river avon sac: demonstrating strategic restoration and

River Avon SAC: Demonstrating Strategic Restoration and Management

“STREAM”

LIFE05 UK/Nat/000143

FINAL REPORT Covering the period 01 August 2005 – 30 September 2009

REPORTING DATE: 30 September 2009

REPORT COMPILED BY:

Gerry Hamersley – Chair, Project steering group and Jenny Wheeldon – Project Manager

Assisted by: Elaine Swiffen & Chris Patrick – Project Administration and Finance Officers

River Avon SAC: Demonstrating Strategic Restoration and Management

“STREAM”

LIFE05 UK/Nat/000143

FINAL REPORT Covering the period 01 August 2005 – 30 September 2009

REPORTING DATE 30 September 2009

Project data Project location River Avon Special Area of Conservation, Wiltshire, UK

Project start date: 01 August 2005

Project end date: 30 September 2009

Total Project duration (in months)

50 months

Total budget € 1,570,163

EC contribution: € 628,065

(%) of total costs 40 %

(%) of eligible costs 40 %

Beneficiary Data Name Beneficiary Natural England

Contact person Gerry Hamersley

Postal address Prince Maurice Court, Hambleton Avenue, Devizes, Wiltshire SN10 2RT, United Kingdom

Visit address As above

Telephone +44 (0) 300 060 4043

Fax: +44 (0) 300 060 4047

E-mail [email protected]

Project Website www.streamlife.org.uk

1

LIST OF CONTENTS List of key words and abbreviations Executive summary Section 1 Introduction Section 2 Project framework Section 3 Progress and results

A Preparatory actions C Non‐recurring management actions E Public awareness and dissemination of information F Overall project operation

Section 4 Evaluation and conclusions a. The process b. Project management

c. Successes and failures d. Comparison against the project objectives e. Environmental benefits, policy and legislation implications f. Innovation, demonstration value g. Socio‐economic effects h. The future: sustainability (see afterlife plan) i. Long term indicators of the project success

Section 5 Comments on financial report Section 6 After‐LIFE plan Section 7 Layman’s report Annexes

1. Project plan and progress 2. Environmental impact assessment 3. Identifiable products of the project 4. River restoration works 5. Linking river and floodplain 6. Events 7. Public relations and media coverage 8. Project management and organisation

Minutes of steering group, working group and communication group meetings 9. Monitoring programme 10. UKRRC audit of river restoration sites

2

LIST OF KEY WORDS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AMP ‐ Asset Management Programme BAP ‐ Biodiversity Action Plan BOM ‐ Biodiversity Outcome Measures CAMS ‐ Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy CASS ‐ Conservation of Scottish Salmon CES ‐ Conservation Enhancement Scheme CSF ‐ Catchment Sensitive Farming DEFRA ‐ Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs EAP ‐ Environmental Action Plan ECAP ‐ Eutrophication Control Action Plan EIA ‐ Environmental Impact Assessment EN ‐ English Nature EA ‐ Environment Agency ECRR ‐ European Centre for River Restoration FACT ‐ Forum for Active Conservation Techniques FTA ‐ Fixed term Appointment GIS ‐ Geographic Information System HLF ‐ Heritage Lottery Fund HLS ‐ Higher Level Stewardship HOP ‐ Hatch Operating Protocol HWT ‐ Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust LPA ‐ Local Planning Authority MOA ‐ Memorandum of Agreement NGO ‐ Non Governmental Organisation NE ‐ Natural England NLO ‐ Net Limitation Order PSA ‐ Public Service Agreement RAAVI ‐ River Avon and Avon Valley Initiative RBMP ‐ River Basin Management Plan ROC ‐ Review Of Consents SAC ‐ Special Area of Conservation SAP ‐ Salmon Action Plan SFRRA ‐ Strategic Framework for the Restoration of the River Avon SOAS ‐ School of African and Oriental Studies SPA ‐ Special Protection Area STREAM ‐ Demonstrating Strategic Restoration and Management SSSI ‐ Site of Special Scientific Interest SWOT ‐ Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats UCL ‐ University College London UWE ‐ University of the West of England UKRRC ‐ United Kingdom River Restoration Centre WCSP ‐ Wessex Chalk Streams Project WFD ‐ Water Framework Directive WLMP ‐ Water Level Management Plan WTT ‐ Wild Trout Trust

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report covers the entire STREAM project period, 01 August 2005 to 30 September 2009. The aim of the report is to summarise and evaluate the project actions. The River Avon system and lower Avon Valley contain some of the most rare or threatened species and habitats in Europe and are protected as Natura 20000 sites. The River Avon and its main tributaries are designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The lower Avon Valley is designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) for birds and a SSSI. The overall objective of the project is to demonstrate restoration of favourable condition in the River Avon SAC through a catchment approach and to integrate management of the SAC with the adjacent Avon Valley SPA. The project addresses issues that were identified by the River Avon SAC Conservation Strategy, produced through the LIFE in UK Rivers Project: (Ref: LIFE99 NA/UK/006088). The specific project objectives are:

• To restore the watercourse habitat and conditions for associated species at priority sites within the River Avon SAC

• To demonstrate a range of innovative river restoration techniques appropriate to the River Avon SAC and other chalk rivers, to local, national and European audiences

• To develop coordinated management of the River Avon SAC and the Avon Valley SPA, balancing the requirements of the qualifying interests of each.

Key deliverables and outputs are listed below.

Deliverable or Milestone Associated action

Status

Deliverable: Newsletters years 1‐5 E7 Complete 1‐4, 5 not requiredDeliverable: Leaflet to launch project E7 Complete Deliverable: Media releases year 1‐5 E8 Complete Milestone: Project website launched E3 Launch Feb 2007, updated regularlyDeliverable: Temporary sign boards E9 CompleteDeliverable: Review of fish entrapment prevention A2 CompleteDeliverable: Strategic plan for ditch restoration A3 CompleteDeliverable: CD ROM copy of website E1 Not required Deliverable: Interim monitoring results &reports – years 1‐4 F9/10 CompleteDeliverable: Mobile displays designed E6 Complete, results done as poster Deliverable: Designs of 6 river restoration sites A1 CompleteDeliverable: Protocol for SPA/SAC sluice management C2 CompleteDeliverable: Permanent sign boards E10 CompleteMilestone: Public conservation days completed E5 CompleteDeliverable: Output from river restoration workshops E2 CompleteMilestone: SAC/SPA coordinating project launched A2/A3/C2 CompleteMilestone: River restoration open days completed E3 CompleteDeliverable: Environmental Impact Assessment A4 CompleteMilestone: Exchange visits completed E11 CompleteMilestone: River restoration on all sites completed C1 CompleteDeliverable: Audit of river restoration sites F9 CompleteDeliverable: Seminar outputs E4 CompleteDeliverable: Project end leaflet E7 Incorporated in layman’s reportDeliverable: Technical reports E7 CompleteDeliverable: Newsletters year 5 E7 Not required Deliverable: Layman’s report E7 CompleteDeliverable: After‐LIFE Conservation Plan F10 Complete

4

Actions and results The project tackled effects of past engineering by demonstrating1 river restoration techniques at 6 sites. The river restoration techniques demonstrated are applicable to other lowland river systems and are contributing to the development of strategic restoration plans for Natura 20000 rivers nationally. Crucially these techniques have been documented and monitored, and have been published on the project website as technical advice notes. The project contributed to integrating management of the water levels in the SAC and SPA by identifying ways to prevent fish entrapment in the valley ditch networks, developing a strategic ditch restoration programme and trialling operating regimes for key sluices. Demonstration days, seminars and conferences were used to share best practice, and technical documents have been published on the project website, further disseminating the project’s experiences. Evaluation and conclusions The project has been completed on time and, overall, close to budget. Risks were identified and addressed as required. Detailed project plans were produced and were used to monitor project delivery; in doing so the project timeline was reviewed on several occasions and some timings changed. These changes did not have an effect on the overall conduct and achievement of objectives for the project. Initial indications are that the restoration works have already had ecological benefit, however the monitoring undertaken cannot conclude success or failure within the timeframe of the project. The need to adequately fund monitoring should be considered in funding future river restoration projects; it is complex and needs to be done over a long period if it is to give meaningful results. The STREAM method for prioritising floodplain restoration works and creating hatch operating protocols are applicable in other European countries with highly managed wetland Natura 2000 sites. The STREAM project has demonstrated how the private and public sectors and NGOs can work together effectively to address issues that can’t be resolved using statutory measures. The linking of STREAM and Living River demonstrated an efficient way to integrate two projects, maximising the benefits of both. Future action and sustainability STREAM has not solved all the problems affecting the River Avon system, but importantly has demonstrated restoration techniques and built strong partnerships to carry on the work. The future management of the river restoration undertaken by STREAM has been secured with legal agreements, which will be monitored as part of Natural England routine favourable condition assessment. The project has acted as a catalyst for planning and funding further restoration of the River Avon SAC. Since August 2008, and as a separately funded exercise, the project participants have been developing a whole river restoration plan for the River Avon SAC.

Natural England, in conjunction with Project Partners and other stakeholders held an initial workshop to consider in detail the continuation of the project and outstanding threats to the SAC in autumn 2008. The workshop informed development of the “After LIFE Conservation Plan”, which sets out how the project actions will be continued and developed, and how the long term management of the site will be secured.

1 “Demonstration” is defined in this context as trialling restoration techniques so as to demonstrate their contribution to achieving favourable condition

5

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Description of background, problem and objectives The project targeted restoration and management of the River Avon Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Avon Valley Special Protection Area (SPA). The location of the River Avon SAC, the Avon Valley SPA and the sites is shown in Maps 1, 2 and 3. The river is designated as an SAC for the river habitat including water crowfoot and populations of Atlantic salmon, brook and sea lamprey, bullhead, Desmoulin’s whorl snail. It also has a national designation as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), supporting important UK Biodiversity Action Plan species and habitats such as otter, water vole, wet woodland and reed beds. The Avon Valley includes one of the largest expanses of unimproved floodplain grazing marsh in Britain and is designated as an SPA for gadwall and Bewick’s swan. The floodplain grazing marsh of the Avon Valley is also designated as an SSSI, supporting a complex mosaic of wetland habitats, breeding waders and wintering wildfowl and is notable for a wide range of breeding wetland birds, rare plants and wetland insects. A key threat to the River Avon SAC is the effect of past engineering which has resulted in the destruction of habitats, channels too wide and deep for natural river flows, damaged vegetation communities, silting of gravel and disconnection of the river from the floodplain. The further key threat is the conflicts between management required to improve the condition of the Avon Valley SPA and the needs of the River Avon SAC fish species. Widespread lack of awareness and understanding of the SAC/SPA features and their requirements by landowners/managers, farmers, fishing clubs, and the wider public audience is a further threat to the sites. 1.2 Overall objective and expected results The overall objective of the project is to demonstrate restoration of favourable condition in the River Avon SAC through a catchment approach and to integrate management of the SAC with the adjacent Avon Valley SPA. The project addresses issues that were identified by the River Avon SAC Conservation Strategy, produced through the LIFE in UK Rivers Project: (Ref: LIFE99 NAT/UK/006088). The specific project objectives are:

• To restore the watercourse habitat and conditions for associated species at priority sites within the River Avon SAC

• To demonstrate a range of innovative river restoration techniques appropriate to the River Avon SAC and other chalk rivers, to local, national and European audiences

• To develop coordinated management of the River Avon SAC and the Avon Valley SPA, balancing the requirements of the qualifying interests of each.

The expected results of the project were as follows:

• Physical features and geomorphological processes of the watercourse habitat re‐established at six river restoration demonstration sites

• Approximately 7km of river and banks enhanced and woody debris introduced • Groynes constructed and gravel introduced to create an estimated 500m2 of new spawning area • Restoration works demonstrating a range of traditional and new techniques in different river

habitats

6

• Results distributed to a range of local, national and EU audiences, working with the Living River project

• Best practice guidance protocols on sluice operation produced and distributed to relevant landowners and operators in the SAC

• Ditch management and Salmo salar exclusion measures disseminated to all landowners and operators in the SPA

• Demonstration hatch operating protocol for the Lower Avon produced and disseminated to all relevant landowners and operators in the SAC

• Improved stakeholder and public appreciation of the sites and species achieved through use of a project website, workshops, leaflets, posters, media publicity, open days, sign and display boards and layman’s reports.

Map 1 River Avon’s location within UK (England) regions

7

Map 2 Location of River Avon SAC and SPA within the local region.

8

Map 3 Location of STREAM River Restoration Sites within the Avon SAC

9

2 PROJECT FRAMEWORK

2.1 Working method ‐ overview of planning and actions The table below summarises the main project actions undertaken. A full list and a description of all actions is given in Annex 1. Code Title and Actions Objective A Preparatory activities: design of river

restoration, linking river and floodplain, and managing environmental impacts. .

To create six detailed designs for the river restoration sites, which meet the objectives of the LIFE project and are also acceptable to the landowners and fishing clubs

C Permanent activities: demonstration of river restoration, hatch operating protocols

Demonstration of a wide range of river restoration techniques that can be used to bring stretches of the River Avon SAC into favourable condition

E Communication and dissemination: events, publications and interpretation

To raise awareness of the River Avon SAC and Valley SPA, share project experience and promote technical outputs

F Project management and evaluation To ensure effective delivery and evaluation of the project The project began in August 2005, and ended on 30 September 2009. All project actions were completed during this period. A plan of project delivery showing the detailed timings for planning and delivery of all actions can also be seen in Annex 1. 2.2 Beneficiary, partners and project organisation The framework for the overall operation of STREAM consists of Steering, Working, Communication, and (informal) Technical Groups. The project governance structure is shown in Figure 1 overleaf. Natural England (beneficiary) is the UK government’s advisor on the natural environment in England. NE employs the three project staff, and has overall responsibility for the financial and technical management of the projects.

The Environment Agency (partner) is the statutory agency for protecting and improving the environment in England and Wales, and the primary flood risk management body. The EA has a lead role in implementing the river restoration, developing structure operating protocols and a method to prioritise fishery and floodplain works and in ensuring that STREAM best practice guidance and policies are adopted across the UK. The Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust (partner) manages 2,280 hectares of wildlife habitat, and has a membership of over 27,000 people. The Wiltshire Wildlife Trust (partner) manages 34 Nature Reserves, coordinates biological records from the county and has over 10,000 members. The Wildlife Trusts (partners) make an important contribution to communications activities. With nearly 40,000 members between them, their involvement ensures that messages about RAAVI and the River Avon reach a large, diverse audience. Wessex Water (co‐financier) is a leading public water supply company in the South of England. The company works closely with wildlife conservation organisations to support work that enhances the local biodiversity. Wessex Water gives technical guidance, an industry perspective on project outputs, and make a valuable contribution to delivering the overall communication strategy. In addition, as a consequence of their involvement in STREAM they have provided extra funding for a whole river restoration plan, and done additional monitoring of restoration works.

10

2.3 Project modifications

A modification was issued on 23 August 2007 changing the beneficiary from English Nature to Natural England. A budget modification was issued on 18 September 2009 changing the distribution of budget between categories. Details of the modifications can be seen in Annex 1.

11

Figure 1 Project governance structure and participant representatives

Executive Steering Group

Natural England (Chair) – Gerry Hamersley Environment Agency – Ron Curtis

Wiltshire Wildlife Trust – Simon Smith Hampshire Wildlife Trust – John Durnell

Wessex Water – Julian Dennis

Working Group

Natural England(Chair) – Dagmar Junghanns Environment Agency – Allan Frake

Wiltshire Wildlife Trust – Bill Jenman Hampshire Wildlife Trust – Jess Pain

Wessex Water – Fiona Bowles

Project Team

Project Manager – Jenny Wheeldon

Finance & Administration Officer – Chris Patrick/Elaine Swiffen

River Avon / Avon Valley Advisory

Group

Key Stakeholders

Technical Advisor

The River Restoration Centre

Technical Groups

1. River Restoration (informal)

2. Monitoring Group (informal)

3. Communication Group (joint with Living River)

Natural England – Martin Gershon Environment Agency – Allan Frake

Wiltshire Wildlife Trust – Sue Litherland Hampshire Wildlife Trust – Sally Hayns

Wessex Water – Fiona Bowles Salisbury Festival – Maria Bota

Hampshire County Council –Marilyn Meeks Wiltshire County Council – Brian Walker

12

3 PROGRESS AND RESULTS For each action, a table summarising the technical development and more detailed commentary on each action are provided below. 3.1 Preparatory “A” actions A Actions Project target Status Explanation Cost (Euro)

A1 Detailed design of restoration sites

6 complete detailed designs

Completed Final designs completed 98,869

A2 Review of fish exclusion measures

Report and best practice note

Completed Report completed, workshop held to discuss findings and results disseminated. Advice note produced.

9,726

A3 Strategic plan of ditch restoration

Strategic plan across SPA

Completed Plan completed, workshop held to discuss findings and results disseminated. Advice note produced.

20,644

A4 Environmental impact assessment

Completion of EIA process

Completed Screening opinions obtained from planning authorities. Environmental Reports completed and advertised and EAPs prepared.

3,326

Action A1 Detailed design Action A1 created detailed designs for the six river restoration sites. These met the objectives of the LIFE project and were also acceptable to the landowners and fishing clubs. The STREAM project manager, Jenny Wheeldon, was the overall project manager for the river restoration programme. The EA was responsible for delivery of the river restoration design and construction (Actions A1 and C1) with the exception of the work at Dockens Water, which was undertaken by the HWT. Engineers from the EA were allocated time to manage the design and construction of the other five river restoration projects. In addition, the project appointed an independent consultant (Vaughan Lewis of Windrush AEC) to act as technical supervisor during the design and build phases of all the restoration works. The technical supervisor and EA technical specialist Allan Frake had an important role in mentoring the engineers, who had little previous experience of river restoration design. Designs were developed for the river restoration works at Woodford (action C1.1) and Fovant (Action C1.2) in 2006, at Seven Hatches (action C1.4) and Hale (Action C1.6) in 2007, and Amesbury (Action C1.3) and Dockens Water (Action C1.5) in 2008. “As built” drawings have been produced where required to reflect any changes made during the construction process. The designs were developed in close consultation with the relevant landowners and tenants. The fishing clubs at Woodford, Fovant and Seven Hatches were heavily involved in the design and were actively involved on site during the construction phase. Final designs for all the sites can be seen in Annex 4.

13

Action A2 Review and develop methods available to protect SAC fish species from entrapment in Avon Valley SPA ditch networks Action A3 Strategic Plan of ditch restoration across the Avon Valley SPA, integrating the conservation objectives of the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA. Action A2 was set up to review the available options and techniques for excluding fish or facilitating their migration, in particular juvenile salmon, from small watercourses at sensitive times of year, with emphasis on low maintenance, low cost and sustainable solutions. Action A3 was set up to produce a GIS plan for use by agencies and land managers that identified:

• watercourses key to restoration of favourable condition, without detrimental fishery impact • watercourses where wetland restoration can accommodate or enhance fishery interests • watercourses of particular importance for SAC fish and other fish species.

It was agreed that as the two actions were closely linked the two studies should be integrated and the resulting integrated study was completed in autumn 2007 – see Annex 5 for the reports and resulting GIS mapping.

