC is designated with the primary reason for being a watercourse of plain to montane levels with Ranunculus fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation under Annex I of the EC Habitats Directive. Given that the River Lugg is a tributary of the River Wye and forms part of the wider Wye catchment area, this restoration plan will link to the Wye catchment plan being developed by the Wye and Usk Foundation (WUF). The WUF catchment plan will look at all aspects of the catchment and incorporate this Lugg River Restoration Plan (RRP) (and other complementary initiatives for the SSSI/SAC such as the Nutrient Management Plan). This study examines only the English river length (74km) which runs from the Welsh border at Presteigne through Leominster and south to its confluence with the Wye. Within this section, the river is split into 4 separate SSSI units, all currently classed as unfavourable recovering status. It is the aim of this study to examine where restoration measures relevant to the fluvial geomorphology of the river might be applied to help raise the status of the riverine habitat and as a result, the SSSI condition. An initial desk study involved a review of catchment scale datasets such as topographic, geological and historical maps, aerial photographs, previous studies on the River Lugg and previous geomorphological and ecological surveys carried out on the Lugg. These included: River Lugg Restoration Project: Development of an ecologically based vision for the River Lugg SSSI (2010) River Lugg Conservation Strategy (1996) Conservation objective and definitions of favourable condition for designated features of interest (2012) Severn River Basin District RBMP (2009), Environment Agency River Lugg Internal Drainage Board: Biodiversity Action Plan (2010) Core Management Plan for River Wye Special Area of Conservation (2008) River Lugg River Habitat Survey data ( ) Two field surveys were then carried out, the first during January and February 2014 and the second during October The surveys consisted of bespoke fluvial audits of the river reaches (or stream reconnaissance surveys) coupled with spot checks where access was limited due to intemperate conditions or issues with land access. During the survey, modifications to the natural geomorphology and habitat quality were noted with any land-use pressures observed within the river reaches. The data was recorded in the field using mobile mapping technology. The detailed LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation

4 technical output resulting from a desk study and the field surveys has been reported in an accompanying Technical Report. The survey data, together with data and knowledge assimilated from previous surveys and studies on the catchment, was used to create a suite of options for restoration, which are presented here along with guidance for implementation of the plan, with respect to stakeholder involvement and some rough costings for the measures proposed. The plan aims to set the direction for future short, medium and long term decision making on the management of the River Lugg and its associated river corridor. This document endeavours to provide the starting point to guide the planning and decision making process for the physical restoration of the Lugg catchment. Five restoration measures have been developed based on field evidence and data from previous studies: Riparian zone management Weir removal or modification Land management practices Bioengineering and Embankment breaching Flood storage and backwater creation The Statutory Bodies involved with this project recognise that implementation of the restoration measures will require effective and positive engagement with landowners, land managers and stakeholders. This Management Report forms part of a long term strategy (over a period of years), although it is anticipated that some actions may be implemented relatively quickly. The aim of this report is thus as a reference guide for decision making on the catchment and as a tool for collaborative effort between policy makers and landowners. It is hoped that this document may act as an outline plan for cooperation between stakeholders and implementation of riparian and in-channel improvements. The views and concerns of a cross section of stakeholders are being sought through public consultation based on these reports. Following consultation, the restoration plans and measures proposed in this Management Report and accompanying Technical Report will need updating along with finalisation of the restoration priorities. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation

5 Contents 1 Introduction The River Lugg Rationale for Restoration of River Lugg European Directives Project Aims and Objectives Outputs Aim and Objectives of the Management Report Developing the Restoration Vision and Outline Plans Stakeholder Involvement Limitations 10 2 The River Lugg SSSIs Lugg Catchment Overview SSSI and SAC Management Units River Lugg Restoration Vision JNCC River Type WFD Status Dominant Geomorphological Function and Processes Wider Environment Designated Sites Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Habitat Historic Environment Landscape Amenity, Recreation and Navigation 27 3 Pressures and Impacts Methodology Desk Study Field Survey Key Findings SCI-Map Outputs for the Lugg Catchment RMBP and Key Pressures Historical Works and Current Maintenance Hyder (2010) Study RHS Habitat Modification Class Analyses Lugg Weirs Report Description of Pressures in Relation to Impacts on Channel Geomorphology and Ecology Vision for the Lugg Summary 44 4 Potential Solutions Selecting Restoration Solutions Meeting WFD Objectives Room for River Approach Restoration Types Scale and Timing of Restoration 51 LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation

6 4.5.1 Urban Restoration in the Lugg Catchment Relatively Unmodified Reaches Descriptions of the Restoration Measures Restoration Visualisations 55 5 Reach-by-Reach Restoration Options Individual Reach Restoration Options Restoration Plans 73 6 Implementing the Plan Working with Landowners and Land Managers Prioritisation and Cost Shaping the Actions An Opportunity Delivery Mechanisms, Guidance and Sources of Funding Water Framework Directive Improvement Fund European Funding Environmental Stewardship Schemes New Countryside Stewardship Scheme Glastir Catchment Sensitive Farming Nutrient Management Plan Farming Advice Service Forestry Commission English Woodland Grant Scheme Wye and Usk Foundation Lugg Living Landscape Project Leominster Flood Alleviation Scheme References 108 LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation

7 Glossary Terminology Anadromous Berm (natural) Berm (artificial) Catchment Deposition Ecological status Erosion Favourable condition Floodplain Geomorphology Good ecological status Definition A fish species that migrates from the sea into fresh water to spawn Deposit of fine material along the edges of a river channel, which has a step change in the gradient of the bank, creating a ledge. It is typically a permanent feature which is vegetated with shrubs and trees where land management allows. The feature generally grows following a flood event, when fresh silt/ sand deposits are laid. It differs from a bar which slopes gently into the channel and is more mobile, less vegetated or vegetated with shorter species, which are quick to establish. Artificial berms may be created by using hard or soft engineering at the toe of the bank and filling in with soil or other material. They may also be created where a bank has been reprofiled, and the top of the bank cut away to create a step change in the gradient of the bank. This may often be linked to artificial two-stage channels Area drained by a river and its tributaries Laying down of part, or all, of the sediment load of a stream on the bed, banks or floodplain. Mostly occurs as high flows recede. The process forms various sediment features such as bars, berms and floodplain deposits A Water Framework Directive (WFD) term. Ecological status may be Bad, Poor, Moderate, Good or High. Ecological status comprises quality elements that fall into three categories: i) biological quality elements, ii) physico-chemical quality elements and iii) hydromorphological quality elements. Ecological status is also influenced by Chemical status. Removal of sediment or bedrock from the bed or banks of the channel by flowing water. Mostly occurs during high flows and flood events. Forms various river features such as scour holes and steep outer banks Description of the condition of the features for which a SSSI or SAC has been designated. Favourable condition means that the SSSI land is being adequately conserved and is meeting its 'conservation objectives ; however, there is scope for the enhancement of these sites. 1 A floodplain is flat or nearly flat land adjacent to a stream or river, stretching from the banks of its channel to the base of the enclosing valley walls and (under natural conditions) experiences flooding periods of high discharge The study of landforms and the processes that create them WFD term denoting a slight deviation from reference conditions in a water body, or the biological, chemical and physico-chemical and hydromorphological conditions associated with little or no human pressure. A primary aim of the WFD is for all water bodies to achieve Good Ecological Status. For a water body to achieve overall Good Ecological Status, all quality elements must be good or high and its chemical quality has to pass. 1 Taken from Natural England SSSI Glossary [Accessed on 24/03/2014] LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 1

8 Terminology Glide Planform Poaching Pool Pressure Reach Reference conditions Remedy Re-profiling Riffle Riparian zone Run Siltation/ shoaling Threat Tributary Definition Deeper water flowing smoothly over a river bed. Occasional larger cobbles or boulders on the bed may create some surface disturbance River channel pattern when viewed from above. This often referred to as either straight, sinuous, meandering or braided The erosion of banks caused by livestock trampling. Poaching may be a problem when livestock are wintered on grassland, particularly around gateways, feeding areas and watering points. This may lead to risks of soil erosion and compaction. Poaching may occur where the land is cut-up through livestock moving or tramping on wet soils. This removes the vegetative cover, leaving the soil open to the elements and prone to being washed away via surface water run-off and may pollute watercourses Deeper, steadier water. Pools are usually located at bends in watercourses, and depth increases towards the outside of a bend The influence or effect of something, for example land use pressure that causes a change. Pressures include morphological alterations, abstraction, diffuse source pollution, point source pollution and flow regulation. In the context of the WFD a significant pressure is one that, on its own, or in combination with other pressures, would be liable to cause a failure to achieve the environmental objectives set out under Article 4 A length of channel which, for example, may have a homogeneous (similar) geomorphology (river type) or restoration solution For any surface water body type, reference condition is a state in the present or in the past where there are no, or only very minor, changes to the values of the hydromorphological, physico-chemical, and biological quality elements which would be found in the absence of anthropogenic disturbance Natural England has a programme of remedies to address pressures impacting on the condition status of SSSIs. Remedies include river restoration projects; invasive non-native species control programme; Diffuse Water Pollution action and catchment sensitive farming. Remedies may be used in isolation or in combination to address the pressures affecting the condition of a SSSI. The reshaping of a river bank. May be a reflection of channel modification (impact) or restoration A stream bed accumulation of coarse alluvium typically linked with the scour of an upstream pool. They are characterised by shallow, fast-flowing water with unbroken standing waves flow type over gravel-pebble or cobble substrate. Channel substrate must be unconsolidated to provide suitable spawning habitat. Strip of land along the top of a river bank. Plant communities along the river banks are often referred to as riparian vegetation Fast flow of water, deeper than riffles and usually with a stony or rocky bed which creates a rippled surface Shallowing of channel due to deposition along bed, for example where a riffle is located Factor that could cause failure of river management objectives. A condition threats system is used to identify threats and their level of risk to the condition of an unfavourable recovering or favourable SSSI unit; the action(s) to address the threat; the organisation(s) responsible for the action; when the action is to be implemented. A stream or river which flows into a larger river. A tributary does not flow directly into the sea LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 2

9 Terminology Unfavourable condition Unfavourable recovering condition Water body Woody debris Acronyms AEP BAP CAP CCW CEH CFMP CMP COGAP CRF CSF DEFRA DWPAP EA ESS EWGS FAS FRCM GIS HLS HMWB NE Definition Description of the condition of the features for which a SSSI or SAC has been designated indicating that the special interest of the SSSI unit is not being conserved and will not reach favourable condition unless there are changes to the site management or external pressures. The longer the SSSI unit remains in this poor condition, the more difficult it will be, in general, to achieve recovery. 2 Unfavourable recovering condition is often known simply as 'recovering'. SSSI units are not yet fully conserved but all the necessary management measures are in place. Provided that the recovery work is sustained, the SSSI will reach favourable condition in time. In many cases, restoration takes time. Woodland that has been neglected for 50 years will take several years to bring back into a working coppice cycle. A drained peat bog might need years to restore a reasonable coverage of sphagnum. 3 A water body is a WFD term and is the division of rivers, lakes, tidal/ coastal and groundwaters into discrete units for management and reporting. Water bodies are defined using criteria set out in the WFD legislation. Woody debris includes logs, sticks, branches, and other wood that falls into streams and rivers. This debris may influence flow and the shape of the stream channel Annual Exceedance Probability Biodiversity Action Plan Common Agricultural Policy Countryside Council for Wales - As of 1st April 2013 Natural Resources Wales took over the functions of the CCW, Environment Agency Wales (EAW) and Forestry Commission Wales). Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Catchment Flood Management Plan CCW s Core Management Plan Code of Good agricultural Practice Catchment Restoration Fund Catchment Sensitive Farming The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Diffuse Water Pollution Action Plan Environment Agency Environmental Stewardship Scheme English Woodland Grant Scheme Flood Alleviation Scheme Flood Risk and Coastal Management Geographical Information System Higher Level Stewardship Heavily Modified Water Body Natural England 2 Taken from Natural England SSSI Glossary [Accessed on 24/03/2014] 3 As above LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 3

10 NRW Natural Resources Wales (which includes former organisations Environment Agency Wales, Forestry Commission Wales and Countryside Council for Wales). OS RBMP RSA SAC SPA SSSI WFD WUF Ordnance Survey River Basin Management Plan Restoring Sustainable Abstraction Special Area of Conservation Special Protection Area Site of Special Scientific Interest Water Framework Directive Wye and Usk Foundation LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 4

11 1 Introduction 1.1 The River Lugg The River Lugg is a cross-border tributary of the River Wye and joins the Wye near Hereford. It is the largest tributary sub-catchment within the Wye system. The Lugg rises at its upland source on Pool Hill in Powys and flows in a south-easterly direction to its confluence with the River Wye near Mordiford. The River Lugg is approximately 101km long and has a catchment of approximately 1,077km 2. The River Lugg from Hope-under-Dinmore south is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive. The River Lugg is also designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) with the river sub-divided into five sections. The first of these is within the Welsh borders and will be referred to as the Welsh SSSI. The other four units are to the east of Presteigne within England (referred to as the English SSSIs ) and are divided into four units. The River Lugg is considered to be one of the best British mainland examples of both a clay river and a river displaying a transition from nutrient-poor to naturally nutrient-rich water chemistry (River Lugg Restoration Strategy, 1996). Attributes used to assess the condition of SSSIs and SACs designated for river habitats and species have been agreed by UK conservation agencies and are set out Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Rivers (JNCC, 2014). Having identified the river types present in a SSSI, the aim is to achieve favourable habitat conditions appropriate to that river type for the characteristic biological community, rather than focusing on restoration to benefit a particular species. 1.2 Rationale for Restoration of River Lugg The English SSSI is divided into four units, all of which are currently in unfavourable recovering condition. The river has undergone historical modification which impacts upon the physical habitat quality of the channel, banks, riparian zone and associated floodplain. These modifications also impact upon the condition of the SSSI status and Water Framework Directive (WFD) objectives. Reasons for the unfavourable recovering condition are due to the failing of multiple targets including those set for vegetation and riparian habitats, invertebrates, dipper and salmon. More generally, the reasons are due to eutrophication, loss of trees (i.e. through felling, overgrazing or disease), flow regime, declining water quality, over abstraction and inappropriate weirs, dams and other structures (including flood defences). Restoration of the management units and features currently in unfavourable recovering condition will contribute directly to moving the river towards favourable condition. Within England, it will also contribute to the Environment Agency (EA) Flood Risk and Coastal Management (FRCM) Outcome measure 4c (length of river improved) Established guidance on developing restoration plans is available and has been applied to the River Lugg. Restoration of the physical habitat of the River Lugg will be delivered in partnership with multiple stakeholders and over long timescales. Restoration of the River Lugg SSSI will contribute to the achievement of Good Ecological Status on water bodies within the protected areas under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Some of the reasons for the water bodies failing to achieve Good Ecological Status are related to physical modification of water bodies, point source and diffuse source pollution (including fine sediment) and flow LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 5

12 regulation. These pressures also affect the condition of SSSI and SAC features. More information on the pressures facing the water environment may be found in the Severn River Basin District River Basin Management Plan (RBMP), which is produced under the WFD. This also outlines mitigation measures to deal with these pressures. Conservation objectives describe the targets for the River Wye SAC to reach and maintain in favourable condition the habitats and species for which they are designated. The favourable condition targets may be more stringent than those required to meet Good Ecological Status or Potential (GES/GEP). Under article 4(2) of the Water Framework Directive, where more than one objective relates to a given body of water, the higher target applies. Within Unit 1 of the English SSSIs there is another area designated as a SSSI referred to as the Lugg Meanders. The Lugg Meanders are 11.16ha in size and currently in favourable condition with features visible and intact. The area is characterised by a river planform of high sinuosity and consists of a series of meanders running through farmland of pasture and arable. The natural fluvial processes in this area are deemed unconstrained, with natural erosion, deposition and other fluvial processes occurring (Natural England, ). This area is an integral part of the River Lugg system and may act as a reference condition for other areas of the river which are not as geomorphologically intact. Natural England has produced guidelines for generating strategic physical restoration plans for SSSI rivers (Wheeldon et al., 2010). These guidelines will be applied to river SSSIs where physical modification has been identified as a reason for unfavourable condition. Geomorphological assessment and River Habitat Survey (RHS) data provide the building blocks for developing restoration action plans. River restoration targets the whole river scale whilst balancing the needs of flood risk management and accommodating flood defence structures where required. The purpose of this study is to develop a restoration vision for the physical habitat of the River Lugg and restore river processes, function and form where possible within the constraints of the cultural landscape. This involves identifying where the main pressures are and outlining restoration options and measures to contribute to achieving favourable condition taking into account the constraints such as property, infrastructure, land use and flood protection. What is river restoration? River restoration refers to river improvement activities that are designed to return the structure (morphology) and ecology of a river towards a more naturally functioning condition. This can include river management activities such as complete restoration (involving in-channel works) of an existing section of channel, enhancement of an existing section of channel (such as by improved management) and/ or the creation of a new section of river channel with features designed to replicate natural conditions. 4 Natural England (2013) Condition of SSSI units [online]. Available at: < =S&reference= > [Accessed on 18/01/13] LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 6

13 This study considers both recent and historical modifications to the river channel and floodplain. Modifications such as historical channel realignment and the construction of weirs have led to a reduction in the diversity of natural habitats. 1.3 European Directives This and future work on the SSSIs and SAC of the River Lugg will help achieve both the objectives of the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive. The Habitats Directive (1992) is the foremost piece of European legislation protecting designated sites which are deemed of high value or under threat and often contain many of the valuable and threatened species which also protected under the Habitats Directive in their own right. The Water Framework Directive (2000) was established to provide a framework for the protection of European water bodies. Its aim is to ensure that all aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands meet 'good status'. The Directive requires Member States to establish river basin districts and for each of these a river basin management plan (RMBP). These pieces of European legislation aim for SAC rivers to achieve High Ecological status and all rivers to achieve Good Ecological Status or Good Ecological Potential (where the water bodies are heavily modified) respectively. Funding relating to achieving the aims of these Directives will help deliver the future conservation, enhancement and ecological restoration of rivers where feasible. Although the current study is concerned with directly restoring the physical modifications to the rivers in the SSSIs and SAC, some measures may indirectly improve water quality (such as improving riparian buffer strips, potentially reducing diffuse pollution from agriculture). More information on the pressures facing the water environment may be found in the Severn River Basin Management Plan (RBMP), which is produced under the WFD. Annex D of this RBMP also outlines actions for Protected Areas such as the Wye SAC. There are targets set out to achieve favourable condition for the Lower Wye SSSI as well as GES for the Lower Wye WFD water bodies. Where the favourable condition targets are higher than that for GES, the higher targets must be met. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 7

14 Favourable condition Favourable condition is when the special habitats and features are in a healthy state and conserved for the future by appropriate management. Unfavourable recovering is when all necessary management measures are in place to address reasons for unfavourable conditions. If sustained, the site will recover over time. High Ecological Status (HES) For achievement of HES, the highest of the WFD water body designations, the values for the biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements must correspond totally or almost totally to undisturbed conditions. Good Ecological Status The general objective of the WFD is to achieve overall Good Ecological Status for all surface waters by To be in overall Good status both ecological and chemical status must be at least Good. Good Ecological Status refers to situations where the ecological characteristics show only a slight deviation from reference conditions. In such a situation the biological, chemical, physicochemical and hydromorphological conditions are associated with limited human pressures. Good Ecological Potential Some water bodies have important uses which prevent them from achieving natural conditions. These are classified under the WFD as artificial or heavily modified. These water bodies have a target to achieve Good Ecological Potential, which recognises their important uses, whilst making sure ecology is protected as far as possible by enforcing a series of mitigation measures. Good Ecological Potential can only be achieved when all of the designated mitigation measures are in place. 1.4 Project Aims and Objectives The project aims to identify river restoration or enhancement options that may help bring the River Lugg SSSIs and SAC up to favourable condition. These options should also help the parts of the river currently failing under the WFD to achieve Good Ecological Status. This overall aim includes the following specific objectives: 1. Undertake a geomorphological analysis and ecological interpretation of physical impacts on the River Lugg SSSIs and SAC, comprising a desk study, gap analysis and targeted field survey 2. Provide a broad assessment of the condition of the SSSI based on physical habitat criteria alone, using relevant sections of the JNCC Common Standards Monitoring Guidance (2005), available RHS and Hyder (2010) data. 3. Provide an outline restoration strategy for the river on a reach-by-reach basis, which is linked specifically to the conservation objectives for species and habitats of the SSSIs and SAC. 4. Establish the wider environmental baseline and receptors that may be impacted by restoration options. This involves looking at present ecological condition of the river and riparian zone and together with an ecological interpretation of the geomorphological evidence available for previous studies and field surveys, aids the establishment of a medium to long-term approach for improvement of riparian and in-channel habitat. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 8