The original approach to Action A2 was to review the available options and techniques for excluding fish or facilitating their migration, and to create a directory of devices and suppliers. Fish exclusion was considered, but methods to exclude fish from waterways are problematic, and in any event allowing fish unrestricted access optimises the environment in fisheries terms. The practicability and cost of providing effective screening and the potential adverse impact of screening suggested that in the great majority of situations screening should be avoided. The preferred approach to the management of secondary waterways is to allow free access for all fish species as long as the benefits of doing so outweigh the risks of losses by entrapment and stranding. This was a key principle in the approach to strategic ditch restoration under Action A3.

Under action A3, a specific study area was selected in order to develop and approach that could be applied more widely in the SPA/SAC. The study area was a large estate with extensive SPA, SAC and SSSI wetland bird and fish interests and a wide range of secondary channels, covering 27% of the Avon Valley SPA. An informal seminar was held on 15 November 2006 to discuss the approach to Actions A2 and A3 with relevant parties. Following this seminar, the EA area fisheries and WLMP teams extended the strategic ditch restoration plan and GIS to cover the whole Avon Valley SPA between Christchurch and Salisbury. An advice note summarising the STREAM project experience of linking river and floodplain management has been published – see Annex 3.

14

Action A4 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Action A4 ensured that the river restoration works undertaken by the project did not adversely affect the environment. Action A4 was completed for each site before relevant work commenced. An EIA scoping report was prepared for the whole STREAM project prior to the bid being submitted. This report concluded that a full EIA was not necessary, as it is implicit that all the works proposed are essential to the conservation management of the sites as defined in the Habitats Regulations. It was the EA’s opinion that the restoration works were permitted development under their statutory powers. The EIA, appropriate assessment and planning screening opinions were confirmed in writing by the LPA. A voluntary Environmental Report was prepared and publicly advertised for each site, stating where and when the works are to take place, to allow consultation on each site individually. The reports include an EAP which is used to manage any potential environmental impacts identified by the Environmental Report. Based on known species of importance at the sites a number of ecological surveys were commissioned to ensure that measures to protect particular species were incorporated into the EAP. The objectives, actions and targets set out in the EAP were monitored throughout the detailed design, construction and post‐construction stages to ensure that any necessary damage prevention/mitigation/ compensation measures were carried out. No environmental incidents were reported before, during or after construction. Copies of the Environmental Reports and Action Plans, and specific survey reports can be found in Annex 2. 3.2 Non‐recurring biotope management “C” Actions C Actions Project target Status Explanation Cost (Euro)

C1 Demonstration of a wide range of river restoration techniques that can be used to bring stretches of the River Avon SAC into favourable condition.

Completed Construction completed at all 6 sites, covering approximately 7km of river.

‐

C1.1 Woodford Demonstrate a range of bio‐engineering techniques

Completed Construction completed November 2006

128,964

C1.2 Fovant Narrow channel, sort substrate, develop marginal vegetation, reduce shading, increase large woody debris, reduce impact of sluice

Completed Construction completed November 2006

49,079

C1.3 Amesbury Reduce cross section, increase large woody debris

Completed Construction completed October 2008

49,425

C1.4 Seven Hatches

Modify sluices, restore bed level, narrow channel, increase large woody debris, remove tractor bridge


281,140

C1.5 Dockens Water

Reprofile banks, reduce shading, re‐connect river and floodplain


3,972

C1.6 Hale Vary flow and channel shape, promote sediment transport, increase spawning habitat and large woody debris


50,202

C2 HOPs Report and best practice notes Completed Completed Spring 2009 51,808

15

Action C1 River restoration Action C1 involved the demonstration of a wide range of river restoration techniques that can be used to bring stretches of the River Avon SAC into favourable condition. Evaluation of the restoration works was carried out under actions F8 and F9 – please refer to these sections for a summary for each site. Action C1.1 River restoration at Woodford At Upper Woodford, the River Avon was extremely wide with a heavily silted bed and little in‐channel vegetation. The object of the restoration is to demonstrate a range of techniques that increase flow and substrate diversity, providing a ‘tool‐kit’ of techniques that others could use on similar river reaches. The work involved:

• use of brushwood, flint reinforcement and chestnut stakes to create vegetated islands • construction of a causeway just above summer water level to narrow the channel and create a still

water area behind the causeway • building sub‐surface log weirs to encourage variation in flow depth and speed • creation of “D‐shape” deflectors made of brushwood to prevent bank erosion and to vary flow.

Left to right: mid‐channel islands, causeway and D‐shape deflectors

The final works differed from those proposed in the original bid as shown in the table below. The changes made during the design process ensured that the objectives of the works as proposed in the bid document were met, and best environmental benefits for the cost. Works proposed in bid Alternative (constructed) Reason for change Use of oil seed rape bales to narrow channel

Long low level deflector used to narrow channel further upstream as this was more beneficial.

Survey showed channel to be very deep and impounded therefore benefit marginal/not present

Excavation of marginal shelves

D shape deflectors to create low level margins

Presence of water voles and Desmoulin’s whorl snail habitat ‐ no excavation possible

N/a Access reinstatement Unsafe for access following works, in part due to restoration resulting in increase in vegetation and related increase in water levels

The work was carried out by Kingcombe Aquacare, EA existing framework contractors. Kingcombe Aquacare did not have previous experience of this type of project and their involvement has added to the expertise available to the EA. Local materials (including the chalk in the causeway) were used wherever possible to ensure the works were as sustainable as possible, and no waste was generated. The fishing club were closely involved in the construction, ensuring that their knowledge of the river was incorporated and that they are satisfied with, and committed to maintaining the works. A management agreement between the club and NE has been signed off for the site.

16

Large parts of the right bank at Upper Woodford were inundated with water for much of 2007 and 2008, preventing safe access to the river bank (left). Modelling of the restoration work (not done as part of the STREAM project) showed that the inundation was due to a combination of vegetation growth (promoted by the restoration work) and weather. As a key aim of the restoration is demonstrate river restoration techniques compatible with angling, a sustainable solution was required. The agreed solution was to re‐instate approximately 200 metres of angler access path made of brushwood, chalk and coir. Gaps in the access path were left at 5 points, to allow free flow of water between the river and floodplain.

Reinstated access Feb 2009 and (right) in July 2009

The work was implemented in February‐April 2009. The design and implementation was by the angling club, with NE and the EA leading on obtaining permission for the works. The access has been successfully reinstated, and the site is again now suitable as a demonstration site. For more details of all the restoration works, including designs, images and the modelling report see Annex 4. Action C1.2 River restoration at Fovant The River Nadder at Fovant was historically dredged and over sized compared to flow. As a result, hatches have to be used to maintain water levels, leading to slow flows and heavy siltation. The object of the work was to modify the channel to a more appropriate width and shape, allowing the impoundment to be reduced, improving in‐channel and marginal habitats. The works involved:

• Selective coppicing of trees on the adjacent south river bank to allow light to reach the channel and enhance bank side vegetation

• Use of felled trunks to create groynes to narrow the river by up to 1/3rd of its width, filled with brash and topped with pre‐planted mats

• Redistribution of silt laden gravel from the right bank to the centre of the channel bed to improve substrate quality.

17

Left to right: Tree trunks pinned in during construction, completed groyne covered with reedfelt, groynes

and tree works The final works differed from those proposed in the original bid as shown in the table below. The changes made during the design process ensured that the objectives of the works as proposed in the bid document were met, and best environmental benefits for the cost. Works proposed in bid Alternative (constructed) Reason for change Current deflectors to restore approximately 300 m of channel

Double original length treated (700m) In order for fishing club to reduce impoundment, works had to extend up to the hatches.

Transplanting of local wetland vegetation

Covered structures with pre‐planted mats ‐ reedfelt and coir used.

Timing of works and risk of damage to wet meadow, which is in an agri‐environment scheme.

The work was carried out by the EA’s own workforce. They had little or no previous experience of this type of project and their involvement has added greatly to the expertise available within the EA. The fishing club were intimately involved in the construction, being present on site daily. Again, the involvement of the club was invaluable in ensuring that their knowledge of the river was incorporated and that they are satisfied with, and committed to maintaining the works. A management agreement between the club and NE has been signed off for the site. It was initially proposed that adjacent wet ditches would be used to provide vegetative material to plant the restoration works. However, due to the meadow being in an agri‐environment scheme and landowner concerns about ground disturbance and compaction in wet conditions, this was not possible. As an alternative, mats pre‐planted with local appropriate vegetation were secured to the structures. A new product (reedfelt) made of recycled British textiles was purchased and used to vegetate 50% of the structures. Another supplier then donated a sample of pre‐planted coir fibre matting to cover two structures. A combination of un‐planted, reedfelt and coir mattress structures resulted, enabling us to observe how they perform, which will be fed back to the wider river restoration community. For more details of the restoration works, including images see Annex 4. Action C1.3 River restoration at Amesbury The works were completed in autumn 2008, with the exception of reinstatement of part of a footpath and short lengths of fencing, which was carried out in early 2009. The River Avon at Amesbury has been heavily dredged in the past, including through this reach in the 1950s, and again in 1967 when part of the river was moved 30 metres to the east to allow construction of a dual carriageway. The overall modifications reduced the river gradient and seriously damaged the habitat for SAC species.

18

The object of the river restoration work was to:

• reduce the cross‐sectional area of the river to dimensions more appropriate to the River Avon’s flow regime, increasing the variety of bed morphology in previously dredged reaches

• increase the amount of large woody debris in the channel in order to increase both the availability of this habitat type and morphological diversity of the channel

• Enhance the availability and quality of habitat for SAC species and habitats. The final restoration work included:

• mechanically re‐grading the existing bank in one place to vary marginal vegetation and reconnect the river and floodplain

• raising the existing bed level with gravel in places, increasing physical habitat variety, particularly for salmon and lamprey

• introducing large woody debris by selectively felling trees and securing these in the channel to create habitat.

The final works differed from those proposed in the original bid as shown in the table below. Significant constraints were identified in the design process, including finding safe machine access and flood risk. The objectives of the original works were still met (or exceeded) at best environmental benefit to cost comparison. Discussions of the technical issues and of the hydraulic assessment are given in Annex 4. A large part of the restoration was done in Lords Walk public park and Amesbury Town Council have been very supportive of the Living River and STREAM projects. A management agreement between the Council and Natural England is in place for their land. Living River worked with volunteers to do habitat enhancement work in the secondary channel adjacent to the main river works in 2009. As public access to the River Avon SAC is generally very limited, this was an excellent opportunity to do enhancement work and adjacent interpretation in an area that is visited by the public. Works proposed in bid Alternative (constructed) Reason for change Reclamation of gravel on site, reinstatement in channel to provide spawning areas

Gravel and stone purchased from local supplier, creating 600m2 of spawning habitat. Exposed gravel bars also provide safe access to the river for the public.

Gravel not present on site in the volume/quality needed

Felling of poplar trees on former water meadow site (left bank upstream of A303) felled and used as groynes

Specific further tree felling and pruning undertaken to provide material for restoration works

Mature poplars removed from much wider area of water meadow by landowner a year before works undertaken. Town council also clearing further mature poplars from water meadow downstream of A303. The clearance of these additional areas will enhance floodplain wetland habitat for Desmoulin’s whorl snail

Fill void spaces between groynes with brash and aggregate bags

N/a Presence of water voles means that restricting access to the river bank face is impossible. The void spaces will accrete silt and become vegetated naturally over time, achieving the same outcome as originally required.

19

Works proposed in bid Alternative (constructed) Reason for change

Excavate left bank upstream of the location of the introduced granular material, to create large, low lying areas

a) Location of gravel reinstatement altered. b) Excavated right bank upstream of gravel re‐introduction.

a) Safe machine access very limited (swamp, weak bridges and numerous secondary channels), gravel re‐introduction only possible in accessible areas b) Presence of water voles and their habitat meant that bank regrading could only be undertaken in one main location

‐ ‐ Coppicing of fringing carr to create cover for fish and solidify wet margin, narrowing channel in the process

Re‐instatement of gravel bars and riffles, and woody debris to deflect and vary flow (right)

Excavation of right bank, creating a large low lying wet margin

The restoration was carried out by the Environment Agency’s own workforce, building on the experience they gained in 2007 and 2008. This prior experience contributed to the works being completed faster and cheaper than originally budgeted. For more details of the restoration works, including the hydraulic assessment and images see Annex 4.

20

Action C1.4 River restoration at Seven Hatches The River Wylye at Seven Hatches near Chilhampton has been heavily dredged in the past, reducing the river gradient and seriously damaging the habitat for SAC species. The object of the river restoration work was to:

• Modify the operation of the Seven Hatches sluices, increasing ecological connectivity between reaches and improving upstream habitat quality

• Restore the historic bed level and increase the heterogeneity of bed morphology in previously dredged reaches, by the re‐introduction of previously excavated gravel/stone bed material

• Narrow over‐wide channels where necessary, in order to re‐establish a sinusoidal channel of appropriate cross‐sectional area with respect to present day hydrographs

• Increase the amount of large woody debris in the channel in order to increase both the availability of this habitat type and morphological diversity of the channel

• Break out and remove the tractor bridge footings and replace with a single span bridge, to remove the impounding effect of the structure

• Enhance the availability and quality of habitat for SAC species and habitats. The work involved:

• reinstating parts of the gravel river bed to increase gradient and therefore flow velocity locally and provide spawning habitat

• narrowing the river channel in places to vary flow depth and velocity and create wet marginal areas • pinning tree limbs into the river to vary flow and scour the reinstated gravel • selectively felling and pruning trees to get more light onto the river and enhance the landscape of

the valley • planting riverside shrubs and fencing the river banks to enhance the marginal vegetation

community.

Narrowing of channel above Seven Hatches Upper area of reinstated gravel bed

21

Tree felling and pruning Woody debris deflecting flow over reinstated gravel bed

The final works differed from those proposed in the original bid as shown in the table below. Significant technical constraints were identified in the design process and the changes made ensured that the objectives of the works were met at the optimum environmental benefit to cost comparison. Topographic survey showed that the two major rail bridges over the river were the key constraint to changes in slope of the river channel; however, it was not cost beneficial to modify the foundations of the bridges. The works also had to be carefully designed so as to avoid impacting on flood risks in the town downstream, which is vulnerable to flooding. A discussion of the technical issues considered is given in Annex 4. Works proposed in bid Alternative (constructed) Reason for change Reclamation of gravel on site, reinstatement in channel to provide spawning areas

Gravel and stone purchased from local supplier, creating 1500m2 of spawning habitat


Felling of entire line of poplar trees Specific tree felling and pruning undertaken at a level which provided ecological and landscape enhancement and material for restoration works

Large scale tree felling to access gravel not required

Removal and replacement of tractor bridge to reduce impoundment

No action Topographic survey showed no hydraulic benefit in removing tractor bridge

Regrading banks and gravel replacement in lower reach

Construction of tree kickers and securing of large woody debris to deflect/vary flow and enhance marginal habitat

Rail bridge controlling slope of reach, therefore very limited hydraulic benefit to be gained in re‐instating gravel into channel. Machine access is restricted and practicality/cost of importing material prohibitive.

N/a Minor adjustment of aquatic berm To ensure structure is safe

22

The consideration of landscape in the design process was important, particularly given the potential visual impact and public reaction to the felling of large trees. The approach taken is detailed in Annex 4. The fishing club were involved in the construction, being present on site weekly. The involvement of the club was invaluable in ensuring that their knowledge of the river was incorporated and that they are satisfied with, and committed to maintaining the works. A management agreement between the club and Natural England is in place for the site. The main work was carried out by Clancy Docwra, EA existing framework contractors. Clancy Docwra did not have previous experience of this type of project and their involvement has added to the expertise available to the EA within their framework contractors. Local materials were used wherever possible to ensure the works were as sustainable as possible, and no waste was generated. Since construction, a combination of 2 years of high flows meant that water levels were consistently 10‐30 centimetres above the level of the berm. As the structure settled, less silt has accreted than is required to consolidate the front edge. The result was a soft, uneven edge, with the cross wires that held material down originally presenting a trip hazard in places. Minor works were carried out in July 2009 to create a more defined front edge along the length of the berm. This reduces flow across the structure, speeding up the siltation process, and creates a defined edge visible to anglers wading on the berm.

Berm July 2009 ‐ coir rolls used to define structure edge and slow flow over it.

For more details of all the restoration works, including images and video clips see Annex 4. Action C1.5 River restoration at Dockens Water Construction was completed in August 2008. Dockens Water is predominantly straight and ‘confined’ by floodbanks and bank armouring as it flows between water‐filled gravel pits and abandoned floodplain land. In the original bid a combination of works was to be carried out ‐ small scale work under the LIFE project and larger works funded by the aggregate levy.

23

The object of the work under the LIFE project was to modify the river bank to a more appropriate shape and re‐connect the river and floodplain. The work involved:

• forming a small (approximately 15 metres long) floodplain pool connected with the river via a small channel that mimics a natural chute

• decreasing heavy shading by felling a small number of non‐native trees alongside and around the chute (there is increasing concern about the effect on Atlantic salmon of rising temperatures in the Avon catchment; tree work must aim to leave patchy shade)

• creating brushwood barriers between the new path and pool to ensure safe public access to the area.

The aims of the original proposals at Dockens Water are still valid, but the approach was modified to reflect constraints found during the detailed design process. The final works differed from those proposed in the original bid as shown in the table below, but met the same objectives. Full details are given in Annex 4. Works proposed in bid Alternative (constructed) Reason for change Re‐profiling bank in 2 places to connect river and floodplain

Slot cut in bank, and low level chutecreated, which fills up from the river in high flows, mimicking a natural chute

Survey showed that re‐profiling of the bank was unlikely to enable regular flow of water between the river and the floodplain. It was not desirable to re‐grade the river bank significantly, as the underlying material was very soft and there would be a risk of eroding the footpath.

Tree felling to open canopy Tree felling in area of chute and bank adjacent to chute and river

Tree felling area adjusted to complement chute design and to ensure dappled shade retained

Since the completion of the works the new chute has started to naturalise, retaining water for several days at a time.

Dockens Water chute – newly dug (left) with inlet in the background, and naturalising in November 2008 (right). The major benefit in doing work on Dockens Water at this location is that it is within the Blashford Lakes Nature Reserve. As public access to the River Avon SAC is generally very limited, this is a rare opportunity to do enhancement work and adjacent interpretation in an area that is visited by the public.

24

Action C1.6 River restoration at Hale The River Avon has been heavily dredged in the past in the Hale area and did not have the the gravel beds that salmon need for spawning. The object of the river restoration work was to:

• Re‐energise the reach by providing variations in flow characteristics and channel dimensions • Increase both the heterogeneity of bed morphology and margins in previously dredged reaches • Promote localised sediment transport • Increase the availability of suitable spawning habitat for salmon, bullhead and brook lamprey • Increase the amount of large woody debris in the channel in order to increase both the availability

of this habitat type and morphological diversity of the channel • Enhance the availability and quality of habitat for SAC species and habitats.

The restoration involved:

• re‐instating the gravel shallows in two places using existing and imported gravel • introducing larger woody debris in the form of deflectors to vary flow and clean the gravel bed • installing a floating tree kicker • coppicing willows, planting riverside shrubs and fencing small sections of river bank.

Finished riffle ‐ original depth 1.5‐2m, final 0.5m Woody debris anchored to bank The final works differed from those proposed in the original bid as shown in the table below. The changes made during the design process ensured that the objectives of the works as proposed in the bid document were met, and the optimum environmental benefit‐cost mix obtained. Since the original bid was written the New Forest National Park has come into being. The establishment of this National Park emphasises that in addition to ecological sensitivities, the restoration site is in a nationally important area in terms of landscape and archaeology. Any works in the area are therefore subject to strong planning legislation.

25

Works proposed in bid Alternative (constructed) Reason for change Reclamation of existing gravel, no import of materials

Gravel imported for top riffle, but existing in‐channel gravel used for lower riffle. 2125m2 of spawning habitat created


Riffle locations Riffle location moved. Amount of riffle habitat not changed. Better for demonstration purposes, as the various techniques are closer together.

No practical access route for importing gravel and access would have damaged landscape/archaeologically sensitive water meadows

Excavation of marginal shelves adjacent to riffles (for flood risk management and habitat enhancement)

River bank profile softened as consequence of machines working along them.

No need to re‐grade banks to achieve improvements in spawning habitat or for flood risk management. Excavation and subsequent removal of material off site not cost beneficial, and damaging to water meadows.

The work was carried out by the EA’s own workforce, building on the experience they gained at Fovant. A key aspect of planning the works was consideration of the potential impact on flood risk. The EA did not require a formal assessment for consenting purposes; however the extensive summer floods in the UK meant that local residents were particularly concerned about flood risk issues. A simple conveyance estimation was undertaken, which was felt to be proportionate to the potential impacts, and the results circulated to residents. In cases where the impact of restoration works is likely to be low, conveyance estimation is a simple, cost effective approach. For more details of the restoration, including the conveyance estimation and images see Annex 4. Action C.2 Development of a demonstration protocol for the control of sluices and hatches on the SPA and lower Avon SAC

In the original project bid it was proposed to develop hatch operating protocols for the water level control structures at Ibsley and Ringwood. Since then, protocols have been completed for Ibsley and the EA and Royal Haskoning have recently completed an appraisal of actions within the River Avon System WLMP. In total, thirty‐six HOPs were identified as being required to meet conservation objectives of the river and valley. HOPs consist of guidance to help operators manage hatches, for example to ease fish passage, flush through silt accumulation or provide suitable habitat conditions for river and floodplain plants.

This action is closely linked to actions A2 (fish exclusion) and A3 (ditch restoration plan).

26

Royal Haskoning were tasked with developing pilot operating protocols for seven structures that are representative of the main functions of structures within the catchment. The overall aim is to:

• Contribute to developing and promoting best practice for hatch operations along the entire length of the River Avon/Avon Valley system

• Provide guidance for cases where there is a need to balance a number of interests • Review the role of structures along the river and offer guidance on the cost/benefit of maintaining

selected structures • Establish HOPs for particular structures, leading to better co‐operation and co‐ordination between

hatch operators • Contribute to dissemination and demonstration of best practice.

The resulting HOP process has been established by STREAM and published in a guidance note. The WLMP team will now complete protocols for the remaining 32 structures in the catchment. The STREAM approach to developing hatch operating protocols is being used in other catchments in the UK. Please refer to Annex 5 for details of the HOP guidance, templates and technical report.

27

3.3 Public awareness and dissemination of information “E” Actions E Actions Project target Status Explanation Cost (Euro)

E1 Project website

Website Completed Site launched end of February 2007; updated 2008, further updated 2009

34,499

E2 On site restoration workshops

4 workshops Completed Three held as single days in September 2007, October 2008, May 2009 and one in June 2009 as part of the closing conference

3,465

E3 River restoration open days

2 open days Completed Open events held at Seven Hatches (July 2008), Dockens Water (September 2008)

2,391

E4 Project seminars

3 seminars Completed One held in April 2009 as part of the UKRRC conference, and one in June 2009 as part of the project closing conference. Third delivered by taking part in the ECRR 2009 WFD seminar.

27,444

E5 Community conservation days

2 community days

Completed Family fun day held at Laverstock in June 2008, Salisbury play day and “Week of Water” held in June 2009.

5,987

E6 Mobile interpretation display

2 mobile displays

Completed Core displays produced and used for events. “Results” poster rather than display boards produced for future use at conferences etc.

4,494

E7 Newsletters 5 annual newsletters

4 Completed Four newsletters distributed to approximately 1000 interested parties.

‐

E7 Launch leaflet

Leaflet Completed Circulated at conferences and events ‐

E7 End leaflet Leaflet Not required End leaflet would overlap with the final newsletter and layman’s report, therefore not produced.

‐

E7 Technical reports

Reports Completed Technical reports produced for actions A2, A3, A4, C2, F8, F9

‐

E7 Advice notes Advice notes Completed Three produced and published on website covering river restoration, restoration planning and linking river and floodplain

‐

E7 Layman’s report

Layman’s report

Completed Published on project website and 500 paper copies produced for future promotion of project

‐

E7 Total publications 20,972E8 media publicity

Media coverage

Completed Press releases issued resulting in media coverage, articles placed in magazines

6,839

E9 Temporary sign boards

Temporary sign boards

Completed Boards produced in‐house and placed on site at start of works

345

E10 Permanent interpretation boards

Permanent interpretation boards

Completed 7 boards produced and installed; 2 at Blashford Lakes, 1 at each at Wilton, Amesbury, Upper Woodford, Breamore and Dinton

25,631

E11 UK EU exchange visits

4 exchange visits

In progress The restoration sites have been visited by over 200 people including the CASS LIFE project and the Atlantic Salmon Trust international conference. Project exchanges with CASS and the Danish Houting LIFE project took place.

26,462

The approach to all these actions was guided by the communications strategy, which set out key messages, audiences and delivery mechanisms for the project. For details see Annex 1.

28

Action E1 Establish a project website. A dedicated project website has been established which presents an overall summary of the goal, objectives and actions and provides access to project documents. Web addresses www.streamlife.org.uk and www.streamlife.co.uk have been registered by NE for exclusive use by the project. The website was launched in February 2007. Enable Interactive were commissioned to design, build and host the website, and were used to update the site as required. The website templates were designed to be in keeping with the overall project identity. A complementary design was used by the Living River project website and the sites have been cross‐linked, increasing their impact and audience reach. The website updates have progressively added images, newsletters, monitoring protocols, and technical reports. Links have been established between the STREAM project website and the project partners and UK river restoration centre websites. This has given the project more visibility and helped boost the website up the ratings of internet search engines. Searching for the website using Google gives the following results:

• STREAM Avon – top 2 results • STREAM River Avon – top 2 results, and 4 on first page of results • LIFE River Avon – top 2 results and 5 on first page of results.

A summary of the use of the website up to 30 September 2009 is given below.

Number % of downloads Web publishedUnique visitors 13,981 (87 countries) Feb 07 Downloads Leaflet 1000 17 Feb 07 Monitoring protocol 672 12 Jan 08 Newsletter 06 542 9 Feb 07 Progress summary 519 9 Nov 08 Newsletter 07 448 8 Jan 08 Linking river and valley report 447 8 Jan 08 Newsletter 08 271 5 Nov 08 HOP protocol 173 3 Mar 09

In the original bid it was proposed to produce a CD‐Rom of the website. Given the widespread access to the internet in the UK and Europe, production of a CD‐Rom version of the site was felt to be superfluous.

29

Actions E2 River restoration workshops The aim of the workshops was the demonstration of river restoration actions and promotion of conservation‐led restoration work. A summary of the workshops held and a brief commentary is given below. Delivered Audience No Venue Sites visited 14 September 2007

Landowners, fishery managers 35 Langford Upper Woodford (Action C1.1)Fovant (Action C1.2)

03 October 2008 Competent authorities, local planners

40 Langford Fovant (Action C1.2) Seven Hatches (Action C1.4)

14 May 2009 Landowners, fishery managers 37 Dinton Hall Amesbury (Action C1.2) Seven Hatches (Action C1.4)

24‐25 June 2009 River restoration specialists, academic institutions, competent authorities

108 Dinton Hall Upper Woodford (Action C1.1)Fovant (Action C1.2) Amesbury (Action C1.2) Seven Hatches (Action C1.4)

The first workshop was held in September 2007. The workshop was aimed at landowners and fishery managers, with 35 people attending. The audience was primarily people from the Avon catchment and neighbouring chalk rivers such as the Test and Itchen SAC.

Allan Frake (EA) introduces the Woodford site, and attendees view the works A second workshop was held on 03 October 2008. The event was attended by 40 people from competent authorities including planners, EA, NE and water company staff. Feedback from the event was positive, and in particularly the planners felt it was very beneficial to have this opportunity to understand Natura 20000 river work and to liaise with the EA and NE. A third workshop was held for landowners and river managers on 14 May 2009, with 37 people attending. The audience was from all over the UK, and included representatives from the National Trust, who are land owners of national significance in the UK. The workshop discussions informed the development of the STREAM project advice notes on river restoration techniques and planning river restoration. The project workshops and seminars were described in the original project bid as lots of separate events, potentially attracting the same audiences. There were benefits to combining some events in order to make them more attractive to attendees, particularly if they are going to come from across Europe. The fourth and final site based workshop was therefore incorporated into the project 2 day conference – see action E4 for details. Further details and a summary of the events can be seen in Annex 6.

30

Action E3 River restoration open days The aim of the open days was to promote the importance of the River Avon SAC and the work of STREAM and to bring local people a chance to learn about them. Delivered Audience No Sites visited7 July 2008 Local community, parish

councils 30 Seven Hatches (action C1.4)

27 September 2008 Local community 150 Dockens Water (action C1.5) 26 May 2009 Local community 14 Dockens Water (action C1.5) 30 May 2009 Local community 32 Amesbury (action C1.3) The Seven Hatches event in July 2008 was attended by 30 representatives of local parish councils and communities. An introduction to the site was followed by explanation of the river restoration works, a chance to meet the fishing club, and to look at the aquatic invertebrates that live in the river. Despite many of the local people living in the area for over 20 years, they had limited knowledge of and access to the river. The evening helped to increase their understanding, and brought the anglers and local people together.

Open events at Seven Hatches (left) and Dockens Water (right)

An open day was held at Dockens Water on 27 September 2008. The event was run primarily by Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and advertised widely. Attractions included pond dipping, nature trails, reed boats, guides in bird hides and a Pooh stick race to end the day. Unfortunately a serious accident meant all roads into and out of the reserve and surrounding area were closed to traffic for the whole day, making it almost impossible for the 500 predicted visitors to arrive. However, the 150 visitors who did make it were mainly first time visitors with young children. The event therefore met its objective of increasing knowledge of the Nature Reserve, Dockens Water and Blashford Lakes (SAC and SPA respectively). Further details of both the events can be seen in Annex 6. Two guided walks were also held at Amesbury and Dockens Water as part of the “Week of Water” – see action E5 for more details.

31

Action E4 Project seminars The aim of the seminars was to disseminate information and discuss project results through themed seminars. Delivered Audience No Venue Theme/topics 2 April 2009 River restoration specialists,

academic institutions, consultants (UK)

48 UKRRCConference

River Restoration techniques (UK context) and hatch operating protocols

28 May 2009 River restoration specialists, academic institutions, consultants (EU)

100 ECRRConference

Catchment approach to river restoration; links to WFD and EC Directives

24‐25 June 2009 River restoration specialists, academic institutions, landowners, competent authorities

108 Dinton Hall Planning and managing programme of restoration, river restoration techniques and linking river and floodplain (UK and EU context)

Three project seminars were planned in the original bid. In order to reach the largest audience the seminars were delivered in two ways. STREAM ran seminars at the national UKRRC conference in 2009 and the ECRR 10th anniversary seminar. This was felt to be the most effective way of reaching UK and EU river restoration specialists, academic institutions and consultants without duplicating existing events. A project conference including seminars and site visits was held on 23‐25 June 2009. Over a hundred delegates from around the EU attended, visiting restoration sites, discussing the project experiences and lessons learnt, and other LIFE projects. The event feedback forms showed that all delegates found the event useful. Details of all the seminars including the conference delegate list can be found in Annex 6.

Delegates visiting the Fovant restoration site (left), and hearing about project experiences

32

Action E5 Community conservation days The aim of the community conservation days was to celebrate the River Avon SAC and LIFE project with local people. A summary of the events held is given below Delivered Event No Venue Activities 19 July 2008 Family fun day 150 Laverstock Pooh stick race, nature trail, bug

hunting and a model chalk Week of Water Events in partnership with the Living River project

and the Salisbury International Arts Festival 24 May Tarka the Otter 40 Salisbury arts

centre Screening of classic film

26 May Guided walk 12 Blashford Lakes

Walk and pond dipping

29 May The Big Play 3500 Greencroft, Salisbury

River bug explorer, model chalk river, interactive water exhibit, fly fish and fly tying, making models of marine creatures

30 May Guided walk 30 Amesbury Walk and pond dipping 22 May – 6 June

Treasure trail not known Salisbury Family treasure hunt with river theme

A community conservation day was held at Laverstock, taking the form of a family fun day. The river related activities were part of a larger family fun day run by the Laverstock Sports and Social Club, and the Laverstock Downlands and Water Meadows Trust. As a direct result of these groups working together on the river focussed activities and the interest generated by the event the two organisations have recently set up an angling club for young people in the area.

Left: Laverstock family day

In late May 2009 STREAM and Living River jointly ran a “Week of Water” around the catchment –the events are listed in the table above and included guided walks, film screenings, treasure hunts and a play day. The Salisbury Playday was very successful, with over 3000 children of all ages kept entertained making model Sea Horses, a model river, fly fishing and tying, interactive water exhibits. The Playday was run in conjunction with Salisbury International Arts Festival.

Salisbury playday – model chalk river, river bug explorer (centre) and interactive water exhibit

33

Action E6 Interpretative display panels

An interpretive 4 panel display has been produced illustrating the nature conservation importance of the SAC and SPA, their conservation objectives and the objectives/outcomes of the project. The display has been used at a range of events and venues to date and will continue to be used in the future. Two sets were produced, to serve the upper Avon area and lower Avon/Avon Valley area. In the initial project bid a final set of display panels showing the project results was proposed. The working group considered that results panels would not be particularly practical. Instead a number of A0 size posters summarising the project results were produced. The posters are designed for use at conferences and public events. They are practical and portable and will be used in conjunction with the project summary boards at future events. The panel designs and poster are shown in Annex 3, and complement those used by the Living River. Action E7 Project publications A range of project publications were produced throughout the life of the project. All publications are available through the website in full or summary form as appropriate. Publication Project target Status ExplanationAnnual newsletters 5 newsletters 4 completed Four newsletters distributed to approximately 1000

interested parties. Launch leaflet Leaflet Completed Circulated at conferences and events End leaflet Leaflet Not produced End leaflet would overlap with the final newsletter and

layman’s report, therefore not produced

Technical reports Reports Completed Technical reports produced for actions A2, A3, A4, C2, F8, F9 and published on website

Advice note River restoration advice notes

Completed Three produced and published on website covering river restoration, restoration planning and linking river and floodplain

Layman’s report Layman’s report

Completed Published on project website and 500 paper copies produced for future promotion of project

Newsletters (5) The project team was put in place in early February 2006, with the first priority being to progress the river restoration designs (action A1). In order to ensure interested parties were kept up to date at this early stage, articles were placed in relevant local publications, in particular the Wessex Chalk Streams newsletter (distributed to 600 River Avon SAC owners), the UK River Restoration Centre newsletter (national circulation) and the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust Magazine. Copies of relevant articles can be found in Annex 7. Newsletters focusing on the LIFE Project objectives, actions and achievements were produced annually; the first was distributed in October 2006. Circulation included landowners, fishing clubs, local communities, government organisations and NGOs and the newsletter was widely available within the project area. The second and third newsletters was produced and distributed in summer 2007 and 2008 with a similar circulation. The fourth and final newsletter was produced in August 2009 – a fifth edition was not required. All the newsletters are widely available within the project area. Copies of the newsletters can be seen in Annex 3.

34

Leaflets (2) The launch leaflet has been completed and 2000 copies were produced. A copy can be seen in Annex 3. This leaflet has been distributed to specific audiences at events and conferences. A project end leaflet was originally proposed to illustrate the project outcomes and promote their continuation. Since the project bid, the layman’s report is required to be a much more comprehensive public document. An end leaflet would clearly overlap with the final newsletter and layman’s report, therefore it was not produced. Technical reports The technical reports for actions A2 and A3, C2, F8 and F9 have all been published on the project website. Copies are provided in Annex 5, 9 and 10. Further documents related to operational aspects of planning and managing river restoration projects can be accessed via hyperlinks from the STREAM River Restoration Planning Advice Note. Advice notes Three advice notes summarising the project experience and best practice have been produced and published on the website. The notes cover river restoration, restoration planning and linking river and floodplain. Copies are provided in Annex 3. The UKRRC and Wild Trout Trust produce river restoration manuals which are widely available and used nationally and internationally. The STREAM river restoration advice note has been produced in a format that can be directly transferred into the manuals. The project advice notes will be incorporated into the manuals when they are next updated. Layman’s report This document is included in full in section 7 of this report. 500 paper copies were produced for promotion of the project, and the report is also available on the STREAM website. Action E8 Media Publicity: International, National, Local The project communications group first met in May 2006. Minutes of this and subsequent meetings and a copy of the resulting communication strategy can be found in Annex 8. A press release was issued at the launch of the project. As a result, articles appeared in a number of publications and local radio station Spire FM broadcast details of the project on the news. Contact with the ECRR and the UKRRC has been established and summary details of the project have been placed on their websites and newsletter. The project manager has presented elements of the STREAM project at 3 of the last 4 annual UKRRC annual conferences. A summary of all press coverage of the project and copies of the articles can be found in Annex 7.

35

In 2008 STREAM was delighted to win the Wild Trout Trust Conservation Award, and the CIWEM Living Wetlands award. Living River and STREAM project were also joint finalists in the 2009 International Thiess Riverprize. This prestigious prize recognises excellence in river management worldwide and was awarded at the International River Symposium in Brisbane, Australia. For more information about the prize visit www.riverfoundation.org.au Riverprize finalists (left), Wild Trout Trust and CIWEM award winners (below)

36

Action E9 Temporary sign boards at project work sites. Temporary sign boards were produced and placed at the restoration sites during construction. The boards describe the objectives of the STREAM project and explain the need for and nature of the restoration works. The boards were produced by the project staff, minimizing spend on this item.

Temporary sign board at Woodford, visible from Temporary sign board at Seven Hatches public footpath Action E10 Permanent interpretation boards This Action required the production of a minimum of 6 display boards to be located on publicly accessible land in the proximity of the SAC and SPA, especially near habitat restoration sites. The interpretation boards illustrated the nature conservation importance of the watercourse and river valley habitats, their value as Natura 20000 sites and the results anticipated from the LIFE Nature project. A catchment wide network of interpretation comprising the 7 STREAM signs and 30 Living River signs is being put in place. All the Living River signs include the Stream logo, web address and brief details ‐ see Annex 3 for an example. The seven STREAM boards have been produced in a style accessible to a wide public audience, to foster appreciation of the resource and understanding of the issues affecting the river and the valley. Please refer to Annex 3 for the final designs. Most of the land around the River Avon SAC is privately owned, and it has proved difficult to find suitable locations for interpretation boards close to the restoration sites. In addition, restrictions on “advertisements” in conservation areas and national parks (e.g at Dinton and Hale respectively) make it very difficult to get planning permission for permanent interpretation boards. A summary of the locations in relation to restoration sites and status of the boards is given below. Location Restoration site Status Notes Bridge, Upper Woodford C1.1 Upper Woodford Installed Closest public land Dinton village hall C1.2 Fovant Installed Closest public space Lords Walk, Amesbury C1.3 Amesbury Installed Immediately adjacent to

works Wilton shopping village C1.4 Seven Hatches Installed Closest public space Blashford (2) C1.5 Dockens Water Installed (2) Compliments existing

nature reserve signage Village Hall, Breamore C1.6 Hale Underway Closest public space Summary 6 required per bid 6 installed 1 in progress

37

Two boards have been placed adjacent to the Dockens water at Blashford Lakes (action C1.5), and one adjacent to the works at Amesbury (c1.3). A board has been placed at the Bridge Inn, Woodford and Wilton shopping village, which are the closest pieces of publically accessible river to the works at C1.1 Woodford and C1.4 Seven Hatches. Due to a lack of suitable outdoor locations, and planning permission not being granted, a board has been placed in Dinton Village Hall and is planned for Breamore Village Hall, which are very well used by local people. .