15 5. Identify potential delivery mechanisms and provide approximate costs for the different aspects of restoration The plan is intended to provide a framework for the Environment Agency and Natural England and catchment partners to restore and enhance the River Lugg SSSIs and SAC for the next 20 to 30 years. The framework aims to inform regulatory decision making and guide efforts by all to restore physical habitat at the catchment scale Outputs 1. A Technical Report detailing the geomorphological and ecological appraisal, SSSI condition assessment (physical habitat only) and wider environment considerations 2. An updated GIS-linked database of raw geomorphological data and associated data (e.g. photos), with brief instructions for use 3. A management report containing the outline restoration strategy. The report will detail existing management regimes, restoration options, potential delivery mechanisms and indicative costs 4. A package of consultation material for a future stakeholder consultation event Aim and Objectives of the Management Report The aim of this Management Report, in conjunction with the accompanying interactive map, is to identify river restoration measures that may help bring the SSSIs of the River Lugg up to favourable condition, as well as bringing the SAC up to favourable condition (under the Habitats Directive). These options should also help the parts of the river currently failing to achieve Good Ecological Status or Potential under the WFD. This overall aim includes the following specific objectives: 1. Determine the impact of physical modification giving examples of each 2. Identify potential restoration approaches and their benefits 3. Provide an outline restoration plan for the river on a reach specific basis 4. Identify potential delivery mechanisms. The restoration options are presented in a series of restoration visualisations and descriptions in Section 4 and example plans in Section 5. They are dependent on the morphological pressures detailed within the Technical Report, recorded on the interactive mapper and listed reach-by-reach in Table 5.1 (see Section 5). The Management Report is intended to provide a framework for the restoration of the SSSIs and SAC of the River Lugg for the next 20 to 30 years. Some restoration measures could be implemented in the short term and become established within 1 to 5 years. Others may take longer to implement and become established, either 5 to 15years (medium term) or 15 to 30 years (long term). 1.6 Developing the Restoration Vision and Outline Plans The restoration plans have been developed using a combination of: Geomorphological and ecological expertise regarding the type of characteristics the river channel and its surrounding environment should exhibit under natural 5 LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 9

16 conditions and the use of this expertise to determine the level of habitat degradation from channel modification. The level of habitat degradation (inferred from channel modification) has been inferred from site survey observations, aerial photography, and RHS data. Secondary source data (including information on SSSI and SAC conditions and data on fish species present in the river system) from the River Lugg Restoration Report by Hyder (2010) and the River Lugg Restoration Strategy (1996). An understanding of the requirements to meet ecological indicators for the characteristic biological communities and knowledge of the links between habitat suitability and feature species. An understanding of how other pressures such as flow regulation may be impacting upon the river channel in parallel with morphological pressures Guidance on best practice for management of rivers and their surroundings, including Wheeldon et al. (2010). JNCC (2014) Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Rivers Review of widely used river restoration techniques including a consideration of their suitability, including reference to the UK s RRC Manual of River Restoration Techniques ( 1.7 Stakeholder Involvement The restoration visualisations, plans, table of river type characteristics and identified pressures aim to help river managers and stakeholders identify possible options that could be implemented along the River Lugg. These options aim to improve the natural function of the river and increase the length, number and connectivity of habitats for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. To achieve the aims of this Management Report, the Statutory Bodies (Environment Agency and Natural England) recognise the need for effective and positive engagement with landowners, land managers and other river users. In addition to landowners and tenants, the stakeholders engaged in the development of the restoration plans include the National Farmers Union, Angling Associations, Water companies, Wye and Usk Foundation, Wildlife Trusts, Forestry Commission, recreational clubs such as canoeing and navigation, Local Councils, Forestry Commission, Wye Navigation Committee and Catchment Based Approach Group, among others. This version of the Management Report has been produced for comment and is not intended to be used as a final restoration management plan. It is intended that this Management Report and the restoration strategy will be finalised post consultation, incorporating the feedback provided during consultation. Going forward, the Statutory Bodies will work with stakeholders to agree how best to prioritise and deliver the restoration plans. 1.8 Limitations The scope of the project is to produce a restoration strategy for the Lower Lugg including surveying approximately 30km of the River Lugg. The total length of river making up the designated English SSSIs is approximately 74kms. Limitations of this study relate to data availability and gaps in the fieldwork. Some areas have not undergone detailed fluvial audit - chiefly due to access limitations, and a spot check survey approach has been adopted instead. Field methods have been complimented where required by use of aerial photography and reference to OS maps LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 10

17 The study also interrogated existing data such as RHS (River Habitat Survey Data), the previous Hyder (2010) report on the Lugg restoration vision and recent aerial imagery of the catchment. An output on the model Sci-Map, courtesy of the Wye and Usk foundation, provided information on key areas of risk in terms of sediment delivery to watercourses from agriculture. As a result it is assumed that the restoration visions may be applied elsewhere in the catchment to the non-surveyed areas, based on the broad catchment understanding gained from the surveyed reaches and information gleamed from the existing data. The quality of the Sci-Map model data is based on the accuracy of the input data and as such may only act as an indicator of risk and is not a quantitative approach. However, it does give some indication and add value in terms of future prediction of land-use change within the catchment, and associated risk. Aerial photography may distort the proportions of the river, and not all pressures are necessarily captured. Similar to one time site visits, rather than repetitive surveys during different seasons and flow events, aerial photography only captures the river at one point in time. For example, land use changes which may occur frequently, may not represent the current land use at the time of reporting. An additional limitation to the January/February 2014 survey was the relatively high water levels at the time of survey. As a result, marginal, bank and in-channel depositional and erosion features and bank and channel modifications were not always visible. The bed was also frequently obscured by the turbid flow. Consequently, modifications, bank toe protection in particular, are likely to be under recorded. Spot checks completed in October 2014 revisited some of these sites to enable a comparison of the river channel in high winter flows and lower autumn flows through photographs to create a more comprehensive dataset. The field study and restoration options cover the area of the River Lugg from the town of Presteigne on the English border to the confluence with the River Wye. However, the character, pressures and impacts of the broader catchment upstream of Presteigne, such as flow regulation, land use impacts and information from the Lugg restoration vision (2010), has been considered in the analysis and restoration measures. This represents some 74km of the 101km of river length. This report is a draft for consultation and does not represent a final restoration vision and strategy. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 11

18 2 The River Lugg SSSIs 2.1 Lugg Catchment Overview The Lugg rises at its upland source on Pool Hill in Powys and flows in a southeasterly direction to its confluence with the River Wye near Mordiford. The River Lugg is approximately 101km long and has a catchment of approximately 1,077km 2. The River Lugg has a number of tributaries, the main one being the River Arrow which meets the Lugg just south of Leominster. The Lugg has numerous weirs along its length which serve a variety of purposes from flood defence to abstraction to stabilisation of river planform. Some of the weirs pose a significant challenge to fish migration preventing access to upstream habitat for fish and invertebrates. Recent collaborative efforts (EA and Wye and Usk Foundation (WUF)) have addressed some of the major obstructions allowing passage for salmonids and sometimes course fish to areas they have not accessed for decades. In addition to this, other actions are also underway to address water quality and abstraction issues and invasive species. Weirs also interrupt the natural sediment transfer dynamics of rivers, inhibiting or preventing the downstream movement of sediment, thus depriving the downstream reaches of sediment source. This may result in increased erosion of the banks and river bed as the river adjusts to maintain its natural sediment balance. The Lugg also possesses rights of navigation up as far as the town bridge at Presteigne and recreational canoeing is a feature of its traffic especially in the lower reaches below Leominster. River Lugg From its upland source in Powys in Mid Wales to its confluence with the Wye below Hereford in England, the River Lugg is considered to be one of the best British mainland examples of both a clay river and a river displaying a transition from nutrient-poor to naturally nutrient-rich water chemistry. Despite being canalised in some small sections of its 101km length and running through an intensively farmed catchment in its middle and lower reaches, it is a largely unpolluted natural river and supports river plant communities and otter populations of special interest. Natural England Citation Sheet LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 12

19 Figure 2-1 Lugg catchment overview featuring it cross-border location, tributaries and situation in relation to the Wye river to the south. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 13

20 2.2 SSSI and SAC Management Units The River Lugg from Hope-under-Dinmore south is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive. The River Lugg is also designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) with the river sub-divided into five sections. The first of these is within the Welsh borders, at a length of 26km and will be referred to as the Welsh SSSI. The other four SSSI units are to the east of Presteigne within England and have a cumulative length of 74km. The River Lugg is considered to be one of the best British mainland examples of both a clay river and a river displaying a transition from nutrient-poor to naturally nutrient-rich water chemistry. The River Lugg (England) SSSI is split into four units, all of which is currently assessed as being of unfavourable recovering condition (Table 2.1). The Lugg Meanders is also an SSSI within Unit 3 that is currently being assessed as favourable. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 14

21 Figure 2-2 Site locations covered by the January/February and October 2014 surveys and the River Habitat Surveys ( ) LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 15

22 Table 2.1 River Lugg (England) SSSI units and condition assessment status English SSSI Unit Location RRPseek funds to develop and implement 1 River Lugg (Wye SAC) 2 Bodenham Weir to Leominster 3 Leominster to Mortimer s Cross 4 Mortimer s Cross to Presteigne River Lugg Meanders Condition Unfavourable recovering Unfavourable recovering Unfavourable recovering Unfavourable recovering Original adverse condition reasons Fertiliser use, invasive freshwater species, siltation, physical modification and freshwater water pollution - agriculture/run off and discharge. Fertiliser use, invasive freshwater species, siltation, physical modification and freshwater water pollution - agriculture/run off and discharge. Overgrazing, fertiliser use, invasive freshwater species, siltation, physical modification and freshwater water pollution - agriculture/run off and discharge. Overgrazing, fertiliser use, invasive freshwater species, siltation, physical modification and freshwater water pollution - Remedies underway to address adverse condition (need continued implementation) ELS, invasive species control programme, DWPP, Integrated Nutrient Management Plan. ELS, invasive species control programme, DWPP, Integrated Nutrient Management Plan. ELS, invasive species control programme, DWPP, CSF delivery, Integrated Nutrient Management Plan. ELS, invasive species control programme, DWPP, CSF delivery, Integrated Nutrient Management Plan. Threats to condition (not in priority order) Water pollution (delivery and funding of CSF/ELS and DWPP delivery). Invasive species control plan. Delivery of actions in River Restoration Plan and Nutrient Management Plan. Recreational risk (disturbance). agriculture/run off and discharge. Eyton Favourable Features visible and intact. Natural Fluvial processes unconstrained. Natural erosion may soon mean some fences will need moving. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 16

23 The SSSI units are designated for the following river habitat types (more detail is provided in Table 2.2 and Section 2.3.1): Highland river with gravel and peat (Type VIII) Rivers on sandstone, mudstone and hard limestone (Type VI) Clay rivers with additional coarse substrates (Type II) Fast flowing calcareous small rivers on mixed substrates (Type I) These habitats support characteristic species including: Atlantic salmon, bullhead, otter, and lamprey. The Lugg is also designated for riparian broadleaf woodland and fluvial geomorphology. Table 2.2 River habitat types along the River Lugg based on Holmes (1983) plant community groups. These habitat types are typical of the differing types would look under conditions of minimal human influence. Type Group Description Location Type VIII C4iii Oligo-mesotrophic rivers, predominantly highland rivers with gravel and peat Type VI B4i Rivers on sandstone, mudstone and hard limestone small sandstone river with shaded margins Source to Gravel (Wales) Gravel to Aymestrey (Wales and England) B3i Large rivers in their lower reaches on Old Red Sandstone Wharton to Hope-under- Dinmore (England) Type II A2iii Clay rivers with additional coarse substrates Leominster to Mordiford (England) Type I A1vi Lowland, low gradient rivers Wergins Bridge (Sutton St. Nicholas England) The lower section of the River Lugg downstream from Hope-under-Dinmore to the River Wye (as part of River Wye SAC) is an SAC designated for river habitat that supports certain internationally notable aquatic plant communities and populations of river and brook lamprey, Atlantic salmon, and otter. Some features that contribute to SSSI status also contribute to SAC status and are outlined in Table 2.3 below. Table 2.3 Species of interest within the SSSIs and SAC Special feature SSSI SAC Type VIII Highland river with gravel and peat Type VI Rivers on sandstone, mudstone and hard limestone Type I Fast flowing calcareous small rivers on mixed substrates Type II Clay rivers with diverse substrates and flow patterns Water crowfoot (Ranunculus) Pillwort Pilularia globulifera Water Vole Arvicola terrestris Pea mussel Pisidium tenuilineatum Aquatic beetles/alder fly Riolus cupreus, Riolus subviolaceus and Sialidae Allis shad Alosa alosa White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes Twaite shad Alosa fallax Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 17

24 Special feature SSSI SAC Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis Bullhead Cottus gobio European Otter Lutra lutra Watercourses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation Geological/Geomorphological SSSI feature River Lugg Meanders Most of the ecological features found within the SSSIs have requirements specific to the ecosystem they are found in. This may include a narrow range of tolerance to physical habitat or flow water quality, riparian zone influences or hydromorphological requirements. To meet the requirements of favourable condition a population must be self-sufficient and sustainable. Assessments of the condition of a population within a catchment consider the suitability of certain reaches to species-specific habitat, which may not be suitable throughout a given catchment. Whilst particular species (including SAC species) may form part of the designation for a site, their requirements would normally only be catered for to an extent as defined by the habitat type. Exceptions to this include: 1) where there is good reason to believe that a higher level of quality is required by a particular designated species and the river is naturally capable of supplying this quality; 2) where a species is the only designation feature and there is good reason to move away from characteristic habitat form and function of the river. For further information about the special features found within the SSSIs and SAC refer to Section 3.2 of the Technical Report. 2.3 River Lugg Restoration Vision JNCC River Type Rivers may be classified on the basis of their aquatic and marginal macrophytes; Holmes (1983) identified 56 plant communities, which were divided into ten types for the basis of SSSI selection. The four main river types on the River Lugg are shown below in Table 2.4 alongside their generic characteristics under low anthropogenic impact. These river types support some of the species that are also designated SAC in the River Lugg catchment. These descriptions form the restoration vision for the River Lugg. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 18

25 Table 2.4 Four river types: major reasons for the SSSI designations of the River Lugg (taken from information in Mainstone, 2007) JNCC river type Type I: Lowland, low gradient rivers Characteristics of JNCC river types under conditions of low anthropogenic impacts Low gradient catchments and river channels running over clay or alluvium. Stream power is somewhat variable but is generally low. Bed materials are likely to be dominated by silts and sands, with coarser gravels accumulating at riffles to an extent dependent on upstream sources and stream power. Flow patterns are likely to be dominated by glide, with coarser substrates underlying occasional riffles and finer materials underlying deeper pools. Ecological importance Occasional logjams would be expected to generate stretches of ponded water providing additional and important habitat variability as well as woody debris for decomposer species. River bed gravels or other coarse substrate provide an essential but generally scant habitat for a wide variety of invertebrate and fish species these river types. Gravels and swifter flows also providing rooting opportunities for species, with an attendant fauna. Type II: Clay rivers with diverse substrates and flow patterns Low gradient catchment with river channels running over clay or alluvium (sometimes chalk). Stream power variable but generally low. Bed materials likely to be dominated by silts and sands with coarser gravels accumulating at riffles. Flow patterns are likely to be dominated by glide with coarser substrates underlying occasional riffles and finer materials underlying deeper pools. Woody debris accumulations would be expected to contribute to flow type variability in this river type and create refuge habitats and pools for aquatic species. Woody debris is also important for decomposer species. River bed gravels or other coarse substrate provide an essential but generally scant habitat for a wide variety of invertebrate and fish species these river types. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 19

26 JNCC river type Type VI: Baserich, mesotrophic rivers in western and northern Britain, with a moderate to fast current. Characteristics of JNCC river types under conditions of low anthropogenic impacts Catchments tend to be mid-altitude. Moderate stream gradients have substrates dominated by gravels and pebbles. Outcropping bedrock and boulders are common features creating variable flow types including step-pools, riffles and glides. Exposed side and mid-channel bars both vegetated and unvegetated are common as well as sandy margins with some vegetation. Where there is a floodplain, active meandering may occur with vertical cliffs and point bars. Ecological importance Riparian trees are important for providing a source of woody debris, leaf litter and exposed tree root systems as submerged habitat and refuge areas for fish and invertebrates. Type VIII: Moderategradient sand/shale rivers below uplands Similar to Type VII although steeper and more energetic, dominated by cobbles, boulders and bedrock. Vegetation is dominated by bryophytes (such as Rhynchostegium riparioides, Chiloscyphus polyanthus and Hygrohypnum ochraceum) with exposed bedrock and chutes ideal for a range of riffle-dwelling invertebrates. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 20

27 2.3.2 WFD Status The River Lugg comprises a total of five WFD water bodies, two of which are in England and will be focused on as part of this study. The two water bodies are not classified as Heavily Modified Water Bodies and details of the WFD assessment are provided for in Table 2.5. Table 2.5 WFD water bodies and status within the Lugg Catchment Element Water Body Water Body ID GB GB Water Body Name R Lugg - confluence River Arrow to confluence River Wye Water Body Length 44.8km 40.5km Management Catchment Wye (98) Wye (98) Hydromorphological Status Not Designated as Artificial or Heavily Modified R Lugg - confluence Norton Brook to confluence River Arrow Not Designated as Artificial or Heavily Modified Overall Ecological Status Poor Status Good Status Predicted Status Objective Protected Area Designation Biological Quality Elements Good by 2027 Good status by 2015 High chemical status by 2015 SSSI SSSI Current Biological Quality Poor High Fish Poor No data Macro-Invertebrates High High Physico-chemical Quality Elements Current Chemical Quality Good Good Hydromorphology Quality Elements Current Hydromorphological Quality Not High Not High Hydrology Not high High Quantity and Dynamics of Flow Not high High Morphology Good Good The River Lugg falls within the Severn River Basin District (RBD) in the Wye Management Catchment. To meet the WFD objectives and address the pressures on the water bodies, a River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) has been created for each RBD. As part of the Severn RBMP, Annex C provides a summary of a programme of investigations undertaken by the Environment Agency to improve our understanding on why certain water bodies are failing their WFD objectives and what actions could be taken to improve the status. A range of issues have been identified and some of the actions are as follows: Improve access and habitat quality for fish (specifically on the River Lugg) LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 21