Boards in place at Blashford Lakes and Lords Walk, Amesbury

Boards in place at Woodford and Wilton shopping village

Action E11 UK and European exchange visits Prior to the recruitment of the current project manager, the acting project manager Dagmar Junghanns gave a paper on STREAM at the European LIFE symposium in Austria. Close communication with the New Forest LIFE project (LIFE02NAT/UK/8544) was established, and their experience implementing river restoration projects using EA staff has been invaluable. Members of the project partnership visited the Conservation of Scottish Salmon Project (LIFE04 Nat/GB/000250) in June 2008, attending their conference and making additional site visits. The CASS project team visited the restoration works at Upper Woodford as part of the Atlantic Salmon Trust conference in September 2007. Members of the project partnership also visited the Houting Project (LIFE05 NAT/DK/000153) in July 2009, visiting restoration sites and fish farms. The experience of the Houting project in reducing impacts of fish farms on SAC rivers demonstrate a possible way to address this issue in the UK, and on the River Avon SAC. Technical information on this aspect has been passed to the EA fishery specialists. The Houting project

38

manager was a speaker at the STREAM conference, and visited the project restoration sites. A summary of both exchange visits is given in Annex 6 and the Houting visit report is available on the UKRRC website. .

STREAM and Houting project staff visit the recreated River Vide (left), and the new channel in Tonder

The restoration sites have been visited during and after the restoration works by the following groups:

• Member of European Parliament Caroline Jackson, Natural England area manager Mark Watson and Government and communities team leader Dagmar Junghanns

• Member of Parliament for Salisbury Robert Key • EA National Conservation Manager, EA South Wessex and Thames region flood risk and water level

management teams • Living River staff • Landowners and managers including Wiltshire Fishery Association • International Atlantic Salmon Trust Conference delegates (100) • Salmon and Trout Association members visit (30)

Presentations have been given at numerous meetings and conferences summarised in Annex 7.

39

F Actions Overall Project Operation F Actions Project target Status Explanation Cost

(Euro) F1 Appointment of project staff

Complete Completed 7,753

F2 Project management

Complete Ongoing Project manager and staff in place until 30 September 2009; report submission, audit liaison and project closure being undertaken by NE staff

393,445

F3 Progress reporting

Complete Completed Four annual progress report and an interim claim report have been submitted

2,161

F3 Final report Complete Completed This documentF4 Steering Group Annual meetings Completed Six meetings held during the project

period 18,420

F4 Working Group Quarterly meetings Completed Fifteen meetings held during the project period

F5 Purchase equipment

Purchase equipment Completed Necessary items acquired and retained by participants for ongoing use in conservation work

4,689

F6 Purchase car Obtain use of car Completed Lease hire car contract placed and car used for three years during the project

15,042

F7 Project initiation workshop

Workshop including team building

Completed Held in November 2005, including a site visit to Seven Hatches

2,250

F8 Monitoring programme

Detailed and rapid monitoring of restoration works

Completed Contract awarded to Haskoning UK Limited. Final reports prepared and included in project documentation.

88,195

F9 Assessment of river restoration sites

Compare the river restoration project outcomes with the original objectives

Completed Pre‐ and post‐ restoration assessments undertaken at all sites. Wessex Water undertook additional invertebrate, macrophyte and flow monitoring/ modelling.

26,500

F10 After‐LIFE conservation plan

Set out future conservation management, continuing and developing project actions

Completed, but will be an ongoing process

After LIFE planning meetings held, and After‐LIFE plan written. Implementation will be ongoing, and will include wider stakeholder meetings to build support for the planned future actions. A whole river restoration plan is already underway, and is an important delivery mechanism for continuation of project actions.

n/a

Action F1 Appoint and support project management team. A selection process, carried out in accordance with English Nature’s personnel policies and involving the partners, resulted in a Project Manager being appointed by English Nature in January 2006. This was a fixed term appointment until 30 September 2009; NE took over all employment arrangements. The Project Manager was line managed by NE South West region staff and functionally manages the Administration Officer and Finance Officer. The Administration and Finance duties were handled by two Natural England employees (one permanent, one FTA, both formerly involved with the Salisbury Plain LIFE project). The project team remained in place throughout the project, and the administration and finance officers continue to be employed by NE.

40

Action F2 Project management. The framework for overall project operation consists of steering, working, technical and communication groups as shown in Annex 8. Personnel as described under Action F1 were put in post and this project team remained in place throughout the project. Support was provided by other members of Natural England staff such as procurement specialists and by partners’ senior staff. A project plan and risk matrix was established and used to manage and report on progress to the working and steering groups. A project communications group was set up and an informal technical group met as required. Both groups comprised appropriately qualified and experienced staff from the participants. All participants nominated representatives to these groups. A cost centre was set up within NE’s accounting system and substantially all the project costs were passed through this cost centre. Exceptions are noted and reconciliations prepared. A finance database was set up, the budget was entered and actual expenditure to date recorded. Financial reports were produced for the project steering and working groups as required. Work was ongoing throughout the project on setting up contracts and selecting reliable and economical contractors as reported above. Health and safety plans were drawn up for the river restoration sites and issued to contractors as necessary. Health and safety plans and risk assessments were drawn up for public events and other outdoor activities. The Communication Group met quarterly to discuss and progress E Actions and associated matters. Action F3 Project reporting. Project reporting to the European Commission is summarised in the table below: Report Reporting period Submission First 01 August 2005 ‐ 31 July 2006 August 2006 Second 01 August 2006 ‐ 30 November 2006 December 2006 Third 01 December 2006 ‐ 30 November 2007 December 2007 Interim 01 August 2005 – 30 April 2008 June 2008 Fourth 01 December 2007 ‐ 30November 2008 December 2008 Final 01 December 2005 ‐ 30 September 2009 March 2010 Action F4 Project Steering and Working Groups The steering group comprised senior members of staff from the beneficiary, the partners, and the co‐financier with the project manager and other staff attending all meetings. The first two meetings, on 4 November 2005 and on 18 May 2006, were principally concerned with ensuring the project manager and the project staff were properly established and that the general programme of work and reporting was appropriate. The third, fourth and fifth meetings reviewed project progress and finances. The final meeting, September 2009, reviewed the project aims and objectives and considered the After‐LIFE plan.

41

The working group comprises participants’ employees directly concerned with the project. The working group first met on 15 November 2005. Further meetings took place quarterly until Autumn 2009, a total of fifteen meetings. A cycle of reporting to the project steering and working groups was established and the format and content of reports agreed. Quarterly reports were provided to the working group and made available to the Steering Group. Copies of the reports can be found in Annex 8. Eight meetings of the communication group have been held with participants’ representatives discussing and managing communication priorities and E actions. These meetings have been held jointly with the Living River project, to maximise opportunities for joint working. Minutes of all the meetings held are in Annex 8. Action F5 Purchase equipment Office furniture, computers and ancillary equipment and a digital camera were purchased. Personal protective equipment was purchased to ensure the safety of staff when working near water and on construction sites. Action F6 Purchase car After considering various possibilities under advice from NE procurement specialists, the project leased a medium sized diesel powered estate car for three years to summer 2009. The car was used to undertake site visits and meetings associated with the project, which covers a large area much of which is not served by public transport. Action F7 Project initiation workshop The project initiation workshop was held in November 2005. The steering group met in the morning and were then joined by the working group members for lunch followed by a presentation and a visit to the Seven Hatches restoration site. In addition to the workshop, a launch event was held, also in November 2005, at the Pembroke Arms, Wilton, Wiltshire. This event was attended by the project partners, restoration site landowners, anglers and river restoration specialists. A presentation was given summarising the project partnership, funding, objectives and actions. Action F8 Monitoring programme Physical and ecological monitoring of all the river restoration sites was carried out during the project to examine the effect of the works on river morphology and ecology. A single contract for both physical and biological monitoring was awarded to Haskoning UK Limited. Restoration survey and monitoring work began in August 2006. River restoration is increasingly seen as a way of improving ecology and habitat diversity in river systems. Monitoring against project aims is a key part of evaluating how successful restoration has been, and to identify any problems with the techniques used. However, because it is relatively expensive, few UK projects are currently monitored.

42

STREAM has developed a monitoring protocol for assessing river restoration in lowland rivers. Using the protocol, flow speed and depth, vegetation type and quantity, river bed quality and numbers of fish were measured, and photographs taken before and after the restoration works. In addition to monitoring done by the project, some additional invertebrate sampling has been done. Wessex Water has done invertebrate sampling at Seven Hatches (C1.4). A Cranfield University Masters degree student carried out sampling at Woodford (c1.1) and Fovant (C1.). The results can be seen in Annex 9. Left: Surveying at Upper Woodford

Because rivers are complex and may take several years to respond to restoration, it is not possible to draw any definite conclusions yet from the monitoring. However there are encouraging signs, including salmon seen living and spawning in the restored River Wylye, and improvements in the gravel river bed and the plant community at all sites. It is anticipated that future monitoring will show that this success has been maintained. A summary of the monitoring programme, protocol and reports can be found in Annex 9. An additional year of detailed monitoring will be carried out at the Seven Hatches restoration site (Action C1.4). This work is part of the EA “Managing Hydromorphological Pressures in Rivers” Project, related to the WFD. The aim of the overall project is to assess the impacts of sediment and hydromorphological pressures on aquatic ecology, and develop the UK evidence base for river restoration. Seven Hatches was one of only 10 sites in the UK where robust monitoring data had previously been collected, and could be repeated. The extra year of monitoring will provide valuable additional data which can be used to assess the restoration work after the end of the STREAM project. In the UK, the condition of Natura 20000 sites is assessed every six years to inform the UK’s reporting on the conservation status of European protected species and habitats. The condition of the River Avon SAC (including the restoration sites) and Avon Valley SPA will be assessed using this methodology ‐ the next assessment is scheduled for 2012.

Action F9 Assessment of river restoration sites The UKRRC audited the river restoration projects, assessing the restoration works against the design objectives using the expert judgement and the experience of the UKRRC. They then incorporated the findings of the quantitative monitoring carried out under action F8, giving an overall assessment of the restoration works. The UKRRC tested a new method for expert assessment on the STREAM project, creating a standardised approach to expert assessment suitable for use at all restoration sites. The monitoring protocol developed under Action F8, and the UKRRC expert assessment tool demonstrate practical, cost effective ways to assess the physical and biological impact of river restoration projects. They will inform UKRRC monitoring guidance, and are valuable approaches for monitoring and assessing river restoration sites in the EU.

43

A summary of the UKRRC assessment is given overleaf, please refer to Annex 10 for an executive summary report and the full detailed assessments.

44

UKRRC Summary of STREAM techniques and sites Techniques Effect Lessons/recommendations (Woodford) D deflectors Deflectors and islands have increased flow variability and

velocities. Refuge areas of slack water created, Fish fry habitat in brushwood slack water areas, but may only be short to medium term as the deflectors silt up. Additional habitat in and around islands.

More fine tuning with the Heale sluicesEncourage vegetation of deflectors and island by planting (may not have fully established yet due to consistently high water levels)

(Woodford) Chalk berm(Woodford) Islands

(Fovant) deflectors Worked well in terms of allowing siltation to occur between them and the establishment of emergent vegetation will eventually narrow the channel significantly

Longer deflectorsAlternating deflectors on left and right bank Reduce deflector height

(Fovant) hatch operation Big improvement in flow diversity/substrate quality Remove hatches altogether(Seven Hatches) Riffles and wood

Diversity of flow at riffle. New willow planting will create more habitat in the long term. Evidence of scour on the downstream side of logs.

Improved the flow variability locallyLogs working well

(Seven Hatches) Extending bank aquatic ledge

Silting over and emergent vegetation growing in the silt. More marginal vegetation. Improving visually.

Narrowing could have been bolder

(Seven Hatches) Hatches No change in operation Model/modify Butcher stream to keep flow split/reduce impoundment? (Hale) Big river riffle Good flow diversity created by riffle Tree cover and refuge areas needed(Hale) Re‐distribute gravel, LWD

Flow diversity created by riffle (low) Tree cover and refuge areas needed

Hale – tree kicker Minor localised flow variation at tree kicker Needed to be bigger

(Hale) Large woody debris Effect of deflectors on left bank is only low to negligible Significant locally, need more, larger deflectors. Tree cover and modified grazing regime needed.

(Amesbury) Bank re‐profiling Channel narrowing, increased marginal ledge habitat, refuge area for fry, increased terrestrial habitat on banks/margins

Worked well but perhaps could have been extended further into the river

(Amesbury) Large woody debris

Increased flow variability, channel narrowing, emergent vegetation and refuge areas around deflectors

Deflectors working well, and best where they are large

Amesbury (Gravel reintroduction)

Some channel narrowing and flow variability, improved access to river

Reduced the width slightly, river bed still silted. The invert of the downstream road bridge is likely to be a limiting factor.

(Dockens Water) Chute Little Does not hold water yet, looks unnatural

45

Action F10 Production of After‐LIFE conservation plan The After‐LIFE conservation plan has been developed – see section 6 of this report for full details. STREAM has not solved all the problems affecting the River Avon system, but importantly has developed and tested a number of river restoration techniques and built strong partnerships to carry on the work. The STREAM project has acted as a catalyst for planning and funding further restoration of the River Avon SAC. Since August 2008, and as a separately funded exercise, the project participants have been developing a whole river restoration plan for the River Avon SAC. Whole river restoration planning supports the future restoration of rivers to naturally functioning, self‐sustaining systems with the full range of characteristic habitats that benefit their distinctive flora and fauna. These plans identify degraded reaches and suitable costed restoration actions in the context of the whole river system. Whole river restoration plans are therefore a vital first stage in sustainable restoration of rivers. The River Avon SAC whole river restoration plan will be used to:

• help prioritise grant aid for restoration projects by riparian owners and fishery managers • prioritise and guide river restoration work undertaken by Statutory bodies and others • develop our understanding of the implications of the current, historic and future river channel

shape.

The Environment Agency Biodiversity Outcome Measures team has been allocated £245,000 for projects and restoration strategy work in 2009‐10. A further £6.3 million is allocated for 2009‐2015 (subject to approval) to implement river and floodplain restoration work on the Avon catchment.

46

4. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS

a. The process

The River Avon SAC is threatened by many factors, such as historical engineering work, pollution from agricultural and other sources, low flows, and abstraction. Outstanding threats not being tackled by other measures were identified in the River Avon Conservation Strategy, and two major partnership projects were created as a result: STREAM and Living River, which focuses on wider biodiversity of the River Avon system and engaging communities with its conservation. The STREAM project addresses two key issues which influence favourable condition of the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA: the need for a strategic approach to large‐scale river restoration, and the need to integrate the management of the river and valley. The project has brought together public, private and charitable organisations formally for the first time to address these issues. STREAM has highlighted particular considerations in designing and delivering large scale restoration projects:

• Partner organisations ‐ the structure of the partner organisations and availability of staff involved may alter. Successful delivery of the project relies on consistent commitment of resources from all participants. Splitting the work between internal staff and consultants minimises risk to the project, but still enables development of in‐house expertise. Having a range of partners from different sectors is beneficial as it allows access to a wider range of skills, experience and contacts.

• Restoration proposals ‐ contained in funding bids tend to be based on limited site information and need considerable refinement once detailed design is undertaken. The final design and implementation are influenced by constraints such as legally protected species, landowner aspirations, hydraulic controls, machine access routes, etc. They may vary from the indicative design in the bid, but must still meet the agreed ecological objectives.

• Monitor against targets ‐ monitoring projects against clearly defined aims is a crucial part of evaluating the effectiveness of river restoration. Consideration should be given to ensuring that monitoring extends for several years beyond the end of the project.

• Early consultation is crucial in obtaining the relevant permissions and often identifies a way to “design out” many issues. In a heavily regulated country such as the UK, particular areas to consider include: waste licensing, planning permission, environmental impact assessment and flood risk assessment.

• Establish close working relationships with landowners and fishing clubs in developing and carrying out the river restoration work. This is crucial to securing sustainable long term management of the sites.

• Cost ‐ large scale river restoration requires civil engineering/construction, and as such site facilities, supervision, reinstatement, etc, require a larger proportion of the budget than for smaller‐scale restoration projects.

• Procurement ‐ for large projects, specialist construction contract management is required, and the contracting process can be lengthy.

• Extensive site supervision ‐ staff may have done river maintenance and engineering, but have little river restoration experience. Clear communication and intensive site supervision are needed to ensure designs are feasible to build, and are implemented effectively. River restoration usually requires specialist skills and equipment, which may only be available by using external contractors.

• Consistent, clear communication strategy ‐ key messages, audiences and delivery mechanisms. should be identified and used to guide all communication actions.

• Communicate and consult with the public ‐ local meetings, press releases and project briefing notes should all be used to communicate the aims of restoration and what people can expect to see in the short, medium and long term. This is particularly important where controversial action is planned affecting visual amenity or publically accessible land e.g. felling large trees, or works where there is a perception of, or an actual increase in flood risk.

47

• Manage expectations ‐ one project cannot solve all the issues affecting a river system, but can act as a catalyst for future action.

b. Project management The Project Management structure as shown in Annex 8 has been very effective in monitoring and managing the programme and finances. Problems encountered have been resolved successfully by use of the Steering Group and Working Group as required. A key challenge has been organisational change within NE and major delivery partner EA. The beneficiary and the EA flood defence department have undergone significant restructuring during the project. At times, internal responsibilities and processes for implementing actions were transferred, unclear or not available, which presented risks to programme delivery. The organisational changes are summarised below. Role Responsible participant

Bid stage 2005/6 2007 2008 & 2009

Beneficiary* English Nature Natural England

Delivery of actions A1 design C1 restoration

Environment Agency (Flood Defence)

EA Asset Systems Management

1) EA Operations Delivery 2) EA National Construction Project Management Service

EA Operations Delivery

Responsibility passing between departments

* responsible for project management, project team, chairing working and steering groups and overall project delivery The STREAM project management structure was successfully used to manage disruptions arising from organisational changes. In early 2006 the working group identified risks to the river restoration design due to the transfer of responsibilities between EA departments. The Working and Steering groups were used to resolve resource commitment issues and ensure that the design process was kept on track. The representation of NE and the EA on the Working Group has not changed throughout and this has been critical. The risk of organisational change can not be entirely removed from any partnership project, and has the potential to have a large influence on programme delivery. The primary role of external contractors is to deliver their contract on time, so they are less susceptible to organisational change and resulting slippage. Splitting the delivery of time critical actions between project partners and external consultants is therefore recommended. Added value of the project partnership The project partnership has added value to the project in a number of ways, particularly in dissemination of the results and in adding to the scientific knowledge base for UK river restoration and linking river and floodplain management:

• STREAM technical outputs will be published in the UKRRC Manual of River Restoration Techniques and database, both of which are internationally important reference guides.