28 Reduce physical modification and diffuse pollution through practical actions (such as fencing and buffer strips) and remove fish obstruction Weir removal of Environment Agency owned structures where appropriate and feasible Dominant Geomorphological Function and Processes The dominant geomorphological form and function aids the interpretation of river processes operating along the river. These processes are then interpreted by geomorphology specialists to determine appropriate management options to restore more natural form and function within the river system, taking account of catchment constraints. The majority of the Lower Lugg (61% of reaches) has been characterised as sediment transfer zones, with the 27% of reaches acting as sediment exchange zones. The remaining 12% of the reaches are either a source or sink of sediment (data recorded from aerial photography, spot checks and bespoke fluvial audits). The dominant reach functions and processes are illustrated in Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4 respectively. Those reaches marked as sediment transfer zones displayed few signs of erosion or deposition. Those reaches classed as exchanges exhibited areas of both erosion and deposition in close vicinity, acting to exchange the sediment within the reach (Figure 2.3). It should be noted that the numerous weirs present throughout the catchment, though chiefly in the area upstream of Leominster, impede sediment transport and alter the distribution of transported material. The sediment regime is thus altered from its natural functioning state and acts as a pressure on the system as a whole. Any remediation action which advocates weir removal should take account of the potential for sudden sediment release into the system and attendant effects on downstream habitat. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 22

29 Figure 2.3 Dominant reach functions within the Lugg catchment LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 23

30 Figure 2.4 Dominant reach processes within the Lugg catchment LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 24

31 These findings were observed during the January/February and October field surveys and using aerial photography. The historical map analysis supports the findings of a dominant function of a sediment transfer (61% of reaches), with few depositional features mapped (8%, sediment sink) and little channel change seen over a 120 year period. The proportion of reaches falling into each dominant geomorphological function is presented in Figure 2.5. Figure 2.5 Dominant geomorphological function of the 26 reaches of the Lower Lugg. Note: information was extracted from aerial imagery and data from the spot checks and fluvial audits. The percentages do not represent river length as the reaches are not of equal length. Dominant Geomorphological Function 4% 8% 27% Exchange Transfer Source Sink 61% The Lower Lugg downstream of Leominster reflects a largely stable channel, reflected in 59% of the reaches exhibiting a stable geomorphological process (Figure 2.6). There has been some channel migration of the Lower Lugg, particularly upstream of Leominster where there is historic map evidence of channel migration. This is reflected in there being 37% of the river recorded as laterally adjusting (Figure 2.6). Combining the historical analysis with the surrounding topography, it suggests that despite the presence of depositional and erosional features there is little movement of the channel boundaries, particularly downstream of Leominster. The rate of erosion appears to be slow and the depositional features probably reflect an inchannel morphological adjustment in response to a naturally fluctuating sediment and flow regime. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 25

32 Figure 2.6 Dominant geomorphological processes for the 26 reaches of the Lower Lugg. Note: information was extracted from aerial imagery and data from the spot checks and fluvial audits. The percentages do not represent river length as the reaches are not of equal length. Dominant Geomorphological Processes 4% 37% Laterally migrating Stable Narrowing 59% 2.4 Wider Environment Beyond the confines of the river planform a number of other receptors should be considered in the development of restoration visions. Each of these receptors will have specific stakeholders and interests resulting in modification (either naturally or through intervention) of channel functioning and distribution of habitats Designated Sites The River Lugg abuts a number of SSSIs, including: The River Lugg, River Wye (Upper), Lugg and Hampton Meadows, Dinmoor Hill Woods, River Lugg Meanders, Rockhall Quarry, Byton and Combe Moors, Wellington Wood and Scutterdine Quarry (Natural England, 2014). The lower section of the River Lugg from Hope-under-Dinmore is also part of the River Wye SAC Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Habitat UK Biodiversity Action Plans (for habitat and species) were succeeded by the UK Post 2010 Biodiversity Framework (2012). In England the most recent biodiversity strategy is Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England s wildlife and ecosystem services and provides a comprehensive picture of how biodiversity commitments are being implementing at international and EU levels. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 26

33 The River Lugg is part of the Hereford Local Biodiversity Action Plan. Important habitat features within the River Lugg include those of migratory fish (particularly Atlantic salmon), otter and native freshwater crayfish Historic Environment The Wye Valley (including the River Lugg) flows through an area with a rich historic environment which, despite evidence of prehistoric settlements, field systems, Roman sites, medieval castles and more recent industrialisation, occupation has remained at a sufficiently low level so as to not significantly impact upon the river environment (Natural England, 2012). The history of the landscape is linked to the former Royal hunting forest, farming, woodland management, mineral extraction and associated industries. Iron and coal have been exploited since Roman times with a wealth of tips, shallow small scale iron workings or scowles, quarry faces, horse drawn tram roads and disused railway lines. Some small adit coal mines are still worked by local free miners and small sandstone quarries remain active. Coppice woodlands provided charcoal for smelting and fuel while the forest was a major source of wood used in construction and shipbuilding. Other industries including tin plating, machine engineering, brick making, wire works and tanning are evident in the Wye catchment with remains visible in the numerous derelict industrial buildings and associated infrastructure. A review of information from the Heritage Gateway (2014) and the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC, 2014) has identified several scheduled monuments, listed buildings and registered park and gardens within the vicinity of the River Lugg and its floodplain. The accompanying Technical Report provides details of the sites within the River Lugg corridor. There are a number of bridges spanning the river that are listed buildings or scheduled monuments, as well as weirs and mills adjacent to the river. These assets would need to be considered in any restoration strategy implemented but are unlikely to pose a significant constraint to any catchment scale river restoration measures. Care will need to be taken for any works within the vicinity of these archaeological constraints, with detailed mitigation measures likely to be required Landscape Despite the localised industrialisation of the nearby Lower Wye valley since Iron Age times, there are limited obvious clues of industrialisation within the current environment, which has maintained its largely natural landscape. The landscape has been subjected to increasingly intensified agricultural practices, which were initially pasture/grazing, but in recent years is beginning to shift to more arable nature. There are also numerous mills north of Leominster and its tributary streams which have associated weirs. There are many distinctive semi-natural habitats some of which are of international and national importance including ancient woodland and replanted ancient woodland, traditional orchard, lowland meadows and fens Amenity, Recreation and Navigation From Rosser s Bridge near to Presteigne to the confluence with the River Wye the River Lugg is a public right of navigation. There are a number of weirs along the River Lugg which, along with the channel size, limit the possibility of navigation by larger boats. Some canoeing takes place on the river, mainly downstream of LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 27

34 Leominster, but not exclusively. An improvement to portaging signage and access around weir structures has happened over the past decade. In August to October 2003 Environment Agency staff were commissioned to conduct a study of the entire river assessing the barriers to navigation. A number of fences spanning the river, weirs, bridges and debris dams were identified and action recommended for the removal specifically of the fencing across the channel. Public access to the riverbank of the Lugg is very limited, with only a few sections accessible by a public right of way. As a result, recreational activities are minimal, with fishing likely to be the major activity on the river. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 28

35 3 Pressures and Impacts 3.1 Methodology Desk Study In order to identify the key morphological pressures on the River Lugg, a review of existing literature and data was undertaken. This included data and observations collated from national data on river ecology status (RMBP, WFD, SSSI/SAC designations) previous Lugg restoration report (Hyder, 2010), RHS surveys, aerial imagery and knowledge of historical modifications. A SCI-Map model output of sediment delivery risk which has been provided by the Wye and Usk Foundation has also been produced (see Section 3.2.1). The full findings of the desk study are reported in Section 3 of the Technical Report. This includes the SSSI and SAC condition assessments and the WFD status report and justifications Field Survey To verify the desk study findings and gain a more complete picture of the condition of the physical structure (geomorphology) and ecology of the Lower River Lugg, a field survey consisting of a series of bespoke fluvial audits of the river and spot checks where audits were not possible was undertaken in January and February 2014, and during October Due to the widespread flooding in early 2014, which affected the Lugg catchment severely particularly in the lower reaches, field observations were limited. Further field surveys were carried out during October 2014 to complete the survey and cover area which had been omitted from the earlier surveys. This data was accompanied by observations from aerial photography which helped to define land-use pressures and potential impacts due to channel modifications along part of the river which had not been included in the field surveys. 3.2 Key Findings SCI-Map Outputs for the Lugg Catchment Modelling studies have been carried out on the catchment to define the areas deemed most at risk of sediment erosion under certain land-use cover. The Wye and Usk Foundation has in conjunction with Durham University run the Sci-Map model for the Lugg catchment, which calculates the sediment erosion and delivery risk under various land use scenarios. The Technical Report provides details on the models results under various land use scenarios but briefly, indications are that risk of sediment delivery within the catchment is to increase in the near future. This is based on predictions that a higher land area will be dedicated to arable land use and existing arable land will be more intensive. Under increased arable conditions, model predictions indicate that the areas around Kinsham, (reach 2), between Mortimer s Cross and Leominster will be most at risk. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 29

36 In the lower Lugg reaches, the area around Hope-under-Dinmore and Moreton-on - Lugg are among the area under increased sediment delivery risk according to Sci- Map RMBP and Key Pressures The River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) states that the key pressures on the whole Wye catchment which need to be addressed to improve ecological status include: Physical modification (including aggregate extraction) Acidification Alien species Water quality (including chemical and organic pollutants, mainly from farming practices) Sediments as a direct pollutant Biota removal (including commercial fish take and weed control) Direct biological pressures Fish stocking (including disease and predation) Abstraction and other artificial flow pressures As part of the Severn RBMP, Annex C provides a summary of a programme of investigations undertaken by the Environment Agency to improve our understanding on why certain water bodies are failing their WFD objectives and what actions could be taken to improve the status. A range of issues have been identified and some of the actions are as follows: Improve access and habitat quality for fish (specifically on the River Lugg) Reduce physical modification and diffuse pollution through practical actions (such as fencing and buffer strips) and remove fish obstruction Weir removal of Environment Agency owned structures These recommendations have been taken into account when devising remediation options for the main stem Lugg in this report Historical Works and Current Maintenance There is evidence of channel change throughout the Lugg catchment from both anthropogenic and natural means. Historical maps provide an insight into the planform change from the 1800s to 1900s ( In the upper reaches of the Lugg catchment by Llangunllo, the river planform has remained stable since the 1800s, with a number of mill leats being introduced around These mill leats appear to have been removed or cut off from , leaving a single channel. The River Lugg is most active in the rural areas upstream of Leominster, where there is evidence of channel migration. In the rural areas in between the villages south of Leominster there is also evidence of channel migration. The catchment has also been influenced by the introduction of man-made lakes (around the 1970s), weirs and channel straightening (e.g through Leominster). LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 30

37 The development of intensive agriculture from the 1950s in the Lugg catchment has led to a growing threat on the integrity and quality of the Lugg (and surrounding catchments) ecosystems (River Lugg Internal Drainage Board, 2010). The major works recorded along the Lugg were primarily focused around Leominster. The works included implementing embankments or improving current embankments, comprehensive schemes (i.e. channel deepening and widening), resectioning and pioneer tree clearance. The focus of these works, which took place between the 1950s and the 1970s, was for flood alleviation in response to major flood events. Major works continued into the 1980s but were increasingly driven by channel improvement schemes rather than flood concerns. Summary tables of key works in more recent times are provided in Table 3.1 (general works) and Table 3.2 (flood schemes) below. This provides dates and descriptions of the nature of the works undertaken at that time. Table 3.1 Summary of works undertaken within the Lugg Catchment between 1960 and 1969 Dates River Description of works 1963,1964,1965,1966, Lugg 1967,1968,1969 Stages I, II, III and IV of the Leominster Flood Alleviation Scheme - Raton Bridge to Crowards Mill. Works included a flood diversion channel, revetments, channel widening and deepening of Lugg and realignment of Ridgemoor brook 1968, 1969 Arrow Eardisland Brook - included dredging to prevent water entering the Southall Brook (part of Internal Drainage Board) 1961,1962,1963,1964 Lugg Hampton Bishop Stank - construction of flood embankments and walls 1960 Pinsley Brook Leominster to Kingsland works included 1960 Eyton Common Brook regrading/ deepening Short length of flood embankment at Eyton Common (to the south of Leominster town) Table 3.2 Details of flood schemes undertaken on the Lugg catchment during the 1960s Date(s) River Lengths affected 1963, 1964 Lugg Mortimer s Cross to Lyepole 1965, 1966 Lugg Lyepole to Upper Kinsham Bridge 1965, 1966 Lugg Upper Kinsham Bridge to Rossers Bridge 1965, 1966 Lugg Rossers Bridge to Presteigne 1967, 1968 Lugg Rossers Bridge to Presteigne 1968, 1969 Arrow Pembridge Road Bridge to Noke Bridge Additionally, pioneer tree clearance has taken place on the Lugg between 1956 and These works included the removal of obstructions such as fallen trees, overhanging branches, and bushes which were thought to interfere with flows (including flood flows). Channel maintenance works are still being carried out along the River Lugg by the Environment Agency from (Environment Agency Flood Risk Maintenance Programme 6. 6 http// 1 ). LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 31

38 These include: Bankside vegetation maintenance and structure maintenance (Leominster). Essential obstruction removal on the basis of flood risk (Upstream of Leominster, Bodenham and north of Hereford). Blockage removal to maintain navigation (Hereford to confluence with the River Wye) Hyder (2010) Study The River Lugg restoration report (Hyder, 2010) identified a number of channel modifications and impacts which if addressed could provide improvements in the river geomorphological and associated ecological habitat functions. They found the main impacts to be a result of weirs slowing and ponding flows reducing in-channel flow diversity and consequently reducing ecological diversity. The report noted that sedimentation of gravels occurred frequently, reducing their suitability as spawning habitat for fish and other species (invertebrates). Additionally, the presence of numerous weirs was thought to present a significant impediment to fish passage. The report also noted that some reaches had undergone channelisation both recent and historical. In their appraisal of the river which consisted of a selection of eight short reaches between the towns of Presteigne and Mordiford, the chief impacts were defined and are listed below: Physical modifications: Bridges Weirs Engineered bank profiles Canalisation Flood banks Set back embankments. Other impacts on channel: Sewerage Treatment Works (STW) Water Abstractions Sediment delivery to river. Table 3.3 below summarizes the eight reach characteristics as defined by Hyder (2010). The equivalent Jacobs 2014 surveys reaches are listed alongside for reference; however it should be noted that the Hyder surveys covered only eight reaches each of metres only, while the Jacobs survey reaches cover the entire length of river from Presteigne to the Lugg-Wye confluence. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 32

39 Table 3.3 Name of NGR reach Presteigne SO to SO Kinsham Gorge Gilberts Weir to Holgate Weir Eyton Crowards Weir to Leominster Bifurcation weir and flood relief channel Hyder summary of reach characteristics and degree of modification as taken from their 2010 river restoration report Recorded SO to SO SO to SO SO to SO SO to SO river type Type V Type V Type V Type V Type V Selection criteria Jacobs 2014 Equivalent reach Appeared natural on map with active meanders and no obvious modifications. Located on upper section of the River Lugg in England. Appeared natural on map with channel constrained by landform of the gorge and no obvious modifications. Located on upper section of the River Lugg in England. Although this reach appeared natural on the map with active meanders it also had a number of obvious regular weir features. Located on middle section of the river. Appeared natural with active meanders. Also supported weir structure and flood banks discernible from aerial photographs. Includes part of the Lugg Meanders Geological SSSI. Located on the middle section of the river. Obviously modified with weir structures, flood banks and straight sections of channel and a flood relief channel around Leominster. Located on the middle section of the river. LUGG001 and LUG002 LUGG003 LUGG008 LUGG009 and LUGG010 LUGG012 Leominster Station SO to SO Bodenham SO to SO Lugg Meadows Hereford SO to SO Type V Type II Type II Appeared to be a straight uniform channel with flood banks visible. Located on the middle section of the river. Appeared to be a straight uniform channel but no obvious physical modifications visible on maps or aerial photographs. Located on the lower reaches of the river. Appeared to be entirely natural reach with no obvious physical modifications. Includes the Lugg Meadows SSSI. Located on the lower reaches of the river. LUGG014 LUGG019 LUGG025 LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 33

40 Name of NGR reach Mordiford SO to SO Recorded river type Type II Selection criteria Jacobs 2014 Equivalent reach Appeared to be relatively natural in form but flood banks clearly visible from both maps and aerial photographs. Located on the lower reach of the river, upstream of confluence with the River Wye. LUGG RHS Habitat Modification Class Analyses A total of 21 River Habitat Surveys (RHS) were carried out between 1994 and 2007 covering all SSSI units of the River Lugg (England). The majority of the surveys are located in Unit 1, in the downstream extent of the Lugg. Locations of the mid points of these surveys (which are 500m in total length) are indicated on Figure 3.1 and are colour coded according to the Habitat Modification Score (HMS) classes. According to the RHS carried out between 1994 and 2007 on the River Lugg, three sections of the river were classed as being severely modified reaches (HMS Class 5). These three reaches were recorded to have undergone extensive resectioning with some bank reinforcement also recorded. This resectioning is likely to be a result of historical channelisation activities that were carried out to improve the capacity of the channel to convey flows. Two of these severely modified reaches are located in the area surrounding Leominster (SSSI Unit 2 and 3), whilst the other is located upstream of Marden (SSSI Unit 1). One section of the river was classed as being significantly modified (HMS Class 4), which was recorded to have a major ford crossing the channel in the survey reach, which will have had a considerable physical impact on the channel. There was no channel resectioning or bank protection recorded. This reach is located upstream of Hereford in SSSI Unit 1. Sections of the river classed as obviously modified (HMS Class 3) are widespread throughout the Lower Lugg, with four reaches identified from Presteigne to Hereford. These sections are given this class generally as a result of some resectioning/reprofiling, bank reinforcements and/or the presence of a bridge. The RHS data analysis (Figure 3.2) shows that while 57% of the surveyed reaches are characterised as in Class 2 or above, 43% of the reaches were classed as within class 3, 4 or 5 which signify obviously, significantly or severely modified conditions respectively. These designations are important and validate the need for habitat restoration measures within the Lugg catchment. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 34

41 Figure 3.1 Map of RHS survey mid points and RHS class values LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 35

42 Figure 3.2 HMS class from RHS carried out between 1997 and 2007 on the Lugg showing both the number and percentage of RHS sites in each class Habitat Modification Score Class 14% 14% 5% 24% 43% HMS Class 1 HMS Class 2 HMS Class 3 HMS Class 4 HMS Class 5 Table 3.4 Habitat Modification Class and Scores description for RHS data Habitat Modification HMC Description Habitat Modification Class (HMC) Score (HMS) 1 Pristine/ semi-natural Predominantly unmodified Obviously modified Significantly modified Severely modified Lugg Weirs Report In an Environment Agency (2012) report on priority weirs on the main stem River Lugg, a total of 28 weirs were assessed and assigned with passability scores relative to salmonid, coarse fish, eels and minor species. The Technical Report details on the numbers of priority weirs on the main stem Lugg which act as impediments to passage. While fish passage is a key WFD driver, restoration of geomorphological process is required for SSSI condition, and for WFD morphology. The results are presented in Figure 3.3. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 36

43 Salmonid Coarse Eels Minor Action Required 0 Salmonid Coarse Eels Minor Action Required Figure 3.3 Numbers of priority weirs on the main stem Lugg which act as impediments to fish passage. Action required in the form of further assessments, fish passage options or weir removal nominations, are highlighted in red Description of Pressures in Relation to Impacts on Channel Geomorphology and Ecology Those reaches that display some degree of human impact (pressures) are likely to require, to differing extents, restoration to bring the river closer to a more natural (low anthropogenic impact) state, where more natural geomorphological and ecological conditions operate. Resectioning and overdeepening has reduced the diversity of geomorphology in some places and the channel has less of the typical function and form expected. As a result there is a reduction in optimum habitats for ecological features. In other places the presence of weirs poses a significant interruption for the passage of fauna and impedes natural flow diversity that may otherwise be present. Weirs will also impact upon the natural sediment dynamics which would operate within the fluvial system. Weirs installed along a watercourse generally act to stabilize the river laterally, create slow impounded reaches which block sediment transfer and impede flow dynamics. These are the chief consequences for siltation of river gravels which would otherwise present ideal habitat for invertebrate and spawning fish. The two other main issues are related to accelerated sediment delivery from the land surface area, and the lack of riparian vegetation and/or tree cover. These factors are inter-related in ecological consequences since buffer strip width and riparian cover will influence the rate at which sediment is delivered to the channel during wet weather events. A more vegetated bank-side zone will moderate the sediment delivery and thus help the river move closer to the desired near-natural state in terms of sediment budget. Additionally, riparian cover will create further habitat opportunities not least due to temperature control during summer months, but also providing physical root structures which will act as habitat for birds, mammals and invertebrates, and shaded areas which act as refuge areas for juvenile fish and vegetative litter to act as food for invertebrate species. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 37

44 A summary of anthropogenic pressures noted within the River Lugg is presented in Table 3.5. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 38

45 Table 3.5 Pressures caused by human activity and their impact on the Lugg SSSI Feature Description of impact Consequences Example Riparian zone Degraded riparian vegetation or absent riparian buffer strip Increases the surface runoff reaching the channel which may supply high loads of fine sediment or dissolved nutrients Change in the type of terrestrial vegetation along the river corridor away from that characteristic of the river type, due to land use. This may include complete removal due to urban developments, ploughing or reduction in variety and density of vegetation due to grazing by livestock Lack of trees There are sections of river which have limited riparian flora and may benefit from additional tree planting. The scarcity of trees and consequently woody debris in some reaches are a relic of the pioneer tree clearance undertaken chiefly between 1956 and Increases the vulnerability of the river corridor to erosion (soil loss) during floods where the ground is bare Makes the banks more vulnerable to erosion (e.g. lack of roots binding the banks) A thin riparian buffer zone acts as a poor filter for such runoff Lack of riparian vegetation reduces cover for fish from bird predation, and habitat for fly-life, which is fish food source May make the banks more vulnerable to accelerated erosion (e.g. lack of roots binding the banks) Lack of a supply of woody material which would, if present, vary flow and sediment deposition patterns and associated habitat benefits (particularly beneficial for Type II and VI rivers, Table 2.4) Lack of channel shading increases summer water temperatures Lack of cover for fish and otter Reduced organic input from leaf fall may reduce habitat suitability for lamprey ammocoetes Increased macrophyte and algal growth in high nutrient reaches Reduced foraging and nesting/roosting opportunities for birds and bats LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 39

46 Feature Description of impact Consequences Example Banks Degraded bank face vegetation Reduced the habitat variability along the banks and channel margins Change in the type of bank face vegetation along the Lack of riparian vegetation reduces cover for fish from bird predation, and habitat for fly-life, which is fish food source river corridor away from that Reduces feeding opportunities for salmonids characteristic of the river type (less aerial invertebrates) (see Table 2.4), due to land Exposed banks are more vulnerable to use or channel modification. erosion (lack of roots binding the banks) This may include damage by livestock or modifications such as channel straightening, bank protection and channel maintenance Accelerated sediment delivery Accelerated delivery due to land-use and management practices Increased sediment delivery due to intensification of farming practices and land management which leaves pathways to river channel exposed Accelerated bank erosion Increase in bank erosion due to land use or channel modification. This may include damage by livestock or modifications such as channel straightening, bank protection and channel maintenance Smothering of spawning gravels reduces suitability for lamprey, bullhead and salmonids, all of which require clean gravels and cobbles to spawn in, and for egg survival Loss of bank side cover Fine sediment increase within the water column which may be detrimental to faunal communities impeding fish respiration capacities and macrophyte growth. Potential shift in invertebrate and plant communities to those that are more tolerant of silt. Incidents of turbidity affect ability of fish species to survive- salmon tolerance for turbidity is low. Straight and resectioned reach LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 40

47 Feature Description of impact Consequences Example Modifications Reduces the habitat variability along the banks Channel resectioning and realignment The resectioning of the river channel, creating a trapezoidal cross section is often associated with land use or attempts to improve flow conveyance Lack of cover for fish Reduced invertebrate community resulting in reduced food supply for fish Loss of habitat connectivity (e.g. spawning habitat may be disconnected from juvenile habitat) The channel section through Leominster town has been highly modified with an embanked channel and limited diversity and opportunities for habitat Weirs Numerous weirs have been installed along the length of the River Lugg for various reasons, from flow attenuation and flood control, to stabilisation of meanders (at Lugg Meanders) This interrupts the channel connectivity and fish passage opportunities. Some of the weirs possess heritage value and as such cannot be nominated for removal but fish passage options are a potential means to improve connectivity and meet WFD goals. Reduces the variation in flow patterns associated with sinuous channels such as fast and slow areas and secondary circulations. This reduces the range of habitats associated with different flow velocities (see Table 2.4) Resectioned channels typically have a higher stream energy than would be anticipated naturally and are often incised (through erosion), thereby increasing the risk of bank erosion/geotechnical failures Higher flows in trapezoidal channels are particularly hostile to fish (especially fry) and invertebrates, causing loss or fragmentation of localised populations, especially where refuges are missing (fallen trees and backwater features) Reduced deposition may result in a reduction in spawning habitat for salmonids, lampreys and other lithophilous fish (e.g. barbel, chub and dace) Channelised and resectioned reaches through/near Leominster town LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 41

48 Feature Description of impact Consequences Example Floodplain Lack of floodplain connectivity due to Reduction in the occurrence of floodplain inundation means that fine sediment, which embankments would otherwise be deposited in the floodplain, is deposited within the channel, Flow Creating embankments along the river bank tops may increase the amount of water that may be contained in the channel before the floodplain is inundated Hydrological connectivity and floodplain storage this may increase siltation Embanked channels typically have a higher stream energy than would be anticipated naturally, thereby increasing the risk of bank erosion/geotechnical failures Embankments may be subject to sudden breaches, which may cause erosion of the land surface on the floodplain beyond If embankments are over-topped flow may become trapped behind the embankments and increase the duration of floodplain inundation This leads to reduction in the effectiveness of sediment transfer thus increasing sedimentation and associated vegetation inchannel, causing channel choking with vegetation during summer low flows and poor oxygenation The river is disconnected from its floodplain Many sections of the Lower Lugg are incised as a result of historical dredging practices, Although some flood alleviation schemes along the Lugg have been implemented to slow down the water and create some areas of storage, this is only in small localised areas. A lack of natural features, such as backwaters and wet woodlands, reduces floodplain connection between the river channel and floodplain, reducing natural storage of water in high rainfall events. Water is more likely to pass through the system at a faster rate, leading to flows rising faster than they might in a more naturally functioning system LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 42

49 3.3 Vision for the Lugg The restoration vision for the Lugg is based on restoring a more natural river habitat function and form. This will benefit the flora and fauna typical of the river type, whilst taking into account constraints such as the built environment and infrastructure. Restoring the geomorphology of the different river types as far as possible will allow the recovery of the ecology of the River Lugg. The Vision for the River Lugg SSSI (Hyder, 2010) summarises the key points as shown in the blue box below. Vision for the Lugg River (Presteigne to the Lugg-Wye confluence) From Presteigne to Leominster: The river is fast-flowing, with an actively eroding planform, creating tight meanders and oxbows. Sections of ponded flow are limited to those created naturally by log and debris dams. Sediment is dominated by coarse materials including gravels, which form extensive bars on the insides of meanders and midchannel. Limited silt deposition occurs, but the majority is washed downstream keeping the gravels clean for spawning fish. There are bare bank faces for nesting kingfishers, and erosion is actively undercutting the banks causing bank collapse and providing a sediment source. Riparian alders are extensive, including young saplings, with large mature trees with well-developed root systems creating habitat for crayfish and otter. In other areas, alder and willow form extensive areas of wet carr woodland with back channels connected to the river. The river banks are dominated by riparian trees but with scattered open areas allowing grassland and other vegetation to develop. The fields adjacent to the river are semi-improved grassland for extensive stock rearing with low-lying hollows supporting wetland and marshy grassland vegetation. From Leominster to the Lugg-Wye confluence: The river is broad with moderate flow dominated by smooth glides. Sediment is dominated by finer silts and extensive silt bars and banks have developed on the inside of bends and in slower sections. The banks of the river are gradually but actively eroding, providing bare bank faces for kingfishers and sandmartins. Channel migration within the floodplain is not constrained and the removal of sediment from the channel is not encouraged. As banks slump, low lying berms covered in vegetation develop along the edge of the river providing habitat for water voles and invertebrates. Fish are able to move freely up the river unimpeded by weirs and other structures. The river banks support scattered riparian trees and occasional small pockets of the dense scrub where fencing limits grazing, but the majority of the banks support semi-improved grassland, with some field managed for hay. Stock is able to access the river for watering but regular sections of banks are fenced to allow the establishment of taller riparian vegetation. In low lying fields, back channels and scrapes occur, which flood at times of high flow, and these remain damp for most of the year. Rain water/flood water storage in hollows adjacent to the river is encouraged for use in spray irrigation to limit abstraction requirements. At times of flood, the river spills out across the floodplain and drains freely back to the channel afterwards. Source: Hyder (2010) LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 43

50 3.4 Summary Generally, the Lugg exhibits some good examples of undisturbed planform, geomorphic processes and function. More specifically, the areas around Byton through to Amestrey gorge and south toward Lugg Meanders SSSI show relatively natural planform and may thus provide a good basis to work towards by prescribing restoration efforts in other areas where anthropogenic disturbance has led to reduced habitat quality. Figure 3.4 below shows an example of the naturally active River Lugg around Byton and show its naturally meandering planform with berm formation depositional bar and actively eroding banks. A fairly complex emergent plant community is evident here although the reach could benefit from some riparian tree planting. Figure 3-4 The river Lugg near Byton with naturally meandering planform and erosional and depositional features The Lugg above Leominster has reaches which show a predominantly natural physical character. The main pressures in this area are numerous weirs which interrupt the longitudinal connectivity and prevent characteristic fish species from accessing areas which would naturally form part of the riverine habitat. For the most part, the impact of these weirs is minor enough not to interrupt the overall geomorphic processes of sediment transfer, erosion and deposition and many natural features such as point bars, active meanders, and gravel shoals are evident. Other pressures presented at certain sites are increase sediment delivery due to intensive land use especially where arable land is not being optimally managed and where buffer strips are thin or non-existent. Poaching has occurred in places which may accelerate sediment delivery to the system. The river through Leominster is heavily modified and consists of large-scale channel realignment, bank reprofiling and revetments, the incorporation of weirs and little to no riparian shade or habitat. Despite the constraints placed on restoration efforts in this area due to flood risk concerns, improvements to hydromorphology and habitat may still be implemented through this section. From Leominster town through to the Lugg-Wye confluence, the river cross section is natural in places, but there is evidence of channel over-deepening and numerous flood embankments. Connectivity, both lateral and longitudinal, is thus a key area for restoration in this area, coupled with efforts to increase in riparian vegetation which will help temper sediment delivery to the watercourse and provide flood attenuation. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 44

51 A summary of the 26 reaches as defined by this study, associated River Habitat Survey (RHS) Habitat Modification Score (HMS) Class (where available), SSSI units and condition and WFD water body and ecological status are presented in Table 3.6 below. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 45

52 Table 3.6 Reach ID Reach by reach summary of the RHS Habitat Modification Score Class, SSSI unit and condition and WFD water body and overall ecological status Number of RHS sites RHS HMC Lugg001 0 N/A Lugg Lugg003 0 N/A Lugg004 0 N/A Lugg005 0 N/A Lugg006 0 N/A Lugg007 0 N/A Lugg Lugg009 0 N/A Lugg010 0 N/A Lugg011 0 N/A Lugg Lugg013 0 N/A Lugg Lugg Lugg Lugg Lugg018 0 N/A Lugg019 0 N/A Lugg , 2, 5, 1 Lugg Lugg Lugg , 4, 2, 2, 2 Lugg Lugg SSSI unit SSSI condition Unfavourable recovering Unfavourable recovering Unfavourable recovering Unfavourable recovering WFD water body ID GB GB WFD water body name River Lugg Confluence Norton Brook to Confluence River Arrow River Lugg Confluence River Arrow to confluence River Wye Overall ecological status Good Ecological Status Poor Ecological Status Morphology (WFD supporting element) Supports Good Supports Good LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 46

53 Reach ID Number of RHS sites Lugg RHS HMC SSSI unit SSSI condition WFD water body ID WFD water body name Overall ecological status Morphology (WFD supporting element) LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 47

54 4 Potential Solutions 4.1 Selecting Restoration Solutions As summarised at the end of Chapter 3, the River Lugg SSSI has reaches that are reasonably naturally functioning, whilst other reaches are more modified, impacting on the river habitat. This varied picture is reflected in the existing RHS data and new data collected in developing this restoration plan. RHS classification and further data collected this survey. The possible restoration solutions outlined for the River Lugg have been developed based on the previous data and information collated in the desk study element, and further field data collected in order to address gaps in existing knowledge. Potential restoration options are proposed for all of the defined reaches where required. This study and literature review has shown the most widespread pressure relates to riparian management. Measures prescribed to tackle this will aim to prevent further habitat degradation due to accelerated sediment delivery to the stream, and will tackle existent issues due to channel and bankside modifications and flood storage problems. Other significant pressures such as weirs and embankments are dealt with where encountered and measures to improve stream habitat and connectivity proposed. This Management Report should also be used to support the conservation of high quality sites (i.e.: those reaches classed under natural recovery/conserve and protect, as well as restoring sites where anthropogenic morphological pressures exist and natural recovery is not happening. Full restoration of sites may not be possible due to topographical and land use constraints, such as valley sides, flood defence and transport infrastructure, but restoration of the sites should be attempted where feasible. 4.2 Meeting WFD Objectives Developing restoration measures that help to achieve favourable condition will also help achieve the objectives of the WFD. Improving the morphology of the river channel and addressing the impacts of land use pressures on the floodplain would help achieve and maintain Good Ecological Status, and would not cause any deterioration in the status of the water body. 4.3 Room for River Approach The room for river approach or making space for water is an important philosophy for river restoration. It marks a shift in thinking for river management. For decades floodplains have been built on and rivers constrained by urban developments. Consequently the river s natural migration, processes and connection with its floodplain have been constrained and often prevented. The room for the river approach to flood and erosion risk management and habitat restoration is increasingly being used across continental Europe, including a national programme in Holland, and on powerful rivers such as in the Rhine, Meuse, Danube and Loire, primarily as a way to manage flood risk 7. 7 The following web links are two useful sources of river restoration case studies, which approaches which allow the river to move across its floodplain: Europe s River Wiki: UK s RRC Manual of River Restoration Techniques: LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 48

55 The room for the river approach takes into account the following: Dynamic fluvial systems are often unable to adapt naturally to changes in rainfall because they are constrained by traditional flood defence structures. Climate change is likely to mean more intensive rainfall, resulting in increased river flooding and changes in patterns of erosion. Traditional flood management solutions will continue to have a key role but alone may not always be effective or sustainable in the face of increasing flood and erosion risk over the next century, as acknowledged by the Government s strategy Making Space for Water (Defra, 2005) and the Pitt Review (Pitt, 2008). The risks caused by the historical and current management of mobile rivers, and a potential room for the river, or making space for water restoration approach is illustrated in Figure 4.1. Where critical infrastructure is a constraint, a similar erodible corridor approach may be taken. The erodible corridor concept consists of defining a corridor in the alluvial floodplain, within which decision-makers will not seek to control erosion using engineered protections. At its simplest the concept tries to balance the environmental benefits of allowing the river to move freely (within the corridor), and allowing sedimentary processes to occur and the economic benefits derived from protecting property and infrastructure (outside the corridor). The room for the river approach may also be reflected in and linked to the development of a riparian zone comprising a variety of flora, which is allowed to establish up to 12m away from the river s edge (see Riparian zone management visualisation box, in Section 4.7). The room for river approach will enable the river to move more freely and could be targeted as a restoration measure where lateral migration is evident. The room for river approach may only be applied where flood risk to property and the build environment may be effectively managed and no adverse effect on flood risk results. In addition, suitable land management incentives are required to support the land management that may be required where constraints to river movement are removed. The local landscape setting also needs to be considered in deciding whether a room for river restoration approach is proposed. Detailed negotiation with landowners is required along with detailed feasibility studies to determine where this approach could be applied. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 49

56 Figure 4-1 Risks relating to embankments and reinforcement on mobile river (top), and potential benefits of restoration and making room for the river (bottom) 4.4 Restoration Types Restoration measures to restore the river to the condition described in the restoration visions (Section 4.7), take the form of riparian zone restoration measures or/and channel restoration/rehabilitation. Riparian zone restoration is proposed extensively throughout the River Lugg catchment and channel restoration/ rehabilitation is confined to local areas and weir removal proposals as generally, river morphology is considered largely to display good fluvial geomorphology LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 50

57 throughout the catchment. The chief measures proposed take the form of the following five restoration classes. Five Restoration Classes Proposed: 1. Riparian buffer zone and riparian planting 2. Weir removal 3. Land management measures 4. Channel cross-section enhancement 5. Flood storage measures 4.5 Scale and Timing of Restoration The restoration measures have been further classified into four categories based on the degree of intervention needed, have each been assigned a colour code (Table 4-1). These categories are as follows: 1. Significant channel restoration - where the river has been extensively modified by major structures such as weirs, channel straightening and extensive lengths of bank reinforcement. 2. Assistance with natural channel recovery or measures to improve habitat and flow within the constraints of modified water bodies - where the river has started to recover a natural morphology, or displays the ability to recover, to past channel modifications, but the ability of the river to adjust fully or within a short time scale is considered unlikely without human intervention. There is typically less disturbance to the river in the short term compared to significant channel restoration. 3. Natural recovery/ Conserve and protect (no active restoration) - where the river channel is actively recovering a natural morphology from past channel modification. Natural fluvial processes are altering the channel bed and banks and improved habitats are developing. Optimal channel morphology is considered likely to develop without human intervention or some improvements such as riparian zone replenishment could be implemented. Routine maintenance should be practiced within the reach including control of invasive non-native species and coppicing to control phytophthora. 4. Riparian zone management (including tree planting and woody debris installation) - where riparian zone is degraded or where invasive species are growing. Where riparian zone management is recommended, tree planting and reduced grazing pressure are the principal measures intended for implementation. Where such measures are not possible, woody debris installation should be considered providing it does not have a negative impact on recreational pursuits such as canoeing. Riparian management also includes coppicing to control phytophthora. Each of the four different categories have different timescales for implementation/ commencement of the works and the full recovery of the section of river being restored (Table 4.1). LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 51

58 Table 4-1 Category Significant channel restoration Assisted natural channel recovery Reach scale and restoration option categorisation Colour code Red Orange Description Timing Impacts on geomorphology and ecology Opportunities for weir removal, weir Commencement of works dependent Improve connectivity between improvement, or the removal of on funding available (short to long channel and riparian zone / extensive bank reinforcement. Also the term). Full recovery, including floodplain. Improves bank realignment or re-meandering of established habitats, expected habitat. Improve sediment channel sections between 10 and 30+ years (medium dynamics within reach. Improve to long term) depending on scale of flow and substrate diversity. Removal or installation of minor channel structures (localised or short sections). Removal, set-back or breaching of embankments to create flood storage zones, improve floodplain connectivity. I Channel cross-section re-profiling and installation of bioengineering measures. works Commencement of works dependent on funding available (short to long term). Full recovery, including established habitats, expected between 3 and 15 years (short to medium term). Improve connectivity between channel and riparian zone / floodplain. Improves bank habitat. Natural recovery/ Conserve and protect Yellow The channel is currently adjusting towards favourable condition and no specific intervention is required, or some improvements such as riparian zone replenishment could be implemented Already occurring (immediate). Full recovery, including established habitats, expected between 3 and 15 years (short to medium term). Allow deposition of coarse sediments for spawning and juvenile life stages. Riparian Zone Management Blue Riparian zone measures are proposed to improve sediment budget and dynamics with the river system, or to encourage a more natural temperature control and lateral migration rate within the stream. This could be achieved by enhancing buffer strip, tree planting and management, and occasional fencing where needed. Riparian zone works may also provide flood relief measures if targeted to strategic locations. Commencement of restoration measure dependent on landowner agreement, cooperation, funding and potentially legislation (short to long term). Full recovery/establishment of habitats expected between 3 and 15 years (short to medium term). Reduced fine sediment input from surface runoff and increased marginal cover for fish. Remove fine sediment from surface runoff to prevent siltation of substrates. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 52