48

• STREAM monitoring work is contributing to the development of a UK framework for monitoring river restoration projects under development by the UKRRC.

• STREAM technical and financial data is informing the EA’s national river restoration costing and prioritisation work on designated sites.

• The STREAM work on linking river and floodplain (under actions A2, A3 and C2) is being used by the national EA Water Level Management Plan Steering Group and NE freshwater network. A high level of interest in this work was also evident at the recent national river restoration conference.

• Wessex Water are using the project restoration sites to investigate the potential contribution of river restoration to achieving favourable condition in designated sites affected by abstraction. They are also doing additional monitoring of the restoration sites and considering contributing funding to a catchment wide detailed strategic restoration plan (see action F10 – After‐LIFE plan).

• STREAM is closely linked to the community focussed Living River project and is therefore reaching a larger, more varied audience than would otherwise be possible. STREAM provided continuous technical support and guidance on river restoration techniques for the Living River project. Synergies between the two projects were actively sought and utilised wherever possible.

c. Successes and failures

River restoration River restoration works in the approved bid were based on limited site information and a number of assumptions. During the detailed design stage, the restoration had to be modified to take account of a number of constraints, including:

• protected species ‐ detailed surveys found water vole burrows on most of the sites. The restoration designs therefore had to be modified to take account of the legal protection of water vole burrows

• fixed physical constraints such as rail bridge footings were identified by topographic surveys, and found to limit the hydraulic improvements that river restoration could deliver

• insufficient quantities/quality of gravel were present on site to be reclaimed and re‐used, aggregate had to be bought in (consequently increasing expenditure on durable items)

• the need to ensure that the restoration work did not significantly increase flood risk to adjacent land and properties.

The restoration works were modified to reflect these constraints whilst still meeting the overall ecological objectives of the project. More detailed survey and design work could be done at the bid stage to identify constraints, however resources are unlikely to be available given the risk of the bid failing. It would be beneficial to allow more scope for changes of site/restoration techniques after the bid is approved. A number of unexpected outcomes arose related to the restoration works: the elevated water levels at Woodford, and need to secure the berm constructed at Seven Hatches. Because river restoration takes several years to respond, these issues could easily have arisen after the STREAM project is finished. This highlights the value of having staff continuity and a long term management plan in place so that subsequent issues can be addressed. River and floodplain management Project actions A2, A3 and C2 linking river and floodplain management have been extended to cover a larger area of the SAC than originally proposed. In the period between the original bid submission and the project implementation, the EA put in place a dedicated water level management plan team allowing STREAM to:

49

• extend the approach to prioritising SPA floodplain restoration works whilst not trapping SAC fish interests to cover the designated sites from the coast at Christchurch to Salisbury (approximately 30% of the SAC)

• create hatch operating protocols for 7 structures, rather than the 2 originally proposed.

The principles for hatch operating protocols will be applied to a further 32 structures in the River Avon SAC by the WLMP team over the next year. This is a critical part of achieving favourable water level management in the SAC/SPA. The outputs of STREAM work on linking river and floodplain management have generated a lot of interest from river and floodplain managers in the UK. Partnership working STREAM has not solved all the problems affecting the River Avon system, but importantly has demonstrated restoration techniques and built strong partnerships to carry on the work. Some of the added value arising from the project partnership is summarised below. The project has acted as a catalyst for planning and funding further restoration of the River Avon SAC. Since August 2008, and as a separately funded exercise, the project participants have been developing a whole river restoration plan for the River Avon SAC.

The EA Biodiversity Outcome Measures team is now carrying out a large programme of river restoration work. The involvement of the EA Operations Delivery team (in‐house staff) in STREAM has developed their skills in designing and implementing river restoration. The Operations Delivery team are now viewed as a competent contractor for restoration work. This highlights the project’s success in building river restoration technical capacity within the EA. The EA science team are monitoring STREAM river restoration works to help build the national evidence base for restoration benefits. This will add value to the local and national understanding of the impact of river restoration work. The technical knowledge gained by advisors within NE will inform future works to restore and enhance the designated sites. The STREAM project manager is now employed as a national river restoration specialist within NE. This ensures that the project experience is available to all NE officers working towards favourable condition of UK freshwater Natura 2000 sites. The original project bids, technical and financial management systems are being used as a model for developing new partnership projects in the UK and Ireland. The project manager is in discussion with partners’ external funding managers, ensuring that lessons learnt about developing and managing partnership projects are incorporated into future projects. STREAM has won two awards, both of which recognise the value of the partnership working in the project, and was one of five finalists in the International Riverprize 2009. The close relationship between STREAM and Living River has been extremely valuable in bringing the project to a wider audience, particularly local communities. Many of the benefits and achievements of the two projects are based on the synergies between the different project partners. Lesson learnt during the creation, funding and implementation of STREAM and Living River are captured in the final reports, and will be taken up by the partners, directly contributing to policy and practice in the future restoration of rivers in Europe. Cost efficiency Large scale river restoration is classified as civil engineering/construction works, and as such requires proportionally more expenditure on site supervision and management compared to small scale works.

50

STREAM has found that specialist contract management, health and safety and site procedures all increase costs compared to the smaller projects implemented by fishing clubs or volunteers. Existing procurement frameworks were used when buying in external construction contractors, ensuring suppliers had been assessed against high quality/safety standards and European tendering procedures. However, under the current operation of the framework process the number of contractors available is extremely limited and furthermore existing framework contractors may lack experience of river restoration work. This can result in extra expenditure on specialist site supervision. The procurement systems of the project participants need to recognise this issue, and allow more flexibility in selecting suitable contractors. The restoration works implemented by the EA work force has been increasingly cost effective as they have gained experience, and has the added benefit of building the local in‐house skills base. However, their first priority is flood risk management and emergency operations, and if there is a period of high flows or flooding events this can disrupt their work on river restoration. It is therefore recommended to split any programme of restoration construction work between external and internal contractors. d. Comparison against the project objectives

The overall objective of the project is to demonstrate restoration of favourable condition in the River Avon SAC through a catchment approach and to integrate management of the SAC with the adjacent Avon Valley SPA. The specific project objectives are to:

• restore the watercourse habitat and conditions for associated species at priority sites within the River Avon SAC

• demonstrate a range of innovative river restoration techniques appropriate to the River Avon SAC and other chalk rivers, to local, national and European audiences

• develop coordinated management of the River Avon SAC and the Avon Valley SPA, balancing the requirements of the qualifying interests of each.

The project is considered by the project steering group to have met these objectives by:

• implementing restoration works demonstrating a range of traditional and new techniques in different river habitats

• disseminating project experience to a range of local, national and EU audiences, working with the UKRRC and Living River

• producing best practice guidance on sluice operation, distributed to relevant landowners and operators in the SAC

• publication of ditch management and fish (including Atlantic salmon) exclusion measures and dissemination to relevant landowners in the SPA

• improved stakeholder and public appreciation of the sites and species through use of a project website, workshops, leaflets, posters, media publicity, open days, sign and display boards and layman’s reports.

e. Environmental benefits, policy and legislation implications

The conservation benefits of the project for the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA are:

• physical features and geomorphological processes of the watercourse habitat re‐established at six river restoration demonstration sites in the River Avon SAC

• approximately 7 km of river and banks enhanced and woody debris introduced • creation of an estimated 3600m2 of new spawning area for Atlantic salmon, bullhead and lamprey.

Atlantic salmon are already spawning on the new gravel • SPA floodplain restoration works prioritised to avoid damaging SAC fish species, and new

prioritisation process created and applied to approximately 30% of the SAC/SPA

51

• development of principles for hatch operation to benefit SAC fish species and water level dependent habitat in the SPA.

As previously noted in section 3.3.1, restoration proposals at the bid stage are based on limited site information, and constraints are often found at the detailed design stage. It would be beneficial if LIFE‐Nature allowed more flexibility so that the approved designs/site locations can be amended more easily/quickly, maximising environmental benefits. At two sites, the potential for major restoration was always limited by the weirs acting to split the flows into second channels. A concept originally looked at was to create short bypass channels around these weirs to provide improved access for fish species and significantly reduce impoundment. LIFE‐Nature would not fund this approach as it was outside the designated SAC boundary and was not deemed eligible for funding. Unlike in terrestrial systems, rivers are influenced by physical factors that may be outside the designated area. The creation of bypass channels would be far more ecologically effective and cost‐effective than simply limiting the works to a tightly defined river corridor. This strict interpretation of SAC boundaries is not therefore the most beneficial for the riverine SAC interest species/habitat and a more pragmatic approach and resolution would be desirable. This should be considered in funding future river restoration projects, but also by NE when designating river and floodplain SAC or SPA sites. Initial indications are that the restoration works have already had ecological benefit. Atlantic salmon are spawning on the restored gravel areas at Hale, and there has been renewed growth of the water crowfoot community at Woodford and Fovant already. However, the monitoring undertaken cannot conclude success or failure within the timeframe of the project; the changes to the river are only just beginning to be visible, and in some case will take many more years to reach the desired end result. The need to fund monitoring adequately should be considered for future river restoration projects; it is complex and needs to be done over a long period if it is to give meaningful results. f. Innovation, demonstration value

THE STREAM project has demonstrated new and innovative river enhancement techniques suitable for lowland rivers. Crucially these techniques have been documented and monitored, and will now be published on the project website as technical advice notes. The river restoration techniques demonstrated are applicable to other lowland river systems and are contributing to the development of strategic restoration plans for Natura 2000 rivers nationally. Data from the STREAM restoration work is informing development of a tool to cost river restoration measures required under the WFD. The STREAM method for prioritising floodplain restoration works, and creating hatch operating protocols is a new management tool for Natura 2000 wetland sites, and is generating an interest amongst wetland managers in the UK. The techniques will also be applicable in other European countries with highly managed wetland Natura 2000 sites. The STREAM guidance and techniques developed are already being put into practice in neighbouring communities and other catchments. Examples include STREAM hatch operating guidance being used in the neighbouring River Itchen catchment, Living River invasive plant posters being used on other river systems, and STREAM river restoration techniques being transferred to other rivers. STREAM and Living River jointly have taken a particularly innovative approach to communication, developing a distinct, complementary identity for the STREAM and Living River projects. As well as fully exploiting existing communication channels to promote key messages about the Avon, they have worked to communicate river related messages in new ways. Innovations include the installation of Living River “factoids” and joint interpretation boards around the catchment.

52

The work of STREAM and Living River jointly has engaged people and groups through both established and new ways, working with businesses to provide opportunities for their employees, the arts, existing conservation groups, and landowners as well as providing opportunities to interested individuals. The projects jointly disseminated their messages and celebrated their achievements through public events, talks and conferences/workshops. STREAM has demonstrated how the private and public sectors and NGOs can work together effectively to address issues that can not be resolved using statutory measures. The linking of STREAM and Living River demonstrated an efficient way to integrate two projects. g. Socio‐economic effects

The River Avon catchment lies within the natural area of the South Wessex Downs. The Wessex landscape is well known for its rich cultural and natural heritage. Angling is an important source of income to landowners and local businesses throughout the catchment. It generates local employment (for example river keepers and guides directly and indirectly for accommodation etc).

This project has further developed landowner and fishing club support for the SAC’s conservation objectives, by establishing demonstration river restoration projects to achieve favourable conservation status of the SAC. This biodiversity gain will result in the enhanced quality and sustainability of the fishery and thereby help secure the local employment and income this generates.

h. The future: sustainability

The River Avon SAC is subject to a variety of pressures including abstraction for public water supply, diffuse pollution, historic engineering and drainage of watercourses, built development, agricultural change, fisheries exploitation, climate change and problem species. The STREAM project could not tackle all the threats that affect the River Avon SAC and SPA but focussed on the issues that could not be addressed by UK statutory and policy measures. The project has contributed to addressing the following threats:

• historic land drainage and flood defence engineering which has damaged ecological function of the River Avon SAC

• conflict between water level management for SPA interests and SAC qualifying fish interests • damage to habitat due to inappropriate water level regime and lack of ditch management • widespread lack of awareness and understanding of the SAC / SPA features and their requirements

by key stakeholders and wider audiences. The future management of the river restoration undertaken by STREAM has been secured with legal agreements, which will be monitored as part of NE’s routine favourable condition assessment. In UK designated rivers, favourable condition assessment is based on very large assessment units, therefore it is unlikely that the restoration work will result in any one unit or site moving into favourable condition. The project acted as a catalyst for development of a strategic restoration plan for the River Avon SAC, and to demonstrate how it may be implemented. STREAM held an initial workshop to consider in detail the continuation of the project and outstanding threats to the SAC in autumn 2008. The workshop informed development of the “After LIFE Conservation Plan”, setting out how the project actions will be continued and developed, and how the long term management of the sites will be secured. It identifies further actions to be carried out when, by whom and possible sources of finance.

53

A further workshop will be held on completion of Living River in spring 2010. The aim of the workshop will be to review both projects, and to develop consensus amongst a broad range of stakeholders on the After‐LIFE plan. The After‐LIFE plan is included in full in section 6 of this report. The project website will remain as a source of project information, publications and advice, ensuring that the project experience and outputs are easily available in future to a wide audience. i. Long term indicators of the project success

A final project assessment of the ecological impact of the river restoration work was carried out in 2009, as summarised in section “e” above. This has given an initial indication of the success of the restoration work. However, as the sites will continue to develop over the next 10‐20 years, the After‐LIFE Plan will consider in detail the need for long‐term monitoring. A further year of monitoring will be carried out at the Seven Hatches site (action C1.4). This is part of the EA national science programme work on developing the evidence base for river restoration so that it may form part of WFD “programmes of measures”.

In the UK, the condition of Natura 20000 sites is assessed every six years to inform the UK’s reporting on the conservation status of European protected species and habitats. Common Monitoring Standards have been developed by the Joint Nature Conservancy Committee, and are applied across the UK to assess designated sites. The condition of the River Avon SAC (including the restoration sites) and Avon Valley SPA will be assessed using this methodology on a 6 year cycle.

54

5. COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL REPORT Project costs are summarised in the table below, calculated using a monthly EURO exchange rate, as agreed in the budget modification September 2009. Full details of expenditure are provided in the formal financial final report and claim, submitted with this report. Table 5.1 Summary of project costs.

Cost Category

Total costs according to the Commission’s

decision EUROS

Total costs incurred from the start date

to 30.09.09 EUROS

%

1. Personnel 520,838.00 483,004.00 92.74 2. Travel & Subsistence 33,795.00 30,676.00 90.77 3. External assistance 622,700.00 573,140.00 92.04 4. Durables: total cost 267,274.00 260,774.00 97.57 5. Land purchase Nil Nil N/a 6. Consumables 9,183.00 7,247.00 78.92 7. Other costs 13,653.00 13,513.00 98.97 8. Overheads 102,720.00 95,785.00 93.25 SUM TOTAL 1,570,163.00 1,464,139.00 93.25

A budget modification request was made in July 2009 in accordance with article 25.4 of the Common Provisions. A summary of the main changes is given below, full details can be seen in Annex 1. This modification request was granted in September 2009. Exchange rate fluctuations The STREAM Project started in August 2005, and the exchange rate used to calculate the project budget was EUR 1.50 = GBP 1. Since then, the Euro has strengthened significantly relative to Sterling, rising to EUR 1.04 = GBP 1 in January 2009 before falling to EUR 1.1 at the time of writing. There has therefore been a significant movement in exchange rates from the start of the project. Personnel and external assistance Lack of available personnel, change in the structure of organisations and changes in legal requirements for construction meant that less internal personnel and more external assistance was used than originally planned. However, the project aim of increasing technical capacity within partner organisations was still achieved. Durables Action A1 (detailed river restoration design) highlighted a need to amend the proposed restoration techniques in order to achieve the project ecological aims. The changes to the restoration designs resulted in an increase in the volume of materials required, increasing spend on durables. Consumables It has not been possible to include fuel for EA machinery (much of which was hired under external assistance) as an eligible project cost. Cost savings were also made in other actions, resulting overall in a reduction within the consumables category. Overheads At the time of submission of the original budget, the project was advised that overheads should be estimated. Subsequently, in accordance with Article 21.12 a flat rate overhead of 7% has been applied.

55

6. AFTER‐LIFE PLAN This Plan focuses on the Threats addressed by STREAM, related issues and future action required to address them. It outlines the other threats affecting the conservation status of the River Avon SAC and the Avon Valley SPA, and notes action underway, proposed or required, but does not detail these. In summary, STREAM has achieved its objectives for river restoration, reconciliation of management needs of the SAC and SPA, and dissemination of knowledge to key audiences. It has also catalysed a partnership project to develop a strategic framework for restoration of the River Avon SAC which is currently undergoing pre‐implementation consultation. The key outstanding issues are:

• the need for extensive river restoration to secure favourable conservation status (this will require significant funding)

• stakeholder concerns about the strategic framework for river restoration • uncertainty over public funding both for capital works and to resource advice to river managers • continuing tensions between environmental needs for the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley

SSSI/Ramsar Site which leads to conflicts in water level management and channel restoration requirements.

6.1 History (see summary table of the project’s progress) STREAM and Living River were developed to implement recommendations of the River Avon SAC Conservation Strategy (produced for the LIFE In UK Rivers Project). The Conservation Strategy was developed by English Nature working with key stakeholders engaged in the management of the River Avon SAC. It reviewed threats to the conservation status of the River Avon cSAC, identified those that were or would be addressed by statutory or other measures, and prioritised action for those that would not be addressed by existing measures. The priority threats requiring additional measures were:

• Need for a strategic approach to ecologically‐led river restoration • Conflicts between the management needs of the River Avon SAC and its floodplain, including the

Avon Valley SPA which encompasses the floodplain of the lowest 30km of the River Avon • Threats from non‐native invasive plants • Lack of understanding by key users and wider audiences of the importance of the River Avon

system, its ecology and its management It was agreed by the stakeholder group that had developed the Conservation Strategy that these threats should be addressed by partnership projects, and that English Nature (now Natural England) should lead the development of these projects. As a result two complementary projects were developed: STREAM addressed threats 1, 2, and 4. It demonstrated strategically planned river restoration, resolved conflicts between the management of the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA, and has disseminated the project results and lessons learnt to a wide range of audiences. Living River has three programmes: biodiversity, access and interpretation, and education and training and runs from 2006‐2010. The STREAM project ran from 1 August 2005 to 30 September 2009. It has completed its programmed actions as follows:

56

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

57

6.2 Current Situation

STREAM and Living River have addressed the priority issues identified by the River Avon SAC Conservation Strategy (see Appendix 1) as requiring additional action to the statutory and policy measures already in place. STREAM has successfully completed its actions with significant beneficial effects for the SAC, and has put in place good practice guidance for future management. The most recent condition assessments (2008) categorise both the River Avon SAC and the Avon Valley SPA condition as unfavourable. The reasons for unfavourable condition are as follows: River Avon SAC: Inappropriate ditch management, inappropriate scrub control, inappropriate water levels, inappropriate weirs dams and other structures, invasive freshwater species, water abstraction, water pollution from agricultural run‐off and point source discharges,. Avon Valley SPA: agriculture, drainage, fertiliser use, inappropriate cutting/mowing, inappropriate ditch management, inappropriate scrub control, inappropriate stock feeding, inappropriate water levels, inappropriate weed control, overgrazing, undergrazing, agricultural runoff, game management, forestry and woodland management. These issues affecting the conservation status of the SAC and SPA specifically relate to STREAM Threats:

1. Need for strategically planned, ecologically‐led river restoration: STREAM has restored 7km of river channel at 6 locations in the catchment which have trialled and demonstrated a range of techniques. Alongside this action, the Project participants have worked together to develop a Strategic Framework for Restoration of the River Avon (SFRRA). Based on hydromorphological analysis of the River Avon SAC, it identifies and prioritises reaches needing restoration and/or modification of water control structures in order to restore favourable condition. Public consultation has started (autumn 2009) and implementation will begin in 2010. Priority site restoration will be carried out by the EA (Biodiversity Outcome Measures), and by NE (Higher Level Scheme and Conservation Enhancement Scheme).

2. Conflicts between the management of the River Avon SAC and its floodplain: The project has developed and disseminated best practice guidance on managing water level control structures and fish exclusion, and the HOP which balances the water management requirement of the River Avon SAC and the Avon Valley SPA . These will improve management of individual structures throughout the catchment. However there remain conflicts between water level management for the flood plain SSSI/SPA and the River Avon SAC interests. These conflicts are exacerbated by high summer flows, which have been exceptionally high in the final three years of STREAM. The EA and NE are working with stakeholders to develop consensus.

3. Lack of understanding by key users and wider audiences: Both STREAM and Living River have worked extensively to increase awareness and understanding of the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA. The target audiences have been influencing bodies (e.g. regulators), river and land managers, local communities, and people living in the catchment. STREAM’s communication programme included specialist events, public events, reports, newsletters, and communication with other UK and European river management audiences. However it is clear from recent work on the Strategic Framework and the ongoing issues with water level management requirements for the SAC and the SPA that work is still required to improve knowledge and understanding of the conservation objectives, and to improve dialogue between the wide range of partners and stakeholders in the management of these sites.

Other issues adversely affecting the SAC and SPA are outlined in Appendix 2.

58

6.3 Problems that Remain With STREAM issues The STREAM Partners carried out a SWOT analysis of STREAM remaining issues. Key points are: Strengths Successful completion of river restoration and protocols Strong partnership developed between project participants Skills developed in partners and in local river restoration specialists Development of SFRRA

WeaknessesRiver Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA still in unfavourable condition Project impacts limited by time and resources available for development and implementation Implementation sometimes hindered by regulatory processes Project focussed on Upper Avon catchment, limited impact on lower Avon Some resistance to SFRRA by local stakeholders, especially fishing clubs and riparian owners

Opportunities The EA and NE have initiated major programme of river restoration, guided by SFRRA and funded by BOM Future works will be based on techniques developed by STREAM Future works will benefit from enhanced technical knowledge and understanding within project participants and wider river restoration community The Review of Consents will address major impacts from abstraction and discharges

ThreatsPartnerships could decay without focus of STREAM and Living River Projects, and continued funding of WCSP. Work in Upper/Lower Avon may become less integrated Continuing tensions between management of River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SSSI/Ramsar; and between conservation objectives for designated sites and private land and river management Impacts of climate change including the likelihood of increased frequency and impact of extreme weather events The high cost and long time scale of getting rivers in favourable condition makes it low priority for spend at NE.

The full results of the SWOT analysis are provided in Appendix 2. Factors underlying the findings of this analysis, and remaining issues related to STREAM Threats are: Capacity needs: limited staff time in EA and NE dedicated to work on the SAC and SPA, likewise voluntary conservation organisations; limited technical knowledge of staff due to complex and specialist ecology of rivers and wetlands. Lack of experienced ecological river restoration specialist contractors. Leading on from STREAM, the EA and NE will be finalising and implementing priority river restoration as directed by the SFRRA. The SW River Basin management plan identifies restoration of the River Avon SAC as a specific measure. This is likely to require dedicated staff input and a project approach to achieve a significant programme of restoration. Although both organisations are committed to completing the priority restoration projects, there are likely to be capacity issues relating to both the amount of time available and the technical demands of the work. STREAM project team staff have been reassigned to other work, although core staff within both the EA and NE have had direct involvement with STREAM and with the ongoing development of the SFRRA. Both organisations have wide remits and many statutory responsibilities so that core staff time dedicated to the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA is limited, and relatively small numbers of staff have detailed technical expertise, notwithstanding the learning gained from the STREAM project. However these organisations do have national policy and technical teams that can support local staff. The long timescales and high cost of getting rivers into favourable condition makes work on rivers a lower priority than terrestrial sites at Natural England. Non Governmental Organisations (including the Wildlife Trusts) have roles directly delivering conservation work, providing advice to landowners, and as facilitators between statutory bodies and private interests. However their engagement with River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA, either with ongoing work or new

59

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

60

timescales and high cost of getting rivers into favourable condition makes rivers a lower priority than terrestrial sites at NE. The river channels and land and are almost completely privately owned and managed. In general terms the natural environment of the river system is appreciated and valued. However there are many and differing views on how it should be managed: not all are compatible with each other or with the ecological interests of the SAC and/or SPA. There are some local interest groups representing either managers or river users – these groups are keenly interested in the regulation and administration of the SAC and SPA. Considerable effort has been expended to build understanding and consensus over environmentally sensitive management. However the whole river system has been heavily modified for many centuries and landowners, river managers and local communities are accustomed to the river channels being managed for fishing, and to serve land drainage, and the floodplain being managed for agriculture, with water levels controlled by sluices and hatches. This perpetuates a view that the ecosystems depend upon intensive management. The SFRRA has reviewed the habitat restoration needs to restore the River Avon SAC’s natural functions. It identifies major restoration works and significant changes to water level management to rehabilitate the natural functioning of the river system. Currently there is concern from a number of river and land managers and users and other stakeholders to the SFFRA, including direct opposition. The key issues are

• Reduced control of water levels and flow in the river and flood plain

• Potential impacts on landscape and historic environment assets

• Potential impacts on economic uses of the river and land.

The primary economic use of the River Avon (including tributaries) is for fishing, dominated by coarse and salmon fishing in the lower reaches and fly fishing in the upper reaches; there is also a commercial net fishery at the river mouth (all salmon are returned to the river to conserve the population). These fisheries are an important source of local income for riparian owners; they are renowned for the quality of the fishing experience, which is carefully managed (including cutting channel vegetation, maintenance of fishing paths and fish stocking). The primary land use in the Avon Valley SPA, is extensive cattle production, with pasture and hay meadows. These have developed over centuries and depend on an ability to control water levels especially in summer. In the wider catchment agriculture includes extensive and intensive stock rearing (cattle, sheep and pigs), and arable. Diffuse agricultural pollution to the river system is an issue in some parts of the catchment causing sedimentation and eutrophication. Financial outlook: Public and private funding is likely to be reduced in current economic climate. Funding is required to implement the SFfRRA and to support ongoing environmentally sensitive management. There are government commitments to restore favourable condition of the SAC, SPA, SSSI and Ramsar, with funding earmarked for target driven major projects (EA BOM). Funding is very uncertain for NGO projects and potentially for EA and NE river work if public spending is cut. Foreseeable funding won’t be enough for full capital and revenue – hard to identify other sources. Work required to restore favourable condition to the River Avon SAC is identified by the SFRRA, and is estimated to cost a minimum of £35 million. This will be partly funded by the EA, with support from NE. 6.5m Euros (approx £6m) has been earmarked between 2010‐2014, although there will be severe pressure on public funding during that period. NE can contribute funding via the Higher Level Stewardship and Conservation Enhancement Schemes, although the extent of this funding may be limited compared to the high cost of getting rivers into favourable condition. Funding for NGO activities in the coming years is likely to be limited, due to the economic climate affecting funding sources.

61

Technological needs: skills gap within organisations and consultants Within the EA and NE the Information Technology systems and support are sufficient to meet the technological and communication needs for river restoration. However time and skills constraints mean that technological capacity is not fully exploited. STREAM discovered that there is a limited number of consultants and contractors with expertise in river restoration design and management. This may be a problem in implementing the SFRRA. Future requirements/further actions The key remaining issues to address are

• Longstanding and inter‐related causes of unfavourable condition – there is no single solution, and a clear vision of what is required to restore and maintain favourable condition is needed

• Tensions between management of River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SSSI/Ramsar – need to look at long term scenarios and sustainable management objectives

• Capacity constraints within NE and EA – need a project approach, especially to SFRRA, and lack of experienced ecological river restoration specialist contractors.

• Tensions between conservation objectives and economic land uses – specifically opposition to SFRRA – need for further stakeholder engagement

• Multiple regulation, need for regulators/public bodies to share objectives • Financial pressures in short and medium term • WWT are developing a landscape scale river corridor restoration project – this would encompass

the WCSP and may alter its focus Future actions required to address the Threats partly addressed by STREAM are shown in Table 1 overleaf.

62

Table 1 Proposed further actions STREAM threat Issues Current action Future action needed Lead Funding Need for Strategic River Restoration

Conservation Objectives and the River Basin Management Plan requires restoration of natural river functioning Restoration may conflict with amenity/aesthetic and historic environment assets of the river (including gardens) Capacity constraints within NE and EA Restoration requires significant funding

SFRRA strategic plan developed, stakeholder consultation underway (led by WSCP on behalf of all partners) NE and EA national joint river restoration project to implement restoration at priority sites to meet PSA target for SSSI condition (currently funded to March 2010)

Implementation of SFfRRA – need to engage stakeholders further, identify key issues and where possible resolve EA and NE need to develop joint project approach, with commitments of financial and staffing resources to deliver programme

EA, NE EA (BOM) NE (HLS) required for WCSP Secured to Sep 2010

Tensions between River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA

Main SPA/SAC issues addressed by protocols SAC objectives perceived to conflict with Avon Valley SSSI/Ramsar

EA and NE produced Position Statement on weed‐cutting in lower Avon. Consulting with stakeholders to develop understanding

Need to review conservation objectives for River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SSSI/Ramsar, in light of predictable climate change impacts and ecological trends; develop shared objectives for sustainable management of SAC and SPA/SSSI/Ramsar

NE (EA) NE/EA staff resource in place (limited)

Lack of Understanding and Knowledge about the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA

Need to increase appreciation of value of rivers and wetlands Need to increase understanding of ecological river and wetland management, including value for ecosystem services

Public understanding addressed by Living River Dissemination of STREAM project findings Advice provided by WCSP, and Avon Valley Advisor

Legacy products from Living River Project, maintain website Maintain STREAM website post project Secure funding for WCSP and Avon Valley Advisor

Living River, then NE NE, WWT, HWT

NE web staff time Required

63

STREAM threat Issues Current action Future action needed Lead Funding Issues common to the Threats

Longstanding and inter‐related causes of unfavourable condition ; no single solution Tensions between conservation objectives and economic land uses – specifically opposition to SFRRA – need for stakeholder engagement Multiple regulation, need for regulators/public bodies to share objectives Financial pressures in short and medium term

Good understanding developed of individual causes of unfavourable condition; statutory measures in place to address key issues (e.g. water resource management, discharges, river and wetland management); some financial support for favourable management of Avon Valley through Environmental Stewardship

Need to develop clear vision, shared between regulators and stakeholders, of conservation objectives for the river and valley. These need to address restoration needs and future adaptations to likely climate change, focussing on funding requirements. NE/EA will convene a Stakeholder Forum in autumn 2010, at close of Living River project. This will review issues identified by the River Avon SAC Conservation Strategy, and progress of STREAM/ Living River in meeting the priorities identified by the Strategy. Use of ecosystem services valuation for decision making.

NE, EA Staff resource in place (limited) Living River staff time

64

Responsibilities: NE and the EA have statutory responsibilities to secure favourable conservation status of the SAC and SPA/Ramsar, to the underpinning SSSIs. They have regulatory powers to control adverse impacts. Other public bodies (e.g. water companies, local authorities) have statutory responsibilities to further the conservation status of the sites. Voluntary conservation organisations make a valuable contribution to both conservation management and liaison with land and river owners, managers and users. The key responsibility for both directing and funding conservation measures lies with NE and the EA. Funding mechanisms: STREAM and Living River are partnership projects secured a total of 2m Euros for measures to address the priority threats in the River Avon SAC Conservation Strategy. At the close of these projects the available funding sources are:

• NE’s Higher Level Stewardship (HLS)for agricultural and associated land uses, and Conservation Enhancement Scheme (CES) for non‐agricultural works including river restoration. Both schemes prioritise SACs/SPAs/Ramsar and SSSIs

• EA’s programme funds, including specifically the BOM programme which will fund some of the key SFRRA projects – this is a source of funding that has arisen during the life of STREAM

• Water company funding, in particularly through the AMP which provides funding for agreed conservation measures‐ none proposed

• Potentially, funding could be secured for conservation works from grant programmes such as LIFE, ALSF. This would require a targeted project consistent with the programme aims, often developed and delivered through a partnership of relevant organisations.

The current funding position for river restoration and environmentally sensitive land management is relatively healthy due to commitments by EA (BOM) and NE (HLS). However these public funds are vulnerable to political pressures and at present to potential public funding cuts.

The Stakeholder Forum (Autumn 2010) will assess whether further projects are needed to further the conservation objectives for the SAC and SPA, and which funding sources may be appropriate, especially to enhance joint working by NE and the EA with stakeholders.

65

Appendix 1 Threats to favourable condition of the River Avon SAC

Threats in STREAM bid Addressed by Action Completed, ongoing, action required Partners and Resources

Threat 1: Historic land drainage and flood defence engineering which has damaged ecological function of the River Avon SAC

STREAM Restored 7km of river in 6 demonstration projects –secured management of project sites for future.

SFRRA

Whole river strategic restoration plan identifies priorities for river channel restoration. Reporting October 2009, implementation 2010 onwards.

Wessex Water, NE, EA, WCSP funding initial study. Implementation will require resources from range of organisations.

PSA targets BOM

Joint EA/NE statement of action over next 2yrs for SSSI rivers. Developed programme of restoration works required for favourable condition of SSSI/SAC/SPA features BOM will include Implementation plan to deliver restoration projects

EA has budget for next 5 years NE introduced CES (includes rivers) + HLS for most land management Future funding for major projects unclear/vulnerable.

WSCP Project provides advice to landowners and river managers on river restoration; also coordinate reach scale restoration, in Wiltshire

WSCP partners: Wessex Water, WWT, NE, EA, Wiltshire Fishery Association. Funding required beyond 2010.

WFD Morphological condition is a WFD issue, addressed in river basin management plans

Led by EA. Funding of WFD river basin management plan actions unclear.

Threat 2: Conflict between water level management in SPA and SAC qualifying fish interests

STREAM

Review completed of fish exclusion measures at water control structures, to safeguard SAC fish species Methodology widely disseminated. Workshops held for landowners and regulators on new methods EA extended methodology upstream of SPA to safeguard migrating fish

66


Threat 3: Damage to SAC watercourse habitat due to inappropriate water level regime and lack of ditch management in SPA

STREAM Hatch Operating Protocol completed to balance interests of SAC and SPA Methodology disseminated to stakeholders EA held national WLMP/HOP workshop to disseminate HOP methodology widely within EA

EA Incorporated HOP methodology into WLMP implementation EA – seeking bid to WLMP national programme funding

EA BOM implementation EA ‐ Future HOP implementation to be take forward by BOM team.

EA Review management of watercourse vegetation: high summer water levels adversely affect traditional management of SPA land. Has caused tension between agencies and landowners

EA/NE have agreed position statement; working to resolve conflicts

Serious water level management issues remain – WLMP conflicts with SFFRA. Further action to be identified. All potential solutions (including SFFRA, WLMP & BOM) need strategic appraisal of in‐combination effects on water levels in SPA

EA, NE representatives of landowners/managers

67


Threat 4: Widespread lack of awareness and understanding of the SAC/SPA features and their requirements by landowners/ managers, farmers, and fishing clubs, wider public audiences

STREAM

STREAM project has disseminated results to wide range of target audiences: landowners/ managers, farmers, and fishing clubs, also wider public audiences, linked to Living River Products available via website

Living River

Programmes of access and interpretation, and education and training. Aimed at wide range of audiences, complementing STREAM. Includes volunteering (1200 volunteers involved), 100 events and talks reaching 900 people, 200 people trained in ecological skills, working with 32 local communities to connect them to River Avon; river related issues integrated into parish strategies

NE, WWT, HWT Salisbury International Arts Festival, Wiltshire Council, Hampshire County Council, EA, Wessex Water

WSCP and New Forest projects working with EA and NE

Projects promoting value and importance of river system to wide range of stakeholders for biodiversity and ecosystem services (water supply, flood protection etc) WCSP leading consultation on SFFRA, developing landowners’ acceptance of strategic vision for river restoration and implementation of restoration projects

WCSP – as aboveNew Forest Project – New Forest National Park Authority, NE, HWT

Local Planning Authority

River Avon Conservation Strategy established River Avon Planning Forum: agreed consistent policies and produced planning guidance. From 2009 planning forum will deliver river related training so planners better equipped to asses river projects

Planning Forum Wiltshire, Hampshire and New Forest Councils

68

Other threats identified in the River Avon SAC Conservation Strategy, with actionsThreats Addressed by Action Completed, ongoing, action required Partners and ResourcesPoint source discharges (eutrophication)

EA ROC, ECAP, AMP/PRO

Statutory measures: ROC (Habitats Regulations) EA consulted NE on Stage 3 in autumn 2009, actions to then be taken forward

Resources through AMP/PRO5 for public waste water. If from private industry compensation may need to be provided

Diffuse pollution CSF Project ongoing in Avon Catchment to address agricultural diffuse pollution, new targeting includes River Avon SAC except the River Bourne. Works on farm tracks, roads and manure storage ongoing Test catchment to assess the effectiveness of on‐farm abatement measures on diffuse pollution.

CSF partnership programme funded by RDPE until March 2011 Further funding will be required post 2011

Abstraction ROC ,CAMS, AMP/PRO

Statutory measures: ROC (Habitats Regulations) EA consulted NE on Stage 3 in autumn 2009, actions to then be taken forward

Resources through AMP/PRO5 for public water supply. If private industry licences amended, compensation may need to be provided

Managing exploitation of fish stocks

EA Catch & release, NLO

SAP (March 2009) identified further actions to safeguard salmon stocks, continue existing actions on exploitation. Irish drift nets bought out 2007

Environment Agency, land and fishery managers, WSRT, water companies. Resources co‐ordinated by EA and Salmon Action group. SAP solutions funded through AMP and to be implemented 2010

Problem species Living River WCSP and New Forest Project

Invasive Plants: Catchment wide Invasive Plants Forum established by Living River – will develop catchment action plan to manage invasive plant species on SAC Invasive plants forum established through WCSP. WWT secured funding to tackle Wylye catchment – volunteer engagement to control Himalayan Balsam; bid made to DEFRA to extend this project throughout the Upper Avon and continue support for the Invasive Plants Forum and the forum will develop 20 year control plans

WCSP (WWT, NE,EA, Wessex Water, WFA)Wiltshire WT Invasive Plant projects secured additional funding and will maintain forum and provide advice/action to 2011 Need to secure long term administration of Invasive Plants Forum New Forest Non‐native plant project started May 2009 – may encompass the Lower Avon after Living River finishes

Mink Wiltshire WT has coordinated mink control in Wiltshire for 8 years. Will continue post 2010, subject to funding

WWT, EA, NE, WFA, landowners and fishery managers Funding required to continue WWT co‐ordination of action.