59 4.5.1 Urban Restoration in the Lugg Catchment The River Lugg flows through two towns Presteigne in the upper catchment and Leominster which is located in mid-catchment, as the river geomorphology naturally goes through the transition from upland to lowland river types. Through the Leominster reaches the river is severely constrained by development and infrastructure. These areas are also considered as high flood risk. In this area, the river has been subjected to intense modification pressures with straight channelised sections with limited flow diversity and habitable substrate. Unique restoration plans have thus been proposed for these areas, which involves bioengineering which appears to offer habitat improvement potential even within these highly modified sections with few other restoration options. Bioengineering methods, coupled with bankside shading may provide a way forward for problem reaches within the catchment, and further details are provide on this in Section Relatively Unmodified Reaches For those reaches in good condition (with no or very few modifications) or for which only minor potential riparian zone restoration has been proposed (e.g. reaches 3 and 17), the standard guiding principles of conservation and protection from degradation should apply and are as expressed below: Conserve the existing riparian and river bank vegetation, this will include coppicing to maintain tree health and control phytophthora where appropriate Look for opportunities to improve the width, density, composition of the riparian zone Retain woody debris within the channel (unless it poses a significant flood risk to buildings, navigation or infrastructure) Do not increase the number of channel modifications. New or replacement modifications should only be permitted with appropriate consent, where there is an immovable constraint and using agreed sympathetic techniques to minimise impacts Ensure that, if new land drainage ditches are excavated, or old ones restored, these are not routed to directly discharge into the river but are routed into an area of wetland or wet woodland to ensure that this water is filtered before entering the channel. These principles should be applied to the whole river (in addition to the specific proposals). Additionally, the following principles should apply to the restoration of the whole river: Restoration measures should work in tandem with the natural processes of the river; allowing lateral migration of the channel, and utilising natural recovery as much as possible Improve the connectivity between the floodplain and the river channel where it has deteriorated through re-sectioning Restoration at all scales should be monitored to enable adaptive management and improve measures implemented elsewhere in the catchment. 4.6 Descriptions of the Restoration Measures Restoration measures for the Lugg river types (based on Mainstone, 2007) that are relevant and applicable to the River Lugg as follows: LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 53

60 (a) Weir removal measures on the Lugg may serve to enhance river continuity and habitat connectivity within the watercourse. Proposals need to bear in mind potential limitations on removal such as flood attenuation purposes or the heritage value of certain structures. Installation of bioengineering measures and embankment removal or set back in selected areas to restore in-channel biodiversity and floodplain connectivity and function respectively. Riparian zone improvements include measures to reduce accelerated sediment supply, to provide more shade to the channel to benefit fish and to provide the means for large woody debris accumulation downstream which will enhance riverine habitats, flow types and channel bank erosion rates Land and livestock management includes measures to interrupt the sediment delivery pathways from agricultural land to the river corridor The creation of backwaters encourages areas of storage within the river channel, but also to create habitat and flow diversity within uniform sections of the river. Additionally, the creation of wet woodland habitat within the riparian zone, provides enhanced habitat while increasing flood storage capacity Weir Removal Where it is deemed appropriate within the main-stem Lugg, weir removal may serve to enhance river continuity and habitat connectivity within the watercourse, and serve as a direct means to improving WFD status by improvement in habitat quality for fish and invertebrates. (b) Cross Sectional Improvements For the Lugg, two chief enhancements affecting river/riparian cross sections have been proposed: (i) The installation of bioengineering measures in urban areas where other restoration measures may not be applicable or feasible. (ii) Embankment removal or set back in selected areas to restore floodplain connectivity and function where this action does not conflict with the CFMP Policy for the Unit. (iii) Cross sectional re-profiling and bank protection removal could also be proposed where there is adequate space relative to channel width. Reprofiling could restore some riparian zone ecological function in terms of sediment deposition, vegetation growth and habitat for riparian species. Reprofiling may also increase channel capacity which may serve as a flood risk mitigation measure. (c) Riparian Zone Improvement Increase riparian trees and scrub. An absence of trees along the river edge reduces the sources of woody debris, leaf litter and exposed tree roots, which provide submerged habitat for fish and invertebrates. In the absence or dearth of an adequate riparian buffer strip, the likelihood of increased sediment delivery rates to the watercourse is increased particularly during wet weather events. Additionally, poor riparian vegetation also makes river banks more prone to erosion, thus increasing sediment supply of the river and may result in accelerated bank erosion and consequent channel migration. Additionally, management of existing trees is important to ensure that riparian vegetation is as complex in structure as possible, thus increasing riparian biodiversity, sediment interception ability and the inherent resilience of the riparian zone. Of key importance to have mixed riparian vegetation of varying age range, which will also act to ensure the longer term robustness of the LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 54

61 riparian buffer zone. Improving links between the river and its floodplain may also create habitat opportunities, improve sediment control and create flood storage areas (see (e) below). Woody material within the channel would need appropriate management so as not to compromise flood risk, recreation or navigation. Tree management through coppicing should also be carried out as a management measure to control the spread of phytophthora. The coppicing of infected trees will encourage regeneration of the tree, prolong tree life and help to control the spread of the disease. (d) Land Management Techniques Provide landowner advice on measures to interrupt the sediment delivery pathways from agricultural land to the river corridor, and advice on incentives (such as catchment sensitive farming grants) to implement these measures. Additionally, advice on tillage direction and crop planting (winter cover) may help to reduce the rate and amount of topsoil lost from agriculture to the watercourse. Measures to prevent excessive poaching of the river banks and access to the water edge are also be included with in this class of restoration options. In terms of limiting stock access to water courses and excessive trampling, the preferred measures and approaches are the provision of stock watering sites, reduced stocking rates (may vary seasonally) and temporary fencing. If the remaining option is permanent fencing, care must be taken to ensure that is does not compromise flood risk management or be inappropriate for the landscape character. (e) Flood Storage Opportunities Propose the creation of backwaters to encourage areas of storage within the river corridor, but also to create habitat and flow diversity within uniform sections of the river. Creation of wet woodland habitat within the riparian zone would provide enhanced bird, fish, mammal and invertebrate habitat along with areas of increased flood storage capacity within the floodplain. These storage areas would help to reduce flood peaks (attenuation) and increases the timespan over which a flood event will peak. This would prove a particularly beneficial characteristic in a flashy river prone to flood events, such as the Lugg. 4.7 Restoration Visualisations The following boxes provide descriptions and illustrations of the various restoration measures outlined in Section 4.6. Each box includes the category of restoration, the potential benefits to geomorphology and ecology, and the general constraint associated with each restoration measure. A further measure applicable throughout the catchment is the control of invasive non-native species. As such, the detail of the control of invasive non-native species is not the focus of the following visualisations and plans but is one of the actions required in order to achieve favourable condition. Action is underway to tackle invasive non-native species, but it should also be considered as integral component of river restoration projects. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 55

62 1. Riparian zone management Category: Riparian zone management Description: Riparian zone management may involve a range of actions that allow a mosaic of different habitats to develop along the river. Riparian buffer and woodland regeneration may reduce accelerated sediment supply; provide more shade to the channel to benefit fish and to provide the means for large woody debris accumulation downstream which will enhance riverine habitats, flow types and help to reduce channel bank erosion rates. Woody debris accumulations must neither compromise flood risk management nor navigation. Riparian corridor strip of land parallel to the river Illustration: The intention is not to create an entirely wooded corridor but to create a more varied corridor where land use pressure is reduced. Actions could include combinations of the following: Providing a strip of species rich grassland parallel to the channel which is cut periodically Planting clumps of trees vegetation between meanders to create a wider corridor of vegetation Allowing periodic summer grazing by livestock to reduce undesirable species and prevent over-shading. If grazing is not possible, alternative forms of vegetation management could be undertaken such as rotational mowing, occasional thinning out, pollarding or coppicing of trees A more densely vegetated river corridor which includes stands of trees and or/wet woodland, will contribute to the supply of woody material to the channel, and has multiple benefits in terms of flow diversity creation, habitat provision for a range of species from invertebrates to fish to mammals. Riparian corridor of native mixed trees and shorter vegetation - parallel to straighter channel (foreground) or creating a wider corridor along meandering sections (in distance). Areas dedicated to riparian vegetation may also be coupled with backwater creation efforts, which if populated by hydrophilic species may provide widened habitat opportunities for aquatic species as well as increase flood storage capacity during wet weather periods. Potential benefits: Helps concentrate any siltation along the channel margins and in areas of slow flow such as pools and backwaters. Improves water quality by acting as a filtration system for run-off (e.g. fine sediment, phosphorus) and restricting access of livestock to the bank and river channel. Creation of a source of woody material to provide morphological diversity through small-scale erosion and sediment deposition in the channel, creating a variety of habitat niches for various aquatic species. Bank-side vegetation creates diversity in shading and cover-important for juvenile fish. Bank side trees help regulate water temperature by provided shade, this may offer a significant benefit in future by off-setting the impact of climate change. Reduced rates of bank erosion due to the increase in vegetation cover. Bank-side trees and dense vegetation may provide habitat for otters and bats. potential flood risk benefits by providing storage, increasing infiltration, slowing run off, which helps reduce size of flood peak downstream Potential constraints Creating a riparian corridor will require a change in land management, it will therefore be necessary to provide appropriate incentives and funding (see Section 6). Ensure that riparian vegetation and wood material does not impact negatively in flood risk or navigation. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 56

63 2. Weir removal or modification Category: Significant channel restoration Description: The total or partial removal of a man-made structure within the river channel to reinstate sediment and flow dynamics and connectivity for fish and invertebrates. This may be a major engineering project - dependent on the size of the obstruction in question. Project design will require expert geomorphology assessment of potential related effects such as knickpoint erosion in the upstream direction and the effect of increased conveyance and sediment transport downstream. Hydraulic modelling may be required in order to assess potential effects on flood risk.. Where weir removal is not deemed a viable option due to constraints such as flood risk or infrastructure, the possibility of fish passage options past the obstruction should be considered, with a natural bypass being the preferred option, Fish passage past an obstruction may help to achieve WFD objectives by opening up a watercourse to key indigenous species and providing increased available habitat area within the catchment. Potential benefits: Increased connectivity for fish and invertebrates within a catchment. Opens up new areas of catchment to fauna which were previously deprived access. Restores natural flow and sediment dynamics where they were previously interrupted, and establishes a more naturally functioning system that is more resilient to extremes of flow and temperature. More natural river channel shape, including banks support a more diverse range of habitats, including undercut and naturally vegetated banks (providing fish cover and juvenile habitat, and resilience in extremes of flow and temperature). Illustrations: Kentchurch Weir removal project Past As of 2011: Example of a weir removal project on the river Monnow catchment (Images courtesy of the Wye and Usk Foundation). Potential constraints and other considerations Removing weirs may not always be a straightforward option, it may require relatively long timescales to plan and implement and is likely to be followed by a period of channel adjustment. Many weirs are protected in terms of heritage value and this will need to be taken into account in developing projects, but there may still be scope for weir modification despite these limitations. Flood risk considerations need to be taken into account when proposing weir removal. Geomorphological assessment of bank stability and the likelihood of knickpoint erosion and bank collapse, should be carried out. Risk of opening up the river to invasive species which may gain access to upper catchment reaches (e.g.: Signal crayfish). Land use and land boundaries may change as the channel adjusts following weir removal, land management incentives may be required to support this change. Where weir removal is not feasible, fish passage options should be considered where the structure is an impediment to the passage of key species within the catchment (salmonid and coarse fish will have differing abilities in terms of the hydraulic head differences they may surmount). LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 57

64 3. Land management practices Category: Riparian zone management Description: Land management needs use best practice methods to minimise run off of sediment and nutrients from agricultural land. This is particularly important in high risk areas where soils and/or slopes mean there is a high risk of run off. Land management approaches that may reduce the amount of runoff, fine sediment/topsoil and sediment-bound contaminant delivery to the river system through land management practices such as; However, much may be done to Providing landowner advice on tillage methods and directionality where arable crops are concerned tillage where field furrows are dug perpendicularly in relation to the watercourse, will deliver sediment to the river at a much higher rate than those planted with furrows parallel to the watercourse. Also, winter crop cover will prevent a large amount of topsoil loss to water bodies. Identification of pathways for sediment delivery to watercourses may be identified. (This is one aspect which the Environment Agency, the Wye and Usk Foundation and Natural England catchment sensitive farming officers are currently advising landowners on). These pathways may take the form of track wheelings in fields, or informal paths/tracks. These paths may be intercepted by vegetation to reduce the rate and volume of sediment delivery to the river system. Appropriate grazing regimes are needed to contribute to riparian zone maintenance. Periodic low intensity grazing may ensure riparian buffer strips maintain a high plant biodiversity through ensuring that trees and shade-loving plants do not dominate. Where it is not possible to establish a low intensity grazing regime, fencing off of riparian zones to allow vegetation growth and limit stock access to river (where there is a significant poaching risk) may be appropriate. Fencing must neither compromise flood risk nor have a negative impact on landscape and visual aspects of the catchment. Illustration: Riparian corridor strip of land parallel to the river Field paths seeded Tillage direction parallel to river Best practice measures employed to ensure minimal top-soil loss to water courses. Winter crop sowing which reduces that likelihood of soil loss /sediment /nutrient delivery to watercourses. Winter is the period of highest rainfall in the UK. Wind erosion is also likely during this season. These risks are minimised when a field is put under winter cover. Potential benefits: Helps reduce input of sediment and nutrients from, and fosters an understanding and appreciation of ecosystem functioning among riparian landowners. Potential for increased farming revenue if fields remain vegetated year-round. Reduced rates of top soil erosion due to the increase in vegetation cover and limitation in sediment pathways. Bank-side trees and dense vegetation may provide habitat for otters and bats. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 58

65 4 (a) Bioengineering works Category: Minor in-channel works Description: A bioengineering approach to improving highly modified channel may consist of floating treatment wetlands which may effectively provide a vegetated edge to channels with hard steel or concrete edges. The floating edging is capable of moving up and down within the water column in response to flow levels, and may generally withstand flow velocities of up to 4 metres per second. Illustrations: Prior to bio-engineered vegetation installation: Indigenous plants may be installed on a modular system which may mean that installation and subsequent regeneration may be fulfilled within a period of months. The suspended root system beneath the water surface promotes the establishment of aquatic biofilms, which may cleanse the water through the breakdown, sorption and metabolic transformation of nutrients and impurities, while reducing their availability to algae, lemna and other aquatic weeds. Future (Month 4): Potential benefits: Improved water quality through urban reaches. Increased biodiversity triggered by presence of vegetation promoting invertebrate life and fish communities. May help achieve WFD objectives. May result in an attractive waterscape aesthetic. Future (Month 9): Images courtesy of Biomatrix Water.com Potential constraints and other considerations Control of any debris and trash which may be more susceptible to building up, will need consideration. Maintenance in terms of the edging s amenity value and vulnerability to vandalism should also be considered. Ensure that flood risk is not increased LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 59

66 4 (b) Embankment removal, set-back or breach Category: Assisted natural recovery Description: The removal or breaching of embankments reestablishes floodplain connectivity and may be combined with other cross-sectional enhancements (see 4a and 4c). This would enhance the lateral connectivity in localised sections and encourage floodplain processes as well as riparian habitat corridors to be established. In association with embankment removal, bank reprofiling may also take place if the embankments are along the river edge. This looks to enhance areas where morphological diversity and habitat diversity may have been removed. Enhancing the existing trapezoidal channels in some of the reaches will aim to create non uniform bank profiles and assist natural recovery within the channel. Potential benefits: Provides connectivity between the river channel and the surrounding floodplain reducing flood impacts downstream. Reduces wash out impact of flood flows on inchannel habitats and ecology by allowing water flow energy to dissipate beyond the channel (removing the risk of catastrophic failure of the embankments in high flow events). Allows the deposition of fine sediment onto the floodplain thereby reducing the likelihood of the deposition of fine sediment within the river channel. Improves drainage of the floodplain by allowing surface water to drain freely into the river channel. Removes the risk of catastrophic failure of the embankment where the river bed has aggraded between the embankments. Illustration of embankment breaching work: Present: Following recovery (year 1): Following recovery (year 10) varied flora establishes: Potential constraints and other considerations: Will increase the frequency of floodplain inundation which may necessitate changes in farming practices on the floodplain. A flood risk assessment impact on upstream and downstream reaches would be required at the feasibility stage. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 60

67 4 (c) Cross-sectional reprofiling Category: Assisted natural recovery Description: Cross sectional reprofiling involves the alteration of the river bank slope, usually where the banks are excessively steep (possibly eroding) or have been reinforced or modified, often in urban areas. Bank protection may also be implemented as a flood defence or meander stabilizing measure. The alterations may be to soften the bank slopes - often asymmetrically, and provide some variation within the profile which may assist natural recovery and encourage marginal vegetation and wildlife habitat opportunities. Illustration: Bank protection removal and natural reprofiling Present: Potential benefits: Habitat opportunities created on new bank profile. Marginal vegetation may be encouraged with correct flow ranges and substrate. Increased channel capacity will aid attenuation of peak flows Cross sectional changes would aid flow diversity within the channel with varying flow velocities over new bank profile. Following recovery (year 1): Year 10: Potential constraints and other considerations: Increased land-take for wider river bank area, which would be a major consideration in built up areas such as Leominster town LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 61

68 5. Flood storage and backwater creation Category: Riparian zone management Description of actions: Flood storage issues within the Lugg catchment are a chief concern to resident and landowners. As seen in the section above, the river channel has historically been overdeepened and channelised in sections with a view to containing flood flows and keeping riparian land dry. Illustration: Planting of suitable species integrated with constructed backwaters parallel to the channel would provide flood storage space which remained online throughout the year, and provided increased habitat diversity -such as nursery areas for juvenile fish and refuges for faunas during periods of spate flow. As expressed above - as part of cross section enhancements, the breaching of flood embankments will create a closer connection between the river and the floodplain. The area behind the embankment could be dedicated to wet woodland plantation and remain an amenity area during drier periods. The addition of wet woodland may provide increased storage capacity for flood flows and help avoid the catastrophic effects of inundation of farmland and residential areas. These areas are populated by riparian tree species such as willow and alder which may withstand extended periods of flooding without detrimental effect. Potential benefits: Increase in flood storage capacity. This could be carried out with respect to areas of increased flood risk (as indicated by Internal Drainage Board flood risk maps) and strategically placed upstream of any higher risk areas. Increase in habitat quality within the catchment. Potential constraints/considerations: Backwater creation on or near farming land would require landowner participation. Permissions and landowner consent/participation would be part of the process. Where larger works are proposed such as offline wet woodlands which involve embankment breaching, this will require more detailed calculation to assess the degree of flooding that may be expected over certain timescales, and wetland designs (and breaches) will need to be designed according to predictions. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 62

69 5 Reach-by-Reach Restoration Options 5.1 Individual Reach Restoration Options This chapter details the reach-specific measures which have been identified as offering potential restorative benefit to the river process and function and resulting in an improved ecological function. These proposals may be implemented over the short, medium or long term and this has been highlighted where relevant. Table 5.1 details a list of the documented reach-specific pressures and descriptions of proposed restoration measures for each within the Lugg catchment, where applicable. In accordance with the colour-coded restoration category, the proposed measures are coloured as described in Section 4, according to the nature of the measure proposed. It is possible that more than one restoration approach is suggested, in which case both colours are represented. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 below illustrate the colour coded measures applied to the reaches along with the numbered restoration classes and location of proposed restoration measures on the ground. These data may also be found on the accompanying interactive mapper, as coded reaches, with numbered restoration categories which provide further details above the colour coded groupings. The intention is for the interactive mapper to be explored by river managers, alongside this report, to identify the areas where there are restoration opportunities dependent on the pressures identified in Section 4. It is acknowledged that there are multiple constraints on each reach and the opportunities to restore the river will be largely dependent on landowner and stakeholder agreement, cooperation and buy-in. This Management Report should be used to explain what the various restoration measures are and what form they could take and, along with the Technical Report, illustrate the benefits of river restoration to the ecology of the river and the community it serves. Section 5.2, illustrates examples of the restoration classes and proposed measures as defined above in Section 4.7 and as relevant to specific reaches within the catchment. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 illustrate the restoration reach classification proposed for the reaches as defined by one or more of the five restoration option classifications. The reaches are also coloured according to the restoration categories in terms of degree and nature of modification proposed (as per Table 4.1) 63

70 Table 5-1 Morphological pressures affecting the reaches of the Lower Lugg (where grey = none; red = extensive >33% of the reach and orange = present <33% of the reach). The presence of these pressures is used as an indicator of restoration potential Reach ID SSSI Unit Number of RHS sites Habitat Modification Class (at each RHS site) Modifications Sediment Riparian Zone Degradation Bridges Weirs Reinforced High fine Poaching bed/bank sediment Lack Natural Flood Storage of LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG LUGG , 2, 5, 1 LUGG LUGG LUGG , 4, 2, 2, 2 LUGG LUGG

71 Reach Lugg001 Lugg002 Lugg003 Lugg004 Lugg005 Table 5-2 Reach descriptions, pressures and restoration options for Lugg reaches Grid Reference SO SO SO SO SO Reach Description Pressures Status Restoration Category Reach through Presteigne Sediment input. Channel 6 Riparian zone punctuated by 4 minor planform restrictions management weirs. Some bank Abstraction. and reinforcement. Land use: Land Pasture/ Urban-Suburban. management practices Middlemoor to boundary of woodland at Kinsham. Land use: Pasture dominated to arable dominated. Actively meandering sections with naturally eroding banks and depositional features. Lack of riparian corridor. Lower Kinsham to Upper Kinsham. River flows through wooded section, with naturally eroding banks and depositional features. Meanders at Byton to Lyepole weirs. Dynamic planform with steep naturally eroding banks, and depositional features. Lyepole weirs to Amestrey weir. Gravel-bedded river section through gorge. Good flow diversity, shading and general Risk of increased sediment input from arable land and poaching. Increased sediment load from Hindwell Brook. Good flow diversity, substrate and presence of depositional features creating habitat diversity in the river. Pasture very close to river with access. Tree cover occasional single lined and of mostly uniform age. Weir at Lyepole impeding passage for coarse fish. Minor sediment input due to runoff from woods. 6 Riparian zone management 8 Conserve and protect 7 Riparian zone management 8 Significant channel restoration Restoration measures Proposed Increase riparian buffer width. Possible fencing where land use is semi-improved grassland (poaching risk) (flood risk and landscape and visual will need to be taken into account for fencing). Reduced stocking density could be an effective alternative to fencing. Increase riparian buffer strips with mixed height vegetation. Create dynamic wooded zone to encourage riverine habitat (spawning and 1+ parr development) and water temperature regulation. N/A Dynamic wooded or semi-wooded zone created. Increase buffer strip width to at least 15m, and wider in areas to encourage riparian wildlife habitat. Weir removal to be investigated or formal fish passage installed. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 65

72 Reach Lugg006 Lugg007 Lugg008 Lugg009 Lugg010 Grid Reference SO SO SO SO SO Reach Description Pressures Status Restoration Category habitat. Amestrey weir to Yatton Weir at Yatton court may 9 Conserve and court weir. Gravel-bedded be impeding passage for protect river section through smaller fish species. gorge. Good flow diversity, However, not likely shading and general removable due to habitat. Good variation in heritage status. depositional features and areas of naturally eroding bank. Secondary channel provides greater habitat heterogeneity. Yatton Court to Mortimer s Cross weir. Gorge-like but straighter section, adjacent to road. Wooded on one bank with some depositional features. Mortimer s Cross to Lugg Meanders. Land use: Pasture and arable dominated. Some depositional features and eroding banks. Lugg meanders 1. Section with good flow diversity active planform but fairly intensive arable and pasture riparian land use. Lugg Meanders 2. Short section river flowing within wet woodlands. Weir at Mortimer s Cross a significant barrier to fish passage. Sediment input from arable land. (Furrows running perpendicular to river). No distinct buffer. Poaching pressure and sediment input from arable. Sediment input from arable. 7 Assisted recovery 6 Riparian zone management 7 Riparian zone management 6 Riparian zone management Restoration measures Proposed Potential for fish passage feasibility study possible to look at technical or other fish passage option at this location. Abstraction at Ballsgate weir to be monitored for over-abstraction and action taken for habitat improvements if required. A first approach could be installation of a low-flow channel to aid fish passage in this area. Weir removal not an option due to heritage value but fish passage feasibility study possible to look at technical or other fish passage option at this location. Land management advice in this area. Focus on tillage direction and reducing sediment delivery pathways to river. Also, crop winter planting scheme may be beneficial. Riparian planting of shrubs, trees of varying native species and of differing ages to create dynamic zone with reduced sediment risk from nearby arable and pasture use. Reduced stocking density to address poaching pressure. Riparian planting - Increase capacity of wet woodland area could be beneficial flood storage option upstream of Leominster LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 66

73 Reach Lugg011 Lugg012 Lugg013 Lugg014 Grid Reference SO SO SO SO Reach Description Pressures Status Restoration Category Lugg Meanders 3. Section between two weirs. Weir at Mousenatch to Kenwater weirs. Reach just before Leominster town. Highly modified for flood defence. Kenwater weir to The Marsh. (Section through north Leominster). Highly modified for flood defence. The Marsh (Leominster) to Eaton. Highly modified trapezoidal channel. Poaching pressure and sediment input from arable. Pooling at weirs with sediment deposition, some good flow diversity between the weirs. Weirs and channel straightening. Channelised section with little flow diversity. Agricultural pressure. Sediment delivery from land surface and tributary streams. 6 Significant channel restoration (with riparian zone management) 4 Significant channel restoration 3 Riparian zone management 3 Riparian zone management Restoration measures Proposed town. Investigate weir removal. These weirs may only serve as meander stabilisation weirs which could be potentially removed as the channel form part of rehabilitation of the natural channel geomorphology and floodplain regeneration. Reduced stocking density to address poaching pressure. Removal of two upstream weirs proposed. (Other two possibly important for head level retention into Leominster. Increased riparian tree planting and cultivation of wet woodland /backwaters could provide habitat, slow down sediment delivery & increase scope for flood defence. Insertion of an active edge bank river bioengineering system within the highly modified river section in this area. Alternatively, cross sectional reprofiling may serve to improve habitat within this reach interspersed riparian tree cover on bank sides may help with summer temperature control. Increased tree cover. Option for the addition of active edge bioengineering systems, which rise and fall with changing water level. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 67

74 Reach Lugg015 Lugg016 Lugg017 Grid Reference SO SO SO Reach Description Pressures Status Restoration Category Eaton to Wharton. Land use: Pasture/arable. Intermittent riparian corridor. Uniform channel. Wharton 500m downstream. Modified section with bank reinforcement on the right bank due to the A49. Limited features. Wharton 500m downstream to Hopeunder-Dinmore Uniform section with some wooded sections. Planform better here but increased pressure from grazing/poaching and diffuse sediment delivery. Also sediment delivery from tributary Arrow very coloured. Planform straight with a vertical reinforced bank on the right bank. Constrained channel. Planform straighter possibly historically realigned and overdeepened. Some pressure from diffuse sediment input and poaching but section through golf course and woodland looks good. 6 Riparian zone management 3 Assisted natural channel recovery 5 Riparian zone management Restoration measures Proposed Buffer strip width increase in contributing stream areas (Cogwell Brook, Main Ditch, Cheaton Brook). Increased buffer strip width. Riparian management in terms of decreasing grazing pressure fencing may be an option. For the sediment delivery from the Arrow tributary, the installation of wet woodland area within the Arrow riparian zone close to the Lugg confluence may help temper the amount of sediment reaching the main stem Lugg - especially during higher flow events. Incorporation of active edge bioengineering systems, which rise and fall with changing water levels to create habitat diversity within the section. In-channel enhancements could include implementation of woody debris. Increased riparian cover in pasture areas and potentially fencing where needed, and to encourage riparian vegetation growth. (Fencing could be a temporary measure). This reach could be a targeted area (pending landowner consultation etc.) for wet woodland creation thus enhancing riparian flood storage. Lugg018 SO51499 Hampton Court Weir Irregular meanders, 6 Natural Possibility of left bank buffer strip LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 68

75 Reach Lugg019 Lugg020 Lugg021 Lugg022 Grid Reference Reach Description Pressures Status Restoration Category Bowley. incised stretch of recovery channel. Embankments /Conserve and present. Channel protect overwidened and overdeepened historically. 1:5 depth to width ratio. Fish pass installed at weir (Larinier). SO Riparian zone management SO SO SO Bowley to Bodenham. Section through intensive arable land with little buffer strip and thin riparian cover. Bodenham to train line. Steep vertical banks, some depositional features and naturally eroding banks. Section of river east of train line. Train line crossing to Moreton Bridge Uniform channel. Sections of the river are embanked, particularly around Marden. Arable runoff- intensive land use with little riparian buffer in this section. Historically dredged/deepened. Pasture land with fairly sparse tree /riparian cover. Intensive arable land with very thin buffer strip (<10m). Intensive pasture. Sparse riparian cover. 6 Riparian zone management 5 Riparian zone management 6 Riparian zone management Restoration measures Proposed enhancement (currently very thin) widening and increased tree cover in this reach. Riparian buffer strip requires enhancement in this area. Possibility of wet woodland creation to intercept and create sink for sediment runoff and slow down delivery rate to stream. Increase tree cover. Plant trees /bushes/shrubs of varying ages and heights so that varying degrees of shade is achieved next to channel. Potential for creation of flood storage areas in adjacent fields on the left bank. Increased tree planting and cultivation of wet woodland /backwaters could provide habitat, slow down sediment delivery & increase scope for flood defence. Increased riparian cover and possibly fencing in areas. Potential to set back embankments or for removal. Lugg023 SO51641 Moreton Bridge to Sutton Pasture on left bank. 7 Riparian zone Increased buffer width. Tree LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 69

76 Reach Grid Reach Description Pressures Status Restoration Restoration measures Reference Category Proposed St. Nicholas. Animal access to river. management planting. Lugg024 Lugg025 SO SO Section through woodland, with good planform and some shading. Wergins bridge to Shelwick green. Good planform and geomorphologically active. Shelwick to Lugg Bridge Set back embankments on both banks. Uniform channel, some depositional features. Pressure due to proximity of arable and pasture fields with minimal buffer in this reach. Possibly historically channelised section - for infrastructure. Pasture and arable land adjacent with no buffer. 6 Riparian zone management 5 Riparian zone management Buffer strip. Capacity to increase areas of woodland and riparian shading. Minimise animal access to river (possibility of fencing). Minimise animal access to river. Reinstate riparian cover for sediment control, habitat creation and water temperature regulation. Lugg026 SO Lugg Bridge to Mordiford. Good planform and geomorphologically active. Naturally eroding banks with depositional features. Vertical banks reducing floodplain connectivity in low flows. Some sections have set back embankments. Pressure due to agricultural land use (both pasture and arable) and sediment inputs (such as field drains). 7 Riparian zone management Widen buffer strip and plant variety of trees, bushes & tall herbs. Introduce buffer strips near major outfall structures to minimise fine sediment input into the river. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 70

77 Figure 5.1 Restoration classifications (colours) along with proposed reach-specific restoration measures (for reaches 1 to 16) LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 71

78 Figure 5.2 Restoration categorisations (colours) along with proposed reach-specific restoration measures (for reaches 17 to 25) LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 72

79 5.2 Restoration Plans The reach-by-reach restoration options have been drawn-up and are presented the following series of tables. The reaches are grouped in descending order in an upstream to downstream direction. The plans comprise the following components: Classification of restoration option proposed Category of intervention required/restoration option (colour) Reaches identified for the measure SSSI designation Annotated maps, aerial and ground based photographs detailing the suggested actions Summary of potential benefits and constraints The dimensions of restoration actions shown on the plans are indicative and do not necessarily represent the actual footprint of the activity, which would be determined by future detailed planning of actions in discussion with landowners (see Section 5). The plan outlines the options that have been identified as desirable to meet the conservation objectives for the river. This Management Report will be updated following consultation to include stakeholder feedback. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 73

80 River Lugg: Reaches Lugg001 and Lugg002 Category: Riparian zone management Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer zone widening/ creation and woodland regeneration/ creation 3. Land management: Reduce stock densities and grazing frequency Context: Minor weirs present through Presteigne Land use: pasture/ urban suburban around Presteigne Land use downstream of Presteigne: pasture and arable farming Pressures: Sediment input from land use and poaching Channel planform constraints due to infrastructure(bridges / roads) Abstraction Accelerated bank erosion due to lack of cover SSSI Unit 4 Unfavourable recovering No/ poor riparian buffer zone typical of Lugg001 and Lugg002. Expansion and widening of the riparian zone is recommended. Poor riparian structure results in increased bank erosion, increased sediment input to the channel and poor riparian and marginal channel habitats. Livestock also cause more damage to banks and increase in sediment input to channel where there is poor riparian vegetation structure. The lack of channel shading will also result in high stream water temperatures. Aerial images Google Earth Actively meandering reach showing erosion and depositional features with numerous point bars. Riparian cover along the banks would help to naturalise the rates of bank erosion and provide sediment trapping from the adjacent agricultural land to reduce sediment loading in the channel. Changing tillage direction to run parallel to the channel would also reduce sediment pathways and reduce sediment input to the channel from runoff. Aerial images Google Earth Poaching, tilled land and lack of riparian buffer strip is a source of fine sediment, which can affect the bed of the river when deposited, smothering gravels used for spawning. The trampled banks provide some habitat for invertebrates; however elevated volumes of fine sediment are unnatural to the catchment and a sign of high stocking density. Restoration Actions: Create a corridor of natural riparian vegetation along both banks Increase the width of the existing riparian zone, ideally up to 15m wide to increase habitat diversity, sediment trapping and improve stability of the riparian zone and river banks Reduce livestock densities and grazing frequency to enable establishment of the riparian zone Exclude stock from fields adjacent to the river during the winter months or periods of prolonged wet weather especially whilst riparian vegetation establishes Provide drinking water troughs in fields adjacent to the river to reduce the frequency of livestock descending banks to access the river for drinking Change direction of furrows on tilled land to run parallel to the channel to reduce sediment pathways to the river. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 74

81 Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Widening of current buffer strip widths Investigation and reduction in sediment pathways to water course Change in tillage direction and crop planting timings Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees Refer to the Riparian Zone Management table in Section 4.7. Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees. Ensure track which run perpendicular to river minimised Ensure winter cover for tilled fields. Ensure tillage direction does not run to river. Field drain sediment traps to be considered where needed. Reduction in sediment load delivered to river. Provides channel shading to reduce stream water temperature, shelter, habitat and food for mammals and aquatic species. Benefits ecosystem services, such as biodiversity, flow regulation, water quality and climate change adaptation. Reduction in sediment load delivered to river. Any increase in riparian planting (as sediment interception method) provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species Requires landowner consultation, consent and participation. There would be some loss of productive agricultural land along the bank top with associated financial implications. Requires landowner consent and participation Minor land-take from agriculture, may require agri-environment scheme of Catchment Sensitive Farming Grant. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 75

82 River Lugg: Reach Lugg003 Lower Kinsham to Upper Kinsham Restoration measures: 6. Protect and conserve the current physical habitat and processes. Ensure any activities do not compromise the status of the river and its habitats. Category: Natural Recovery/ Conserve & Protect SSSI Unit 4 Unfavourable recovering Context: River flows through wooded section with naturally eroding banks and depositional features. Good flow diversity and channel substrate with presence of depositional features creating habitat diversity in the river. Pressures: Potential for sediment delivery to river due to forestry activity Discrete areas are dedicated to livestock management Riparian buffer zone width could be expanded here to tie in with restoration actions for reach Lugg004, which would improve bank top vegetation structure and bank resilience to erosion processes. This measure would also enhance the ecological value of the riparian corridor. Investigate opportunity for woodland creation here to further enhance this reach and facilitate natural recovery. Aerial images Google Earth Heavily wooded reach providing good quality habitat, channel stability, sediment trapping and floodplain roughness beneficial for natural flood risk management. Restoration Actions: Preserve and conserve existing woodland habitat along the river banks and within the floodplain Expand woodland cover if opportunity is available Explore opportunity to expand the riparian buffer width, ideally up to 15m wide, in the downstream section of the reach to further enhance this reach. This could involve planting of native tree species along the river bank to create a stand of trees along the riparian corridor width as opposed to single line trees. This would dovetail into actions for reach Lugg004 Ensure future activities do not compromise the existing habitats of the river channel, riparian zone and floodplain Carry out a programme of coppicing to control phytophthora where appropriate to preserve the existing tree stock and control the spread of the disease. Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Widening of current buffer strip widths in the downstream section of the reach adjacent to Lugg004 reach Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees Refer to the Riparian Zone Management table in Section 4.7. Expansion of woodland cover if opportunity available to further enhance the habitats present in this reach Tree management Planting of native trees, tall herbs and grasses. Coppicing of trees where appropriate to control the spread of phytophthora. Reduction in sediment load delivered to river. Provides channel shading to reduce stream water temperature, shelter, habitat and food for mammals and aquatic species. Benefits ecosystem services, such as biodiversity, flow regulation, water quality and climate change adaptation. Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species Control of the disease within the catchment; maintaining and preserving tree health. Requires landowner consultation, consent and participation. There would be some loss of productive agricultural land along the bank top with associated financial implications. Minor land-take from agriculture. Beneficial in long-term. Requires landowner action. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 76

83 River Lugg: Reach Lugg004 Meanders at Byton to Lyepole weirs Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer and woodland regeneration/ creation Category: SSSI Unit 4 Riparian Zone Management Unfavourable recovering Context: Dynamic planform Steep naturally eroding banks Depositional features. Pressures: Tree cover occasional single-lined and of mostly uniform age Pasture very close to river with access. Create/ extend wooded/ semi-wooded zones. Arrows denote possible locations for planting/replanting Aerial images Google Earth Expand riparian buffer zone width on both banks throughout the reach, ideally to 15m wide and potentially extend into Lugg003 reach to further enhance the conserve and protect value of Lugg003. This would improve bank top vegetation structure and bank resilience to erosion processes. This measure would also enhance the ecological value of the riparian corridor. Restoration Actions: Create a corridor of natural riparian vegetation along both banks where a riparian zone is absent Increase the width of the existing riparian zone, ideally up to 15m wide to increase habitat diversity, sediment trapping and improve stability of the riparian zone and river banks Reduce livestock densities and grazing frequency to enable establishment of the riparian zone Exclude stock from fields adjacent to the river during the winter months or periods of prolonged wet weather especially whilst riparian vegetation establishes Provide drinking water troughs in fields adjacent to the river to reduce the frequency of livestock descending banks to access the river for drinking Preserve and conserve existing woodland habitat along the banks and within the floodplain Expand existing woodland habitats through woodland creation Coppicing of trees where required to manage and control the spread of phytophthora where appropriate. Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Widening of current buffer strip widths throughout the reach, extending into adjacent reaches Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees Refer to the Riparian Zone Management table in Section 4.7. Expansion of woodland cover if opportunity available to further enhance the habitats present in this reach Wet woodland creation Woodland creation Planting of native trees, tall herbs and grasses. Design suitably located and shaped online areas where backwaters may form. Plant variety of native trees, riparian shrubs, tall herbs and grasses. Reduction in sediment load delivered to river. Provides channel shading to reduce stream water temperature, shelter, habitat and food for mammals and aquatic species. Benefits ecosystem services, such as biodiversity, flow regulation, water quality and climate change adaptation. Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species Reduction in sediment load delivered Requires landowner consultation, consent and participation. There would be some loss of productive agricultural land along the bank top with associated financial implications. Minor land-take from agriculture. Beneficial in long-term. Minor land-take from agriculture. Beneficial in long-term. Requires landowner consent and participation LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 77