Swans Study of impacts of swans on SAC reported spring 09, resulting action plan being implemented.

NE, Wiltshire Fishery Association, Game Conservancy Trust Funding for small scale habitat manipulation work required

Non native crayfish

Non‐native crayfish not having widespread impact Relic native population at Fonthill to be protected, possibly partly moved to a “safe” site

Native crayfish BAP group, EA. Funding required for translocation of part‐population to safe site.

69

Appendix 2 SWOT analysis ‐ full results Threat Identified In STREAM bid

Strengths ‐ attributes of the project or project team that have aided or can aid in achieving the project’s objectives

Weaknesses ‐ attributes of the project or the project team that have harmed or can harm the project’s objectives

Opportunities ‐ external conditions that might be helpful to achieving the project’s objectives

Threats ‐ external conditions that might be harmful to achieving the project’s objectives

Need for Strategic River Restoration

Successful project delivery created demonstration sites; development of restoration techniques, improved understanding of river restoration. Partner bodies have developed understanding of and skills in river restoration, in particular EA operations staff have developed practical skills Good partnership working International exchange of experiences and learning benefits EU relationships and ensures dissemination of project learning across EU STREAM and WLMP partnership initiated SFFRA – a scientific appraisal of the condition of river, prioritising channel restoration to achieve favourable condition in the River Avon SAC

River Avon SAC is still in unfavourable condition Focus of restoration work has been on upper catchment (narrower river sections); limited benefits and learning for larger scale restoration Initial selection of restoration sites compromised by time limitations; designs constrained by factors outside project control, lack of long term monitoring; weaknesses of techniques may not be detected/ managed, techniques with problems may be replicated Temporary disruption of fisheries had negative impacts on local fishing economy SFFRA – consultation has been too fast to build acceptance and consensus, especially on removal/alteration of water control structures; currently not supported by anglers/ landowners Procurement processes in statutory agencies can be protracted and may hinder project development and implementation

Environment Agency and Natural England PSA, BOM and WLMP programmes will undertake prioritised river restoration as guided by SFFRA Knowledge base developed by STREAM will inform future management of River Avon SAC River restoration skills that have been developed in contractors and consultants will improve future restoration work in River Avon and other rivers

Strategic approach could be lost after STREAM project closes – return to individual projects and ad hoc work programmes Focus of river restoration could return to fisheries led projects, rather than ecology led Many issues affecting the conservation status of the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA are not fully resolved

70

Threat Identified In STREAM bid





Conflict between Avon Valley SPA and River Avon SAC fish

Successful methodology for resolving conflicts between fish passage and water level management

Conflict between Avon Valley SPA and River Avon SAC water level management

Successful development and widespread uptake of HOP methodology, plan in place to take this forward

HOPsJoint New Forest NPA, NE, HWT advice service for landowners (to include R Avon and Avon Valley) started Autumn 2009

Demands by landowners for lower summer water levels in Avon Valley SPA – conflict with needs of River Avon SAC; also may not be sustainable in face of climate change

Lack of understanding of river conservation issues

Increased public interest in river conservation issues developed with engagement opportunities provided by STREAM and Living River

STREAM and Living River Projects are temporary

Other features of STREAM implementation

Development of partnerships –mutual understanding between agencies, water companies and Conservation NGOs: shared awareness of issues; shared good practice and increased knowledge in partner organisations

Potential continued co‐operation between project partners ‐ ensure legacy and further action

Post STREAM communication between partners could deteriorate Wiltshire focus could return to R Avon work

Raised stakeholder awareness of importance of River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA, including awareness of ecological needs

Complex range of stakeholders with multiple objectives, and complex land ownership with high % private ownership limits ability of agencies to undertake significant measures addressing widespread problems

Potential support and actions from stakeholders encouraged by STREAM guidance and advice notes

Avon catchment lies in one EA Region/Area

Avon catchment lies in 2 NE regions involving 3 area teams Avon catchment lies in 3 Wildlife Trust areas

Revision of PSA targets will provide policy driver for government bodies Review of Consents should address significant abstraction and point source pollution issues

Potential organisational restructuring especially NE and the EA, this can affect continuity of initiatives and planning of future projects

71

Threat Identified In STREAM bid





Other features of STREAM implementation (Continued)

Link to Living River

Projects only temporary Project activities and positive media coverage has led to reputational gains for partners (STREAM) and better public understanding (Living River)

Comprehensive knowledge base of ecological data has been developed for River Avon SAC

Lack of statutory body funding commitment to monitoring prevents post STREAM Project medium and long term monitoring of restoration measures limits learning

Review of Consents will address abstraction and point source pollution

Implementation of policies requires public funding

Living River has developed a catchment wide Invasive plant forum and management plan to control invasive species

Work on Non Native plants could promote cross border coordination of agencies and stakeholders

Invasive species still a significant threat; may worsen with climate change

WFD ensures statutory bodies must address risks to ecological status of water bodies

Currently no funding allocated for water framework directive measures

WFD provides long term statutory driver to ensure good ecological status; addresses range of issues

Current threats to public funding; reduced funding for agencies, NGOs and advice projects

WCSP continues strong role as mediator between various stakeholders and interests

WSCP has potential to coordinate R Avon matters

New River Trust is currently not engaged with conservation, industry or public groups

Potential development of Rivers Trust for Southern Chalk Streams could be a good way to coordinate stakeholder engagement

72

7. LAYMAN’S REPORT A paper copy of the layman’s report is included here and electronically in Appendix 3.

73

Annex 1 Summary of project actions, plan and progress Summary of project actions as set out in project bid Summary table of project delivery of actions Plan of project delivery For the following, please refer to the enclosed CD: Project modifications

1 Beneficiary 2 Budget

Communication strategy

74

A1.1 Summary of project actions as set out in project bid

Code Title and Actions Objective A1 Detailed design of six demonstration river

restoration sites To create six detailed designs for the river restoration sites, which meet the objectives of the LIFE project and are also acceptable to the landowners and fishing clubs

A2 Review of methods available to protect SAC fish species from entrapment in Avon Valley SPA ditch networks

To inform statutory bodies, landowners and riparian usersabout fish entrapment and methods of reducing it

A3 Strategic Plan of ditch restoration across the Avon Valley SPA, integrating the conservation objectives of the River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA.

To produce a plan that sets the strategic conservation objectives of the SPA while protecting the SAC fish populations.

A4 Environmental Impact Assessment To ensure the river restoration and invasive plant works undertaken by the project do not negatively impact the environment.

C1 Programme of river restoration at 6 sites Demonstration of a wide range of river restoration techniques that can be used to bring stretches of the River Avon SAC into favourable condition

C2 An operation protocol and best practice guidance for hatches and sluices regulating water movement between the lower Avon SAC and SPA

Development of a demonstration protocol for the control of sluices and hatches on the SPA and lower Avon SAC

E1 Project Website ‐ Dissemination of information on the project ‐ Access to Project documents ‐ Links to other relevant sources of information

E2 On Site River Restoration Workshops (4) ‐ Demonstration of river restoration actions

‐ Promotion of conservation‐led restoration work E3 River Restoration open days (2) ‐ Promote importance of SAC and work of project E4 Project Seminars (3) Dissemination of information and discussion of results through

themed seminars 1) River restoration techniques (UK context) 2) River restoration (EU context) 3) Catchment approach to river restoration; links to

Water Framework Directive E5 Community Conservation Days (2) Celebration of River Avon SAC and LIFE project in upper and

lower catchment E6 Mobile Interpretation Display Supporting material for the project E7 Project Publications Leaflets ‐ publicise project

Newsletters ‐ provide updates on project Layman’s report – summarising actions undertaken, results achieved and issues raised. Advice note – summarising river restoration good practice

E8 Media Publicity Press releases to local and national media Articles for relevant journals and magazines Contributions to UK and EU River Restoration Centres

E9 Temporary sign boards at work sites Explanation of works being carried out E10 Permanent Interpretation signboards Explain importance of River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPAE11 UK/EU exchange visits Exchange information on river restoration with EU partners

75

A1.2 Summary of delivery of project actions A Actions Project target Deadline

(bid) Actual delivery

Explanation

A1 Detailed design of restoration sites

6 complete signed off detailed designs

EA flood risk management, operations delivery and external contactors used to deliver designs

(A1.1) The Woodfords 23/12/06 03/08/06 Final designs complete(A1.2) Fovant 23/12/06 03/08/06(A1.3) Amesbury 23/12/06 04/04/08(A1.4) Seven Hatches 23/12/06 06/08/07(A1.5) Dockens Water 23/12/06 04/04/08(A1.6) Hale 23/12/06 06/08/07A2 Review of fish exclusion measures Report & best practice note 31/05/06 30/11/07 Report complete, workshop held to discuss findingsA3 Strategic plan of ditch restoration Report and “traffic light”

maps 31/05/06 30/11/07 Report and maps complete, workshop held to discuss findings. GIS element

Salisbury to Christchurch completed. A4 EIA Woodfords & Fovant Completion of EIA process 30/09/08 01/07/06 Screening opinion obtained from planning authority. Environmental Report

completed and advertised. Environmental Action Plan prepared. A4 EIA Seven Hatches & Hale Completion of EIA process 30/09/08 01/06/07

A4 EIA Amesbury and Dockens Water Completion of EIA process 30/09/08 01/06/08 C Actions Project target Deadline


Explanation

C1.1 Woodfords and 1.2 Fovant Completion of restoration 31/03/09 31/10/06 Construction completed mid November 2006. Access work and review of effect of downstream hatches at Woodford completed Feb 2009.

C1.4 Seven Hatches and 1.6 Hale Completion of restoration 31/03/09 31/11/07 Main construction completed end of October 2007. Minor works completed July 2009.

C1.3 Amesbury Completion of restoration 31/03/09 28/11/08 Construction completed by EA Operations delivery end October 2008C1.5 Dockens Water Completion of restoration 31/03/09 28/11/08 Construction completed August 2008C2 Operating protocol for sluices and hatches

Report and best practice notes

31/03/07 31/05/08 Technical report and guidance complete

76

E Actions Project target Deadline


Explanation

E1 Project website Website 31/03/06 31/01/07 Site launched end of February 2007; handover to NE under wayE2 On site restoration workshops 4 workshops 31/03/08 15/06/09 March 14th event held. June 24/25 2009 conference held.E3 River restoration open days 2 open days 30/06/08 06/05/09 Held 7 Jul and 27 Sep 2008E4 Project seminars 3 seminars 30/06/09 04/05/09 Held 2/3 April 2009 UKRRC, 24/25 June 2009 locallyE5 Community conservation days 2 community days 31/09/07 02/06/09 Water festival events held week of 22nd May 2009E6 Mobile interpretation display 2 mobile displays 31/09/06 31/03/09 Core displays produced and used for events. Poster presentation showing

results of project produced. E7 Newsletter 1 Newsletter 23/12/05 30/09/06 Newsletter distributed to approximately 1000 landownersE7 Newsletter 2 Newsletter 23/12/06 30/07/07E7 Newsletter 3 Newsletter 23/12/07 30/07/08E7 Newsletter 4 Newsletter 23/12/08 30/08/09E7 Newsletter 5 Newsletter 30/09/09 n/a Not required E7 Launch leaflet Leaflet 31/01/06 30/09/06 Circulated at conferences and eventsE7 End leaflet Leaflet 30/06/09 Combined with layman’s reportE7 Technical reports Reports 30/06/09 30/8/09 Completed E7 Advice notes Advice notes 30/09/09 Advice notes on restoration, planning, linking river and floodplain published E7 Layman’s report Layman’s report 30/09/09 Published electronically and on paper (500)E8 media publicity year 1 Media coverage 31/03/06 30/08/06 Press releases issued resulting in media coverageE8 media publicity year 2 Media coverage 31/03/07 30/08/07

Press releases issued, articles placed in magazines

E8 media publicity year 3 Media coverage 31/03/08 30/08/08 Press releases issued resulting in media coverageE8 media publicity final period Media coverage 31/03/08 30/08/09 Press releases issued resulting in media coverage. Wild Trout Trust National

Conservation Award and CIWEM Living Wetlands Award. Finalist in Australian International Riverprize.

E9 Temporary sign boards Temporary sign boardsE10 Permanent interpretation boards

Permanent boards 30/06/07 01/9/09 Dockens Water done. Boards in production, planning permissions submitted, then to be installed.

E11 UK EU exchange visits 4 exchange visits 30/09/08 02/07/09 Visits to CASS project June 2008 and to Danish Houting project June – July 2009.

77

F ACTIONS F Actions Project target Deadline


Explanation

F1 Appointment of project staff 31/10/05 20/01/06F2 Project management 30/09/09 Budget modification submittedF3 Progress reporting 1 Submit 30/06/06 30/09/06 First progress report submitted September 2006F3 Progress reporting 2 Submit 30/06/07 31/12/06 Second progress report submitted December 2006F3 Progress reporting 3 Submit 30/06/07 31/12/07 Third progress report submitted December 2007F3 Progress reporting 4 Submit 30/06/08 31/12/08 Fourth progress report submitted December 2008F3 Final report Submit 30/06/09 30/09/09 Technical report drafted September 2009, submit with final financial report F3 Interim technical & financial report

Mid project 30/08/08 Response and payment received from EC

F4 Manage action/budget Annual steering and quarterly working group meetings

30/09/09Annual steering group Annual 31/08/09 6 steering group meetings held

Quarterly working group Quarterly 31/08/09 15 meetings heldF5 Purchase equipment Purchase equipment 23/12/05 30/06/06F6 Purchase car Purchase car for use of

project team 23/12/05 30/06/06 Lease hire car used for duration of project

F7 Project initiation workshop Workshop including team building

30/11/05 30/11/05 Included trip to Seven Hatches restoration site

F8 Monitoring programme Detailed and rapid monitoring of restoration works

30/09/09 10/08/09 Final report received August 2009 and web published

F9 Assessment of river restoration sites

31/03/09 21/09/09 Final reports received and web published. Wessex Water undertaking additional invertebrate, macrophyte and flow monitoring/modelling.

F10 After‐LIFE conservation plan 31/9/09 31/09/09 Additional contract (Wessex Water/NE/EA) let to develop strategic framework for restoration of River Avon SAC. EA BOM team gearing up to delivery of initial physical works. Initial After‐LIFE planning under way

78

A1.3 Plan showing delivery of actions

79

A1.4 Project modifications Change of beneficiary Budget modification Refer to enclosed CD

81

Annex 2 Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental report – C1.1 Woodford and C1.2 Fovant Environmental report – C1.4 Seven Hatches Environmental report – C1.6 Hale Water vole, bats and mollusc survey – C1.1 Woodford and C1.2 Fovant Protected mammal surveys – C1.3 Amesbury, C1.4 Seven Hatches and C1.6 Hale Refer to enclosed CD

83

Annex 3 Identifiable products of the project E1 STREAM website templates E4 STREAM conference bag E6 Mobile display boards E6 Project results poster E7 Publications

Launch leaflet Newsletters 1‐4 Layman’s report Advice notes ‐ restoration Advice notes ‐ Linking river and floodplain Advice notes ‐Planning restoration

E10 STREAM interpretation boards

Living River interpretation boards (including STREAM identity) Living River Factoids (including STREAM identity)

F2 Project management

Business cards Compliments slip Letterhead Logo

Refer to enclosed CD

85

Annex 4 River restoration works Contents Action C1.1 Upper Woodford

Design Images

Water level issues report Access works 09 Water level modelling (non‐project output) Images

Action C1.2 Fovant

Design Images Action C1.3 Amesbury

Design Conveyance estimation Images

Adjustments April 209 Action C1.4 Seven Hatches

Design Technical paper Flood risk assessment

Tree report Additional minor works

Images

Action C1.5 Dockens water Design

Images

Action C1.6 Hale Design

Conveyance estimation Images

86

Introduction Outline concept designs and proposed techniques for river restoration schemes at Woodford and Fovant were included within the original bid submitted to LIFE Nature. These concept designs were refined during the detailed design process, taking into account engineering, landowner and protected species constraints and habitat conditions at each site. Likewise a cost was estimated for the outline designs; however, these were slightly adjusted as a result of the detailed design work. A degree of flexibility on precise design and construction methods was essential to ensure that maximum restoration benefit is derived at each site. Action C1.1 River restoration at Woodford Prior to restoration work, the River Avon was considerably over‐wide (25m‐30m) with respect to flow at this site. The upper section of the river had a relatively steep gradient, with a uniform bed profile and poorly sorted substrate, with sand and fine silts the dominant constituents. Water depth was shallow, averaging <0.5m. Growth of submerged vegetation at this site has been poor over the past 20 years. The middle section had a reduced gradient, with banks dominated by strong growth of reed sweet‐grass, sedge and branched bur‐reed. The bed remained uniform in profile with flows too low to effectively sort substrate or create variation by scouring. The lower section of the reach had a very low gradient, with little variation in flow velocity and a fine, sediment dominated, uniform bed. Right bank land use is increasingly affected by the presence of the gardens of residential properties adjoining the river. Large flocks of swans have periodically grazed the whole reach in the recent past, to the detriment of the submerged aquatic vegetation. The creation of an over‐wide channel and lack of large woody debris due to past management has resulted in a very uniform channel with a fine sediment dominated substrate. This, in conjunction with grazing by large flocks of swans, has reduced the growth of submerged vegetation in most years. This degradation has reduced the abundance and quality of the water course habitat and habitat for a range of species including Atlantic salmon and bullhead. The object of the restoration was to demonstrate a range of techniques that increase flow and substrate diversity, providing a ‘tool‐kit’ of techniques that fishing clubs could use. The works included a range of techniques:

• Creation of a network of small ‘island’ features constructed from flints, faggots and large woody debris. These ‘island’ features will be subject to local erosion and deposition, thus increasing habitat variation for a range of species over time

• Installation of 80m of bank narrowing and revetment utilising brushwood to narrow the channel and diversify flow whilst protecting neighbouring properties

• Construction of a 60m length of causeway in order to narrow the channel. Construction to be from a mixed matrix of chalk excavated from an existing pit at the site, and faggot bundles derived from coppicing of riparian trees. An isolated area of emergent stillwater fringed with emergent vegetation will be retained behind the causeway. This will ephemerally be subject to ingress of river water at higher discharges and will provide valuable habitat for a range of species including Vertigo moulinsiana and Arvicola terrestris

• building submerged log weirs to encourage variation in flow depth and speed • creation of “D‐shape” deflectors made of brushwood to prevent bank erosion and to vary flow.

87

The application of these techniques created a multi‐stranded channel, unusual for a managed British chalk stream. The final works varied slightly from those proposed in the original bid and were also modified between production of the design plan and construction as shown in the table below. The changes made during the design process ensured that the objectives of the works as proposed in the bid document were met, and ensured best cost benefit. Figures C1.1‐1 and C1.1‐2 show the original proposals and final design plans. Works proposed in bid

Alternative (constructed) Reason for change

Use of oil seed rape bales to narrow channel

Long low‐level deflector used to narrow channel further upstream on opposite bank.

Survey showed channel to be very deep and impounded in original location therefore the cost compared to very marginal benefit was high.