84 Tree management Coppicing of trees where appropriate to control the spread of phytophthora. to river. Control of the disease within the catchment; maintaining and preserving tree health. Requires landowner action. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 78

85 River Lugg: Reach Lugg005 Lyepole weirs to Amestrey weir. Category: Significant channel restoration Riparian zone management Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer and woodland regeneration/ creation 2. Weir removal Weir removal to be investigated or fish passage installed Increase width of riparian buffer zone Buffer strips around plantations to control sediment runoff SSSI Unit 4 Unfavourable recovering Context: Gravel-bedded river section through gorge. Good flow diversity, shading and general habitat Pressures: Weir at Lyepole impeding passage for coarse fish. Minor sediment input due to runoff from woods. Weir removal or provision of a fish pass is a possibility that could be investigated at the weir at Lyepole at the upstream section of this reach. A flood risk assessment would be required to assess the impact of weir removal. If the weir is removed, coupled with planting of riparian vegetation, this would benefit both the natural hydromorphology and ecology. Establishment of appropriate riparian vegetation would help control the rate of channel adjustment to more natural levels. Weir removal or installation of a fish pass is recommended to enable longitudinal connectivity of the river. Whilst a fish pass would enable the migration of aquatic species upstream, the weir still poses a barrier to sediment transfer downstream, thus depriving the system of sediment. This sediment deprivation may result in increased erosion of bed and banks downstream. Aerial images Google Earth Investigate the potential for mixed native woodland/ wet woodland creation within this floodplain zone Mere Hill Wood and Beechenbank Wood: create vegetation buffer zone along the margins of coniferous plantation or swales downslope of plantations to trap sediment where sediment is being carried to the river by runoff Aerial images Google Earth LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 79

86 Restoration Actions: Investigate feasibility of removal of weir to improve longitudinal connectivity of the river system Investigate options for fish pass installation should weir removal be unfeasible Creation of a bypass channel to re-establish longitudinal connectivity as an alternative to weir removal or fish pass installation Increase the width of the existing riparian zone, ideally up to 15m wide to increase habitat diversity, sediment trapping and improve stability of the riparian zone and river banks Reduce livestock densities and grazing frequency to enable establishment of the riparian zone Exclude stock from fields adjacent to the river during the winter months or periods of prolonged wet weather especially whilst riparian vegetation establishes Provide drinking water troughs in fields adjacent to the river to reduce the frequency of livestock descending banks to access the river for drinking Preserve and conserve existing woodland habitat along the banks and within the floodplain. This may include coppicing of trees to control phytophthora Create buffer strips along the margins of plantations where sediment is being carried to the channel by run-off. Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Weir removal Investigate possibility of weir Allows natural fluvial processes to removal. Plant variety of native riparian flora (including extension of existing wet woodland) dominate Provides cover for mammals and habitat Significant channel works associated with weir removal Fish pass installation Bypass channel creation Widening of current buffer strip widths throughout the reach, extending into adjacent reaches Expansion of woodland cover if opportunity available to further enhance the habitats present in this reach Wet woodland creation Investigation and reduction in sediment pathways to water course Allow natural channel adjustment (erosion and deposition) to occur Investigate the options for installing a fish pass if weir removal is not viable Creation of a channel linking the river upstream and downstream of the weir Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees Refer to the Riparian Zone Management table in Section 4.7. Planting of native trees, tall herbs and grasses. Design suitably located and shaped online areas where backwaters may form. Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees. Ensure track which run perpendicular to river minimised Woodland creation Plant variety of native trees, riparian shrubs, tall herbs and grasses. Tree management Coppicing of trees where appropriate to control the spread of phytophthora. Provides diversity of habitat for fish and invertebrates and potentially birds if vertical cliffs form. Enables fish species to migrate upstream to partially overcome the barrier to migration that the weir presents Reconnects the river and longitudinal connectivity. This enables species migration, sediment transfer downstream and increase in flow and river habitat diversity Reduction in sediment load delivered to river. Provides channel shading to reduce stream water temperature, shelter, habitat and food for mammals and aquatic species. Benefits ecosystem services, such as biodiversity, flow regulation, water quality and climate change adaptation. Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species Reduction in sediment load delivered to river. Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species Reduction in sediment load delivered to river. Control of the disease within the catchment; maintaining and preserving tree health. Potential land use change as channel adjusts, requires landowner consent and consultation Minor loss of land. Need to establish riparian buffer and may need to put in place support such as an agrienvironment scheme agreement to support change in land management. Modification to the structure would be required along with some disturbance to the banks and channel during installation. The new channel will require land take and landowner agreement. Flood risk assessment and WFD assessment is likely to be required. Requires landowner consultation, consent and participation. There would be some loss of productive agricultural land along the bank top with associated financial implications. Minor land-take from agriculture. Beneficial in long-term. Minor land-take from agriculture. Beneficial in long-term. Requires landowner consent and participation Requires landowner consent and participation Requires landowner action. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 80

87 River Lugg: Reach Lugg006 Amestrey weir to Yatton court weir. Restoration measures: 6. Natural Recovery/ Conserve & Protect Category: (Assisted) Natural Recovery/ Conserve & Protect SSSI Unit 4 Unfavourable recovering Context: Gravel-bedded river section through gorge. Good flow diversity, channel shading and good general habitat. Good variation in depositional features and areas of naturally eroding bank. Secondary channel provides greater habitat heterogeneity. Pressures: Weir at Yatton court may be impeding passage for smaller fish species. However, not likely removable due to heritage status Abstraction pressures nr Ballsgate Weir Aerial images Google Earth Meandering reach with associated erosion and depositional features. Enhancement of the riparian zone would assist natural recovery of this reach and enhance habitat diversity. Protect and conserve the current physical habitat and processes. Ensure any activities do not compromise the status of the river and its habitats. Create/ enhance riparian buffer strip through this reach, including tree planting could be considered to further enhance this reach. The buffer strip should preferably be 15m wide to enable the establishment of a stand of trees and a diverse understorey. This measure would help to stabilise the banks, provide marginal habitats and channel shading. Tree management: coppicing of trees is recommended where there is a risk of phytophthora. Restoration Actions: Preserve and conserve existing woodland habitat along the river banks and within the floodplain Expand woodland cover if opportunity is available Explore opportunity to expand the riparian buffer width, ideally up to 15m wide to further enhance this reach. This could involve planting of native tree species along the river bank to create a stand of trees along the riparian corridor width as opposed to single line trees. Ensure future activities do not compromise the existing habitats of the river channel, riparian zone and floodplain. Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Protect and conserve the current physical habitats through this reach Prevent activities that would cause damage or deterioration of current habitat status and river dynamics. Preserve existing habitat quality. The weir may be of heritage importance posing a permanent barrier on the river continuity. Widening of current buffer strip widths Expansion of woodland cover if opportunity available to further enhance the habitats present in this reach Tree management Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees Refer to the Riparian Zone Management table in Section 4.7. Planting of native trees, tall herbs and grasses. Coppicing of trees where appropriate to control the spread of phytophthora. Reduction in sediment load delivered to river. Provides channel shading to reduce stream water temperature, shelter, habitat and food for mammals and aquatic species. Benefits ecosystem services, such as biodiversity, flow regulation, water quality and climate change adaptation. Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species Control of the disease within the catchment; maintaining and preserving tree health. Requires landowner consultation, consent and participation. There would be some loss of productive agricultural land along the bank top with associated financial implications. Minor land-take from agriculture. Beneficial in long-term. Requires landowner action. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 81

88 River Lugg: Reach Lugg007 Yatton court weir to Mortimer s Cross Weir Restoration measures: 2. Weir removal 2. Bypass channel 3. In channel works - fish passage 1. Riparian zone management Category: SSSI Unit 4 Significant channel restoration Assisted recovery Riparian Zone management Unfavourable recovering Context: Gorge-like but straighter section, adjacent to road. Wooded on one bank with some depositional features. Pressures: Weir at Mortimer s Cross a significant barrier to fish passage. Weir removal at Mortimer s Cross may not be an option due to the heritage value but a fish passage feasibility study could look at technical or other fish passages options at this location. This could include creating a bypass channel to reconnect the river upstream and downstream. This would deliver benefits of not only enabling fish passage but also enabling sediment transfer downstream and increasing flow diversity and river habitats. Create/ enhance riparian buffer strip through this reach, including tree planting. The buffer strip should preferably be 15m wide to enable the establishment of a stand of trees and a diverse understorey. This measure would help to stabilise the banks, provide marginal habitats and channel shading. Tree management: coppicing of trees is recommended where there is a risk of phytophthora. The creation of a bypass channel around the weir structure could be investigated within this area of floodplain. Aerial images Google Earth Upstream section of the reach showing erosion and depositional features associated with meander bends. Improvements to the riparian zones would assist natural recovery of this reach. Restoration Actions: Explore options for improving longitudinal connectivity of the river upstream and downstream of Mortimer s Cross weir. Weir removal is likely to be prohibited due to heritage value so options for improving fish passage, such as a fish pass or bypass channel, should be investigated. Explore opportunity to expand the riparian buffer width to further enhance this reach. This could involve planting of native tree species along the river bank to create a stand of trees along the riparian corridor width as opposed to single line trees. Tree management may be required to control phytophthora. Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Fish pass installation Investigate the options for installing a fish pass if weir removal is not viable Bypass channel creation Widening of current buffer strip widths Tree management Creation of a channel linking the river upstream and downstream of the weir Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees Refer to the Riparian Zone Management table in Section 4.7 Targeted coppicing of trees to manage phytophthora where appropriate Enables fish species to migrate upstream to partially overcome the barrier to migration that the weir presents Reconnects the river and longitudinal connectivity. This enables species migration, sediment transfer downstream and increase in flow and river habitat diversity Reduction in sediment load delivered to river. Provides channel shading to reduce stream water temperature, shelter, habitat and food for mammals and aquatic species. Benefits ecosystem services, such as biodiversity, flow regulation, water quality and climate change adaptation. Controls spread of the disease and encourages regeneration of affected tree Modification to the structure would be required along with some disturbance to the banks and channel during installation. The new channel will require land take and landowner agreement. Flood risk assessment and WFD assessment is likely to be required. Requires landowner consultation, consent and participation. There would be some loss of productive agricultural land along the bank top with associated financial implications. Requires land owner cooperation LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 82

89 River Lugg: Reaches Lugg008 Mortimer s Cross to Lugg Meanders Restoration measures: 3. Land management measures 1. Riparian zone management Category: SSSI Unit 3 Riparian zone management Unfavourable recovering Context: Land use: Pasture and arable dominated. Some depositional features and eroding banks. Pressures: Sediment input from arable land (furrows running perpendicular to river). No distinct buffer zone. Poaching pressure and sediment input from arable land use. Sediment input from arable land use. Land management measures for better control of sediment delivery from agriculture especially arable land within the Lugg catchment could be of benefit to the riverine ecosystem. In reach Lugg008, certain fields adjacent to the watercourse are tilled but appeared to remain bare during the time of the winter survey. Landowners may benefit from advice on current best practice methods such as tillage direction and sediment pathway interruption, in order to ensure this type of management does not result in sediment and nutrients reaching the river. Aerial images Google Earth Lugg008: Land management advice in this area. Focus on tillage direction so that furrows do not run towards the channel to reduce sediment delivery pathways to river. Also, a winter crop planting scheme may be beneficial. Increasing the width of the riparian buffer strip would improve sediment trapping and reduce siltation of the river. Riparian planting where riparian vegetation is absent, in particular in the section downstream of Mortimer s Cross. Poor riparian structure results in increased bank erosion, increased sediment input to the channel and poor riparian and marginal channel habitats. Livestock also cause more damage to banks and increase in sediment input to channel where there is poor riparian vegetation structure. Lugg008 immediately upstream of Lugg Meanders. Tilled land use pressure align furrows away from the channel to reduce sediment pathways to the river. Enhance the riparian zone by increasing the width of the riparian vegetation and create a riparian buffer strip where absent; especially where intensive agricultural land use extends to the top of the river bank. This could include woodland/ wet woodland creation. Riparian enhancement. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 83

90 The Wye and Usk Foundation ran the Sci-Map sediment delivery risk model for the Lugg catchment. The excerpt from the model output opposite indicates the sediment delivery risk in the Mortimer s Cross areas reaches Lugg006, Lugg007 and Lugg008 for a scenario which is dedicated to all arable land cover as worst case scenario, but one which is increasingly predicted, as land-use in the catchment is increasingly turned to arable crop farming. As is evident from the model output here, the reaches in question are located near high risk sites which could benefit from land management best practice efforts. In an area as intensively farmed as the Lugg catchment, adequate buffer zones and interruption of sediment pathways are of huge importance. The benefits of participating in best practice techniques are manifold from decrease in fine sediment infiltration into spawning gravels to water quality improvements due to decrease in nutrients reaching stream, to ecological habitat creation and increase in habitat quality status. The Nutrient Management Plan, Diffuse Water Pollution plan and Wye and Usk Foundation work will identify risk areas where best practice land management is required. Restoration Actions: Create a corridor of natural riparian vegetation along both banks Increase the width of the existing riparian zone, ideally up to 15m wide to increase habitat diversity, sediment trapping and improve stability of the riparian zone and river banks Reduce livestock densities and grazing frequency to enable establishment of the riparian zone Exclude stock from fields adjacent to the river during the winter months or periods of prolonged wet weather especially whilst riparian vegetation establishes Provide drinking water troughs in fields adjacent to the river to reduce the frequency of livestock descending banks to access the river for drinking Tree management to control phytophthora. Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Widening of current buffer strip widths Some wet woodland creation Investigation and reduction in sediment pathways to water course Change in tillage direction and crop planting timings Tree management Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees Refer to the Riparian Zone Management table in Section 4.7. Design suitably located and shaped online areas where backwaters may form. Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees. Ensure track which run perpendicular to river minimised Ensure winter cover for tilled fields. Ensure tillage direction does not run to river. Field drain sediment traps to be considered where needed. Coppicing of trees where appropriate to control the spread of phytophthora. Reduction in sediment load delivered to river. Provides channel shading to reduce stream water temperature, shelter, habitat and food for mammals and aquatic species. Benefits ecosystem services, such as biodiversity, flow regulation, water quality and climate change adaptation. Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species Reduction in sediment load delivered to river. Any increase in riparian planting (as sediment interception method) provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species Control of the disease within the catchment; maintaining and preserving tree health. Requires landowner consultation, consent and participation. There would be some loss of productive agricultural land along the bank top with associated financial implications. Minor land-take from agriculture. Beneficial in long-term. Requires landowner consent and participation Minor land-take from agriculture, may require agri-environment scheme of Catchment Sensitive Farming Grant. Requires landowner action. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 84

91 River Lugg: Reaches Lugg009 and Lugg010 Lugg meanders 1 to Lugg meanders section 2 Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer and woodland regeneration/ creation 5. Flood storage Category: SSSI Unit 3 Riparian zone management Unfavourable recovering Context: Lugg meanders 1. Section with good flow diversity active planform but fairly intensive arable and pasture riparian land use. Lugg Meanders 2. Short section of river flowing within wet woodlands. Pressures: Sediment input from arable land (furrows running perpendicular to river). No distinct buffer zone. Poaching pressure and sediment input from arable land use. Sediment input from arable land use. This reach is of high geomorphological interest due to the tortuous meanders and SSSI status. This reach is of high priority for conservation. Further improvement to the conservation value of this reach is to introduce measures that would reduce pressures and impacts present along this reach and the creation of semi-natural floodplain habitat. Aerial images Google Earth Riparian planting of shrubs, trees of varying native species and of differing ages along this reach to create a dynamic zone with reduced sediment risk from nearby arable and pasture use. Reduced stocking density to address poaching pressure on both banks. Identify zones for wet woodland creation. This could provide flood risk benefits to Leominster by providing increased flood storage capacity at Lugg meanders. This would also enhance the geomorphological value of this reach as increasing landscape diversity, habitat and conservation value and biodiversity. Poaching is a source of fine sediment, which can affect the bed of the river when deposited, smothering gravels used for spawning. The trampled banks provide some habitat for invertebrates; however elevated volumes of fine sediment are unnatural to the catchment and a sign of high stocking density. Restoration Actions: Create a corridor of natural riparian vegetation along both banks Increase the width of the existing riparian zone, ideally up to 15m wide to increase habitat diversity, sediment trapping and improve stability of the riparian zone and river banks Reduce livestock densities and grazing frequency to enable establishment of the riparian zone Exclude stock from fields adjacent to the river during the winter months or periods of prolonged wet weather especially whilst riparian vegetation establishes Provide drinking water troughs in fields adjacent to the river to reduce the frequency of livestock descending banks to access the river for drinking Tree management to control phytophthora where appropriate. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 85

92 Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Widening of current buffer strip widths Some wet woodland creation Investigation and reduction in sediment pathways to water course Tree management Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees Refer to the Riparian Zone Management table in Section 4.7. Design suitably located and shaped online areas where backwaters may form. Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees. Ensure track which run perpendicular to river minimised Coppicing of trees where appropriate to control the spread of phytophthora. Reduction in sediment load delivered to river. Provides channel shading to reduce stream water temperature, shelter, habitat and food for mammals and aquatic species. Benefits ecosystem services, such as biodiversity, flow regulation, water quality and climate change adaptation. Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species Reduction in sediment load delivered to river. Control of the disease within the catchment; maintaining and preserving tree health. Requires landowner consultation, consent and participation. There would be some loss of productive agricultural land along the bank top with associated financial implications. Minor land-take from agriculture. Beneficial in long-term. Requires landowner consent and participation Requires landowner action. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 86

93 River Lugg: Reaches Lugg011 and Lugg012 Restoration option: 2. Weir removal Restoration measures 2. Weir removal Restoration actions: Weir removal is a possibility that could be investigated near the Lugg meanders and down towards Leominster. Bearing in mind the flood risk constraints going into the town, many of the weirs in this vicinity appear not to serve the purpose of flow attenuation but could have been installed more for the purpose of meander stabilisation so that natural fluvial geomorphological processes would not continue at natural rates, but rather slow down thus allowing more certainty in terms of land use and field boundaries. If the weirs were removed, and coupled with planting of riparian vegetation, this would benefit both the natural hydromorphology and ecology. Establishment of appropriate riparian vegetation would help prevent manage the rate of channel adjustment.. Category: SSSI Unit 3 Weir locations Reach Lugg012 Significant channel restoration Unfavourable recovering Weir location Reach Lugg011 (meander stabilization) As can be seen in the aerial photograph above, the area is under intense cultivation chiefly arable, so landowner cooperation would need to be sought and support for accompanying riparian options arranged. The area within the Lugg Meanders nominated an SSSI in itself due to its natural fluvial features of erosion and deposition. These aspects can be further enhanced by the removal of some of the many artificial weir structures, which may not be necessary to flood risk and whose removal could increase habitat and hydromorphological quality. As can be seen from the above aerial image and adjacent images, there are existing areas of wet woodland within the Lugg Meander SSSI and reach Lugg011 in particular. The coupling of an extension of this woodland with weir removal can serve to increase flood storage and create natural attenuation during times of spate, as well as the ecological and hydromorphological benefits mentioned earlier. Aerial images Google Earth Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Weir removal Investigate possibility of weir Allows natural fluvial processes to Potential land use change as removal at these sites. Plant dominate channel adjusts, requires variety of native riparian flora Provides cover for mammals and landowner consent and (including extension of existing wet woodland) habitat consultation Significant channel works associated with weir removal Allow natural channel adjustment (erosion and deposition) to occur Provides diversity of habitat for fish and invertebrates and potentially birds if vertical cliffs form. Minor loss of land. Need to establish riparian buffer and may need to put in place support such as an agrienvironment scheme agreement to support change in land management. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 87

94 River Lugg: Reaches LUGG013 to LUGG014 Kenwater weir to The Marsh (Leominster) Category: Riparian zone management Minor in-channel works Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer zone widening/ creation and woodland regeneration/ creation 4. Channel cross-sectional enhancement SSSI Unit 2-3 WFD water body: GB Unfavourable recovering Poor Ecological Status Morphology: Supports Good Context: Highly modified channel for flood defence (LUGG013) Highly modified trapezoidal channel (LUGG014) Pressures: Channelised section with little flow diversity (LUGG013) Agricultural pressure - sediment delivery from land surface and tributary streams (LUGG014) Lugg River section through Leominster (LUGG013 correct) - a possible candidate reach for bioengineering approaches Bioengineering works Channelized sections of river can have degraded ecology due to lack of morphological diversity, suitable substrate, bankside vegetation and flow diversity. In the absence of options to apply current river restoration technique to revert back to more natural planform, process and function, bioengineering presents an attractive alternative for improving bankside habitat while ensuring the integrity of flood control structures. At Leominster, there is the potential for bioengineering active edging which can present habitat and water quality improvement opportunities through the town as well as amenity value. This approach, potentially coupled with increased tree cover over banks, may provide an improved diversity of habitat for invertebrates and fish. Photograph of the active edging system in action in-situ Schematic of edging fixation and plant/root arrangement Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Cross section enhancement Riparian improvement zone River bioengineering system, which rise and fall with changing water level, within the highly modified river section in this area Intersperse riparian tree cover on bank sides through LUGG013 Increase buffer strip width (minimum of 12m) in contributing stream areas (Cogwell Brook, Main Ditch and Cheaton Brook) Improve in-channel habitat diversity Because system rises and falls with changing water levels, floating channel habitats would not increase flood risk Improves aesthetics of the river making it more attractive for residents and visitors to Leominster Help to control summer temperature Leaf litter create biomass for inchannel wildlife (invertebrates) Reduce sediment delivery from the tributaries, especially during higher flow events. Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species (e.g. backwater creates fish refuge areas during high Public engagement is recommended to inform residents how these floating habitats work, so not to raise public concern over increased flood risk. Requires planning permission and local authority participation. Potentially limited space along the river corridor Landowner consultation is required because of potential loss of agricultural land along bank top, with financial implications. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 88

95 Reduce livestock densities and grazing frequency to enable establishment of the riparian zone (LUGG014) Exclude stock from fields adjacent to the river during the winter months or periods of prolonged wet weather especially whilst riparian vegetation establishes Provide drinking water troughs in fields adjacent to the river to reduce the frequency of livestock descending banks to access the river for drinking. flows). Reduce fine sediment supply and improve diversity of riparian zone and stability of the river banks Provides cover for mammals and a naturalised aquatic habitat. Complies with Habitats Directive and Biodiversity Benefits the ecosystem services of Herefordshire and Lowlands NCA, such as biodiversity, flow regulation, water quality and climate regulation (see Section 3.3) Landowner consultation is required because of potential loss of agricultural land along bank top, with financial implications. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 89

96 River Lugg: Reaches LUGG015 Eaton to Wharton Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer zone widening/ creation and woodland regeneration/ creation 3. Land management measures 5. Working with natural processes to manage flooding Category: SSSI Unit 2 WFD water body: GB Riparian zone management Unfavourable recovering Poor Ecological Status Morphology: Supports Good Context: Mixture of pasture and arable land use. Intermittent riparian corridor. Uniform channel. Pressures: Grazing/poaching providing diffuse sediment delivery. Sediment delivery from tributary Arrow. Buffer zone enhancement Wet woodland creation The Arrow Lugg confluence is an area of high sediment delivery and the addition of wet woodland in the area at the confluence just within the Arrow catchment, could help reduce sediment delivery as well as provide flood attenuation. Aerial image Google Earth Wet woodland planting can act as valuable flood storage measures. These areas can open up areas of floodplain which naturally provide high storage capacities as compared to meadow or farmland. This approach can replace the need for channel incision and dredging - which has been carried out in the past to create increased in-channel flood capacity, but which bears consequences for aquatic ecology and fluvial morphological diversity which supports it. An effective approach to wet woodland or backwater water creation could be to situate the new measure upstream of high-risk flood areas, in order that flood water attenuation may occur in the area upstream before the high risk areas are affected. This would serve to lessen the effect of spate events in areas which are most prone. Backwater/wet woodland creation in the areas around Leominster golf course (Lugg015) and Bodenham (Lugg018) could aid flood alleviation at the Bodenham high risk area. As can be seen from the Internal Drainage Board map illustrating high risk areas for flooding, two of the chief areas of concern on the main-stem Lugg are around Leominster, Bodemham and Wellington. Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Riparian zone improvement Increase the width of the existing riparian buffer strip, ideally at least 12m wide Reduce fine sediment supply and improve diversity of riparian zone and stability of the river banks Provides cover for mammals and a naturalised aquatic habitat. Complies with Habitats Directive and Landowner consultation is required because of potential loss of agricultural land along bank top, with financial implications. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 90

97 Land management measures Wet woodland creation. Flood storage measures. Decrease grazing density. Fencing may be an option. Design and create suitably located and shaped creation of wet woodland area within the Arrow riparian zone close to the Lugg confluence Plant variety of native riparian trees (woodland creation). Biodiversity Benefits the ecosystem services of Herefordshire and Lowlands NCA, such as biodiversity, flow regulation, water quality and climate regulation (see Section 3.3) Reduce fine sediment supply and improve diversity of riparian zone and stability of the river banks. Reduce sediment delivery from the Arrow tributary, especially during higher flow events. Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species (e.g. backwater creates fish refuge areas during high flows). Flood attenuation upstream of high risk area. Landowner consultation is required because of potential loss of agricultural land along bank top, with financial implications. Minor land-take from agriculture, may require support through agrienvironment or other scheme. Requires landowner consent and participation. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 91

98 River Lugg: Reach Lugg016 Wharton to 500m downstream Restoration measures: 4. Cross sectional enhancements Category: SSSI Units 2 Assisted natural recovery Unfavourable recovering Context: Modified section with bank reinforcement on the right bank due to the A49. Limited features. Pressures: Planform straight with a vertical reinforced bank on the right bank. Constrained channel. Installation of active edge bioengineering systems along this reach, which rise and fall with changing water levels, will assist the creation habitat diversity within this reach. In-channel enhancements could include implementation of woody debris and re-profiling of banks. Photograph of the active edging system in action in-situ Schematic of edging fixation and plant/root arrangement Cross sectional reprofiling and riparian enhancement / wet woodland creation potential here Potential for active edge technology here Restoration options for the short reach Lugg016. Due to the proximity of the road, reprofiling / removal of embankment is not likely an option, unless it was replaced by a similarly hard but potentially two-stage defence. Active edge technology could be a viable approach to improving habitat and shading though the reach. On the left bank, there is potential for enhancing and widening the riparian zone and for wet woodland and backwater creation. Aerial images Google Earth Restoration Actions: Explore options for bank reprofiling along this reach to create more natural bank profiles without compromising flood risk or the major adjacent infrastructure. Explore options for insertion of active edge bioengineering systems to enhance local in-channel habitat diversity. Explore opportunity to expand the riparian buffer width to further enhance this reach. This could involve planting of native tree species along the river bank to create a stand of trees along the riparian corridor width as opposed to single line trees. Undertake a programme of tree coppicing where appropriate to control the spread of phytophthora and encourage regeneration of the trees. Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Bank reprofiling. Alteration of current bank profiles to create more natural banks typical of this river. Creation of more natural bank habitats and flow diversity. Flood risk assessment is likely to be required to explore the impacts of changes to the cross sectional profile of the channel. This may also require a WFD assessment. Landowner agreement would be required. Changes to the cross sectional profile and any enhancement works must not have a negative impact on the adjacent infrastructure. Install active edge bioengineering. Installation of bioengineering along the bank face to create localised enhancement Creates habitat for species and increases habitat diversity. Landowner agreement would be required. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 92

99 Widening of current buffer strip widths Tree management to in-channel habitat diversity. Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees Refer to the Riparian Zone Management table in Section 4.7 Targeted coppicing of trees to manage phytophthora where appropriate Reduction in sediment load delivered to river. Provides channel shading to reduce stream water temperature, shelter, habitat and food for mammals and aquatic species. Benefits ecosystem services, such as biodiversity, flow regulation, water quality and climate change adaptation. Controls the spread of the disease within the catchment and encourages regeneration of affected tree Changes to the cross sectional profile and any enhancement works must not have a negative impact on the adjacent infrastructure. Requires landowner consultation, consent and participation. There would be some loss of productive agricultural land along the bank top with associated financial implications. Requires land owner cooperation LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 93

100 River Lugg: Reaches LUGG017 Wharton to Hope-under-Dinmore Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer zone widening/ creation and woodland regeneration/ creation 3. Land management measures 5. Working with natural processes to manage flooding Category: SSSI Unit 1 (and part of the River Wye SAC) WFD water body: GB Riparian zone management Unfavourable recovering Poor Ecological Status Morphology: Supports Good Context: Low sinuosity, uniform morphology with some wooded sections. Pressures: Planform straighter possibly historically realigned and overdeepened. Some pressure from diffuse sediment input and poaching but section through golf course and woodland looks good. Expansion and widening of the riparian zone is recommended in LUGG017. Poor riparian structure results in increased bank erosion, increased sediment input to the channel and poor riparian and marginal channel habitats. Livestock also cause more damage to banks and increase in sediment input to channel where there is poor riparian vegetation structure. The lack of channel shading will also result in high stream water temperatures. Buffer zone widening Poaching is a source of fine sediment, which can affect the bed of the river when deposited, smothering gravels used for spawning. The trampled banks provide some habitat for invertebrates; however elevated volumes of fine sediment are unnatural to the catchment and a sign of high stocking density. Reach 017 could be considered for backwater creation to provide alleviation, while potentially creating amenity areas - for example if created within the environs of the golf course. Backwater creation or wet woodland planting can act as valuable flood storage measures. These areas can open up areas of floodplain which naturally provide high storage capacities as compared to meadow or farmland. This approach can replace the need for channel incision and dredging - which has been carried out in the past to create increased in-channel flood capacity, but which bears consequences for aquatic ecology and fluvial morphological diversity which supports it. Wet woodland creation An effective approach to wet woodland or backwater water creation could be to situate the new measure upstream of highrisk flood areas, in order that flood water attenuation may occur in the area upstream before the high risk areas are affected. This would serve to lessen the effect of spate events in areas which are most prone. Aerial image Google Earth Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Riparian zone improvement Increased riparian cover in pasture areas (ideally up to 15m) and potentially fence where needed to encourage riparian vegetation growth. Fencing could be a temporary measure. Reduce livestock densities and grazing frequency to enable establishment of the riparian zone. Exclude stock from fields adjacent to the river during the winter months or periods of prolonged wet weather especially whilst riparian vegetation establishes Provide drinking water troughs in fields adjacent to the river to reduce the frequency of livestock descending banks to access the river for drinking. Working with natural processes to manage flooding - this reach could be a targeted area (pending landowner consultation etc.) for wet woodland creation thus enhancing riparian flood storage. This would increase habitat diversity, sediment trapping and improve stability of the river banks. This would increase habitat diversity and sediment trapping. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 94

101 River Lugg: Reach Lugg018 Hampton Court Weir to Bowely. Restoration measures: Natural Recovery/ Conserve & Protect Category: (Assisted) Natural Recovery/ Conserve & Protect SSSI Unit 1 Unfavourable recovering Context: Irregular meanders and incised channel through this reach. Larinier fish pass installed at weir. Pressures: Embankments present. Channel overwidened and overdeepened historically exhibiting a 1:5 depth to width ratio. Enhancement of the riparian zone on the right bank downstream of the weir may help to stabilise the bank which is subject to erosion due to the impacts the weir is having on flow patterns and velocity resulting in channel widening. Aerial images Google Earth Aerial images Google Earth Possibility for left bank buffer strip enhancement, which is currently very thin. Widening of the buffer strip along with increased tree cover in this reach would assist recovery of natural processes. The widening of the buffer strip would tie in with riparian improvements made downstream. Example of riparian buffer strip creation along the downstream section of this reach. Extending this buffer strip upstream would assist natural recovery and enhance the riparian corridor and habitat diversity. Aerial images Google Earth Restoration Actions: Preserve and conserve existing woodland habitat along the river banks and within the floodplain Explore opportunity to expand the riparian buffer width, ideally up to 15m wide to further enhance this reach. This could involve planting of native tree species along the river bank to create a stand of trees along the riparian corridor width as opposed to single line trees. Ensure future activities do not compromise the existing habitats of the river channel, riparian zone and floodplain. Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Protect and conserve the current physical habitats through this reach Prevent activities that would cause damage or deterioration of current habitat status and river dynamics. Preserve existing habitat quality. The weir may be of heritage importance posing a permanent barrier on the river continuity. Widening of current buffer strip widths Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees Refer to the Riparian Zone Management table in Section 4.7. Reduction in sediment load delivered to river. Provides channel shading to reduce stream water temperature, shelter, habitat and food for mammals and aquatic species. Benefits ecosystem services, such as biodiversity, flow regulation, water quality and climate change adaptation. Requires landowner consultation, consent and participation. There would be some loss of productive agricultural land along the bank top with associated financial implications. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 95

102 River Lugg: Reaches LUGG019 to LUGG021 Bowley to trainline Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer zone widening/ creation and woodland regeneration/ creation 5. Working with natural processes to manage flooding Category: SSSI Unit 1 (and part of the River Wye SAC) WFD water body: GB Riparian zone management Unfavourable recovering Poor Ecological Status Morphology: Supports Good Context: Section through intensive arable land with little buffer strip and thin riparian cover (LUGG019 and LUGG021). Steep vertical banks, some depositional features and naturally eroding banks (LUGG020). Pressures: Diffuse sediment pollution from arable runoff due to intensive land use with little riparian buffer in this section (LUGG019). Historically dredged/deepened (LUGG019). Pasture land with fairly sparse tree /riparian cover (LUGG020). Intensive arable land with very thin buffer strip (<10m) (LUGG021). LUGG021 east side of the trainline LUGG019 Aerial images Google Earth The aerial images illustrate LUGG019 and LUGG021 which could be considered for backwater creation and wet woodland flood storage measures. Measures undertaken within reaches 019 and 021 would also provide some buffer for the likely sediment runoff from intensive arable production in those areas. Poor riparian structure results in increased bank erosion, increased sediment input to the channel and poor riparian and marginal channel habitats. Livestock also cause more damage to banks and increase in sediment input to channel where there is poor riparian vegetation structure. The lack of channel shading will also result in high stream water temperatures. Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Riparian zone improvement Riparian buffer zone widening and woodland regeneration/ creation Increase habitat diversity, sediment trapping and stability of the river bank. Creation of wet woodland creation to work with natural processes to manage flooding. Design suitably located and shaped online areas where backwaters may form (LUGG019 and LUGG021). Increase tree cover (LUGG020). Plant trees /bushes/shrubs of varying ages and heights so that varying degrees of shade is achieved next to channel. Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species (e.g. backwater creates fish refuge areas during high flows). Intercept sediment runoff, creating a sink for sediment slowing down delivery rate to the stream. Provide flood defence Naturally regulate water temperature. Water quality improvements due to biological interactions within water column. Minor land-take from agriculture, may require support through agrienvironment or other scheme Consultation with land owner. Financial support through agrienvironment schemes may be required. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 96

103 River Lugg: Reaches LUGG022 to LUGG024 Trainline to Shelwick Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer zone widening/ creation and woodland regeneration/ creation 3. Land management measures 5. Working with natural processes to manage flooding Category: SSSI Unit 1 (and part of the River Wye SAC) WFD water body: GB Riparian zone management Assisted natural recovery Unfavourable recovering Poor Ecological Status Morphology: Supports Good Context: Uniform channel. Sections of the river are embanked, particularly around Marden (LUGG022) Section through woodland, with good planform and some shading (LUGG023) Good planform and geomorphologically active (LUGG024). Pressures: Intensive pasture. Sparse riparian cover (LUGG022). Pasture on left bank. Animal access to river (LUGG023) Pressure due to proximity of arable and pasture fields with minimal buffer (LUGG024) Bank top and set back embankments (LUGG022 and LUGG024) Possible location for Embankment breaching Aerial image Google Earth Embankment removal, set back or breaching The aim of embankment creation along or adjacent to river bank tops is to increase the amount of water that can be contained in the channel before the floodplain is inundated. This is now thought to have drawback in terms of the amount of sedimentation which remains in-channel and the degree of damage done to banks and floodplains if (when) the defences are breached. The approach of removing, setting back or breaching embankments can creating flood storage and attenuation zones for rivers which are prone to winter (wet weather) spate events, as is the Lugg. Reach Lugg024 is a potential candidate reach for embankment breaching. Form the aerial photograph (left) there are areas of woodland and farmland which could potentially be transformed into flood storage zones / wet woodlands. This approach in tandem with embankment breaches, could serve to lessen the effect of major state events by using the storage area as flood attenuation measures. Embankment at Lugg024 Potential locations for embankment breaching were thought to be around the following locations: (Grid refs: SO & SO ). Landowner agreement would be required along with a detailed flood risk assessment. Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Riparian zone improvement Increased riparian cover and possibly fencing in areas (LUGG022). Increased buffer width and tree planting (LUGG023 and LUGG024) Capacity to increase areas of woodland and riparian shading. Minimise animal access to river (possibility of fencing) (LUGG024) Assisted natural recovery Potential to set back or breach embankments (LUGG022 and LUGG024) Improve habitat biodiversity, increase sediment trapping and increase bank stability. Improve floodplain connectivity, improving biodiversity, and acts as a sink for sediment. Minor land-take from agriculture, may require support through agrienvironment or other scheme. Loss of land during times of high flow, potential change of land use. May require support from agrienvironment scheme. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 97

104 River Lugg: Reaches LUGG025 LUGG026 Shelwick to Mordiford Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer zone widening/ creation and woodland regeneration/ creation 3. Land management measures Category: SSSI Unit 1 (and part of the River Wye SAC) WFD water body: GB Riparian zone management Unfavourable recovering Poor Ecological Status Morphology: Supports Good Context: Set back embankments on both banks. Uniform channel, some depositional features (LUGG025). Lugg Bridge to Mordiford. Good planform and geomorphologically active. Naturally eroding banks with depositional features. Vertical banks reducing floodplain connectivity in low flows. Some sections have set back embankments (LUGG026) Pressures: Risk of point and diffuse sediment loading due to proximity of arable and pasture fields with minimal riparian buffer strips Sediment inputs from field drains Possible woodland creation Riparian buffer zone widening potential Aerial images Google Earth Poor riparian structure results in increased bank erosion, increased sediment input to the channel and poor riparian and marginal channel habitats. Livestock also cause more damage to banks and increase in sediment input to channel where there is poor riparian vegetation structure. The lack of channel shading will also result in high stream water temperatures. Poaching is a source of fine sediment, which can affect the bed of the river when deposited, smothering gravels used for spawning. The trampled banks provide some habitat for invertebrates; however elevated volumes of fine sediment are unnatural to the catchment and a sign of high stocking density. Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints Riparian zone management Minimise animal access to river and reinstate riparian cover. Reduce livestock densities and grazing frequency to enable establishment of the riparian zone Exclude stock from fields adjacent to the river during the winter months or periods of prolonged wet weather especially whilst riparian vegetation Provide drinking water troughs in fields adjacent to the river to reduce the frequency of livestock descending banks to access the river for drinking. Widen buffer strip and plant variety of trees, bushes & tall herbs. Introduce buffer strips near major outfall structures to minimise fine sediment input into the river. Provides sediment control, habitat creation and water temperature regulation. Landowner consultation is required because of potential loss of agricultural land along bank top, with financial implications. LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 98