Excavation of marginal shelves

D‐shape deflectors to create low level margins

Presence of water voles and Desmoulin’s whorl snail habitat‐no excavation possible. Deflectors achieve same aim but do not disturb protected species.

3 low level groynes Extension and widening of revetment

The cost of constructing the groynes (and in particular, use of a temporary track to protect banks) was very high compared to benefit. Extending and widening the low‐level deflector should achieve the same aims.

The work was carried out by Kingcombe Aquacare, EA existing framework contractors. Kingcombe did not have previous experience of this type of project and their involvement has added to the expertise available to the EA. Local materials (including the chalk in the causeway) were used wherever possible to ensure the works were as sustainable as possible, and no waste was generated. The fishing club were intimately involved in the construction, being present on site daily and contributing additional labour and materials to the works. The involvement of the club was invaluable in ensuring that their knowledge of the river was incorporated and that they are satisfied with, and committed to maintaining the works. A management agreement between the club and NE has been drawn up for the site. Expected results:

• Diversity of the river bed profile will increase due to localised scouring caused by construction of submerged groynes and introduction of large woody debris

• Sustainable growth of Ranunculus dominated plant communities will increase due to the reduction in channel cross section

• The creation of a multi‐stranded chalk stream, unusual for Britain. The ‘braided’ channel resulting from the construction of ‘islands’ will promote increased diversity in flow type, sorting of bed substrate and increased diversity in channel morphology. The use of woody debris in the construction will be of great benefit to larval brook lamprey in particular.

• This manipulation of the channel structure is expected to result in redistribution and sorting of fine sediments, increasing habitat diversity for the benefit of SAC target species

• Introduction of woody debris and associated sediment accumulation will further promote the sorting of bed material and increased diversity in channel morphology. There will be an

88

associated increase in both available habitat for brook lamprey larvae and the detention time of fine sediment.

• The creation of an isolated still‐water area, valuable for a range of target species including Vertigo moulinsiana

• The demonstration of soft erosion protection in vulnerable areas will be a valuable tool for other similar projects.

Upper Woodford ‐ top section of restored reach before (left), immediately after (right) and 9 months after restoration works (below)

89

Additional works 2009

The river restoration at Woodford was completed in mid‐November 2006. Subsequently the right bank of the River Avon at Woodford was inundated with water for much of 2007 and 2008 (including areas above and below the works), preventing safe access to the river bank. There are a number of factors which influence levels at the site including the following:

• Natural variations in flow • Natural variations in the growth of ranunculus (in‐channel

vegetation) • Heale House hatches downstream • River restoration works

A summary of the key issues is given in the document “Water Level Issues Report”. The combination of high winter and summer flows since 2006, high weed growth in 2008, and the restoration work means that the right bank was inundated (left) for much of 2007 and 2008. This resulted in damage to the river bank, making it unsafe for fishing access. The traditional access route has become much wider as people try to avoid the most unstable areas, which has a negative impact on the wetland vegetation. A key aim of the restoration at Woodford is to demonstrate river restoration techniques that are compatible with angling. The preliminary monitoring work suggests that the works have enhanced the ecology of the site (including fish numbers), however the works were not considered a success because of the access issues. A sustainable solution was required which will:

• provide an acceptable access solution whilst securing the ecological benefits of the restoration works

• ensure that the Woodford restoration work demonstrates river restoration measures that are compatible with angling.

Potential solutions included modification of restoration works, stabilising discrete areas of the right bank, and potential modification of the Heale House structures. An engineering assessment of the Heale House hatches was underway in parallel to assess the potential benefits of modifying their operation (see Heale water level modelling report in this annex). A site meeting was held on 10 December 2009 to consider an acceptable technical solution; the main elements considered were as follows:

• Install approximately 200 metres of angler access path. Gaps in the access path to be created at 5 points, to allow free flow of water between the river and floodplain

• Structure to be approximately 1.2 metres wide, resulting in mown access of 0.8 metres wide, final height approximately 0.1 m above current (wet and eroded) bank level

• 75% of the total length of structure to be wooden posts, brushwood base overlain with coir mat and topped with local chalk

• 25% of the total length of structure to be wooden posts, coir mat and geotextile liner, topped with local chalk

90

• Path to follow contours of river bank, retaining approximately 1 metre wide vegetated margin between path and bank

• Small “spits” from path to bank to be created where the natural contours mean the path is set back from the edge of the water too far to fish

• Connections to be made between angler access and the existing return path. Return path to be patched in places where very waterlogged and eroded.

The work was implemented in February‐April 2009. The design and implementation of the work was done by the angling club, with NE and the EA leading on obtaining permission for the works. It must be noted that the access works are to address a particular set of issues at this location, including health and safety concerns, and would not be a preferred approach to general riverbank access.

Reinstated access Feb 2009 and (right) in July 2009

Monitoring Detailed monitoring or geomorphology, macrophytes and fisheries work is being undertaken by Haskoning UK at Upper Woodford. The UKRRC has also carried out a restoration assessment. Please refer to Annexes 9 and 10 for full details.

91

C1.1‐1 Works at Upper Woodford as proposed in the original bid

River Avon SAC

250m of causeway to narrow channel and create still water behind

300m of baled rape straw to narrow channel

Islands created from faggots and woody debris

Excavation of low marginal shelves

92

C1.1‐2 Final design for works at Upper Woodford (note: the groynes shown were not constructed and the revetment was widened and extended to 80 metres).

93

Action C1.2 River restoration at Fovant Prior to the restoration works, the channel of the Nadder at Fovant was identified as being over‐wide (20m) with respect to the current range of flows experienced. The bed was relatively homogeneous, with a mix of poorly sorted gravel, sand and silt overlying clay. There was little submerged vegetation, with small stands of unbranched bur‐reed Sparganium emersum the dominant species present. A sluice at the downstream limit of the reach was operated in a semi‐closed position during low flow periods in order to retain water depth for angling, thus compounding the reduction in water velocity and deposition of fine sediment. The south bank was heavily shaded by mature riparian trees, and the river planform is relatively straight, the channel being incised, with eroding sections of bank present. Past dredging activity has significantly damaged the River Nadder at this point leading to:

• An over‐wide, relatively straight channel • Significant incision of the channel, with associated erosion, particularly on the left bank • Limited development of low level marginal shelves • Poor sorting of substrate.

The objective of the restoration work is to

• Narrow the channel to a width more appropriate to the present flow regime of the river • Increase the sorting of the substrate • Promote the development of vegetated low‐level marginal shelves • Reduce shading of the channel • Increase the amount of large woody debris present • Modify the operational regime of the downstream sluice in order to optimise upstream habitat

quality for key species. The river restoration works in October and November 2006 included the following techniques:

• Felling selected trees on the right bank into the channel and fixing them in position approximately 5‐10m apart in order to create a series of upstream facing groynes protruding some one third of the way across the channel’s width. The length of the groynes was varied in order to create a meandering profile to the channel

• The groynes were covered with pre planted reedfelt and coir to encourage rapid vegetation growth, with some structures left uncovered

• Silt laden gravel along the right bank was re‐distributed into the centre of the channel and allowed to sort under the new flow regime in order to increase variation in the bed profile

• The operational regime for the downstream sluice has been modified to ensure no impounding of water takes place. A management agreement will be put in place to ensure that the operation of the structure is secured.

The final works differed from those proposed in the original bid as shown below. The changes made during the design process ensured that the objectives of the works as proposed in the bid document were met, and best environmental‐cost benefit. Figures C1.2‐1 and C1.2‐2 show the original proposals and final design plans.

94

Works proposed in bid Alternative (constructed) Reason for change Current deflectors to restore approximately 300 m of channel

Double original length treated (700m)

In order for fishing club to reduce impoundment, works had to extend up to the hatches.

Transplanting of local wetland vegetation

Covered structures with pre‐planted mats‐ reedfelt and coir used.

Timing of works and risk of damage to wet meadow, which is in an agri‐environment scheme.

The work was carried out by the EA’s own workforce. They had little or no previous experience of this type of project and their involvement has added greatly to the expertise available within the Agency. The fishing club were intimately involved in the construction, being present on site daily. Again, the involvement of the club was invaluable in ensuring that their knowledge of the river was incorporated and that they are satisfied with, and committed to maintaining the works. A management agreement between the club and NE has been agreed for the site. Originally it was proposed to plant the restoration works with vegetation from adjacent ditches. However, due to the meadow being in an agri‐environment scheme and landowner concerns about ground disturbance and compaction in wet conditions, this was not possible. As an alternative, mats pre‐planted with local appropriate vegetation were secured to the structures. A new product (reedfelt) made of recycled British textiles was purchased and used to vegetate 50% of the structures. Another supplier then donated a sample of pre‐planted coir fibre matting to cover 2 structures. A combination of un‐planted reedfelt and coir mattress structures resulted, enabling us to observe how they perform, which will be fed back to the wider river restoration community. An audit of environmental management of the construction works was carried out at Fovant by the EA regional Environmental Management team, with extremely positive results. Expected results of restoration work Channel planform and bed profile will have increased physical heterogeneity, with an associated benefit to the availability and diversity of habitat for a range of key species. More specifically:

• Manipulation of the channel structure is expected to result in redistribution and sorting of fine

sediments, increasing habitat diversity for the benefit of SAC target species • Introduction of woody debris and associated sediment accumulation will promote sorting of bed

material and diversity in channel morphology. There will be an associated increase in both available habitat for brook lamprey larvae and the detention time of fine sediment

• Habitat opportunity for bullhead, spawning brook lamprey, and spawning/juvenile brown trout will be increased. Greater heterogeneity in bed morphology will result in increased diversity of macrophytes, including the Ranunculus community

• The felling of riparian trees will reduce shading of the channel and increase the diversity of marginal vegetation, creating additional habitat for Desmoulin’s whorl snail, brook lamprey larvae and water voles

• The modified operation of the impoundment will reduce impediment to migration for fish and some invertebrate species, will increase ecological connectivity between adjacent reaches and will also increase the availability of flow‐dependent habitat in the reach.

95

Update Initial observations of the works at Fovant have shown rapid colonisation of the structures, a change in the aquatic vegetation community and the presence of more fish within the reach. Minor repairs were undertaken at Fovant in November 2007 to mend damage suffered during floods immediately after construction was completed in 2006.

Fovant – deflector structures during (left), and immediately after construction (right). Flows were high immediately after construction and for much of the 2006/7 winter.

Colonisation of structures in May (left) and August 2007 (right). Aquatic vegetation growth and substrate quality can have high inter‐annual variability and the observations above follow an unusually high flow year. Although encouraging, sustained improvements will only be proven over time. Repeat monitoring will be undertaken at the sites in 2008 under action F8. Monitoring Detailed monitoring or geomorphology, macrophytes and fisheries work is being undertaken by Haskoning UK at Upper Woodford. The UKRRC has also carried out a restoration assessment. Please refer to Annex 10 and 11 for details.

96

C1.2‐1 Works at Fovant as proposed in the original bid

97

C1.2‐2 Final design for works at Fovant (note: the ditching works shown were not implemented due to adverse weather)

98

Action C1.3 Amesbury Construction was completed in mid October 2008. The River Avon at Amesbury has been heavily dredged in the past, including an initial dredge right through the reach in the 1950s, and again in 1967 when part of the river was moved 30 metres to the east to allow construction of a dual carriageway. The overall modifications reduced the river gradient and seriously damaged the habitat for SAC species. The object of the river restoration work was to:

• reduce the cross‐sectional area of the river to dimensions more appropriate to the River Avon’s flow regime, increasing the variety of bed morphology in previously dredged reaches

• increase the amount of large woody debris in the channel in order to increase both the availability of this habitat type and morphological diversity of the channel

• Enhance the availability and quality of habitat for SAC species and habitats. The final restoration work included:

• mechanically re‐grading the existing bank in one place to vary marginal vegetation and reconnect the river and floodplain

• raising the existing bed level with gravel in places, increasing physical habitat variety, particularly for salmon and lamprey

• introducing large woody debris by selectively felling trees and securing these in the channel to create habitat.

The final works differed from those proposed in the original bid as detailed under action C1.3 in the main report. Significant constraints were identified in the design process including safe machine access and flood risk. The changes made ensured that the objectives of the works were met (or exceeded) at the optimum environmental benefit to cost comparison. The total length of river enhanced has increased from 600 to 850 metres. The works also had to be carefully designed so as to avoid impacting on the electricity sub‐station upstream, which is vulnerable to flooding. Significant numbers of water voles and their burrows were on the site, and impacts to them had to be avoided as they are a protected species. The works are complete. The hydraulic assessment for Amesbury, which determined the location and quantity of gravel to be re‐instated is on the enclosed CD.

99

Figure A4.1 Overview of restoration proposals as in original bid.

100

Figure A4.2 Overview of final restoration plans

Poplar removal by landowners

101

Works proposed in bid Alternative (constructed) Reason for changeReclamation of gravel on site, reinstatement in channel to provide spawning areas

Gravel and stone purchased from local supplier, creating 600m2 of spawning habitat. Exposed gravel bars also provide safe access to the river for public.

Gravel not present on site in the volume/quality needed. Location of reinstatement influenced by hydraulic impacts on flood risk, and machine access routes.

Felling of poplar trees on former water meadow site (left bank upstream of A303) felled and used as groynes.

Specific further tree felling and pruning undertaken to provide material for restoration works.

Mature poplars removed from much wider area of water meadow by landowner a year before works undertaken. Town council also clearing further mature poplars from water meadow downstream of A303. The clearance of these additional areas enhances floodplain wetland habitat for Desmoulin’s whorl snail

Fill void spaces between groynes with brash and aggregate bags.

n/a Presence of water voles means that restricting access to the river bank face was impossible. The void spaces will accrete silt and become vegetated naturally over time, achieving the same outcome.

Excavate left bank upstream of the location of the introduced granular material, to create large, low lying areas.

a) Location of gravel reinstatement altered. b) Excavated right bank upstream of gravel re‐introduction.

a) Safe machine access very limited (swamp, weak bridges and numerous secondary channels), gravel re‐introduction only possible in accessible areas. b) Presence of water voles and their habitat meant that bank regrading could only be undertaken in one main location.

‐ ‐ Coppicing of fringing carr to create cover for fish and solidify wet margin, narrowing channel in the process

Figure A4.1 Re‐instatement of gravel bars and riffles and woody debris to deflect and vary flow (right)

102

Figure A4.2 Excavation of right bank, creating a large low lying wet margin –before work, and just after

(above)

A4.3 Wet margin from opposite bank, showing flow deflection and wetland area

A4.3 Coppicing of wet carr (left) and view across wetland after poplar removal by landowner

103

A4.4 Sequence showing installation of woody debris (crucifix type)

In order to complete the works a licence for disturbing water voles had to be obtained. This was one of the first issued in the UK following a recent change in protected species licensing. This experience can be used to demonstrate best practice to others in obtaining and implementing the licence. The technique for creating the wet margin was innovative, having been tried only once a few weeks beforehand. The existing marginal vegetation was slid out into the channel, and the bank then regraded in behind, with no revetment of any sort used to retain the material (see Figure 6). The key to using this approach successfully is not to push the vegetation out too far, and to protect the most upstream part of the margin to ensure stability. Three basic techniques were used to anchor the woody debris in place, the “crucifix” approach shown above was used where the bank material was reasonably firm, and no vehicle access was required afterwards. Where the bank was very soft, or vehicle access needed shortly afterwards, the structures were simply sharpened and pushed into the bank. Where the existing bank was very muddy and the structures would need to be very long to anchor them, cable tied ground anchors were used. There are positive and negative aspects to each approach which are described in the technical advice notes.

104

A large part of the restoration was done in Amesbury town park (Lords Walk) and the Town Council have been very supportive of Living River and STREAM. A management agreement between the Council and NE is in place for their land. Living River will be working with volunteers to do habitat enhancement work in the secondary channel adjacent to the main river works next year. Much of the rest of the site is owned by English Heritage and the Highways Agency, which government bodies have statutory duties to have due regard to biodiversity in managing their land. These areas cannot be placed in NE Management Agreements, but a site management statement is in place on Highways Agency land. The restoration was carried out by the EA’s own workforce, building on the experience they gained at in 2007 and 2008. This prior experience contributed to the works being completed faster and cheaper than originally budgeted. For more details of the restoration works, including the hydraulic assessment and images see Appendix 4. Monitoring Detailed ecological and geomorphological monitoring under action F8, and assessment including fixed point photography action F9 was undertaken. Refer to annex 9 and 10 for full details.

105

Action C1.4 River restoration at Seven Hatches The River Wylye at Seven Hatches near Chilhampton has been heavily dredged in the past, reducing the river gradient and seriously damaging the habitat for SAC species. The key feature of the project area is the presence of the large modern radial sluices replacing the earlier hatches that gave the site its local name. The impact of these sluices has been significant, with the upstream reach heavily impounded with associated deposition of fine sediment and increased water depth. Despite the presence of a constructed fish pass, the sluices impact on the passage of migrating fish which have been using the main carrier to migrate.

The original object of the restoration was to: • Modify the operation of Seven Hatches sluices, reducing height by an average of 0.15 metres, increasing

ecological connectivity between reaches and improving upstream habitat quality • Restore the historic bed level and increase the heterogeneity of bed morphology in previously dredged

reaches, by the re‐introduction of excavated gravel/stone bed material • Narrow over‐wide channels where necessary, in order to re‐establish a sinusoidal channel of appropriate

cross‐sectional area with respect to present day hydrographs • Increase the amount of large woody debris in the channel in order to increase both the availability of this

habitat type and morphological diversity of the channel • Break out and remove the tractor bridge footings and replace with a single span bridge to remove the

impounding effect of the structure. The work involved a range of techniques:

• re‐instating historic bed level in places to increase gradient and therefore flow velocity locally and provide spawning habitat. This also reduced head drop over the sluices by approximately 20cm

• narrowing the river channel in places to vary flow depth and velocity and create wet marginal areas • pinning tree limbs (large woody debris) into the river to vary flow and scour the introduced gravels • selectively felling and pruning trees to get more light into the river and enhance the typical landscape

of the valley • planting riverside shrubs and fencing the river banks to enhance the marginal vegetation community.

Local materials were used where possible and no waste was generated. A summary of the works undertaken is given below, with supporting documents and images supplied electronically on the accompanying CD. The final works differed from those proposed in the original bid as summarised in the table below. Significant technical constraints were identified in the design process and the changes made ensured that the objectives of the works were met, at best environmental‐cost benefit. The solutions considered are briefly described in the paper “Summary of Options”. Figures C1.4‐1 and 1.4‐2 below show an overview of the original and final designs. Detailed topographic survey of the site showed that the foundations of two rail bridges were the key constraint to changing the slope of the river channel. The works also had to avoid impacting of flood risks in the town downstream, which is already vulnerable to flooding. Hydraulic modelling and option appraisal was carried out to identify a feasible solution within these constraints. Modification of the rail bridge foundations was considered but carried an unacceptably high financial ad timing risk. The final design selected met the objectives of the project and could be implemented within the timescale and financial resources available. A summary of the option appraisal and high flow modelling are given in this Annex.

106

It was originally proposed that gravel for re‐instating spawning habitat would be reclaimed on site. Subsequent investigations found that it was not present in the quantity or quality required, therefore Portland stone and gravel from local quarries had to be used. Recycled aggregate was considered as a substitute for Portland stone, but not felt to be appropriate for an SAC river. The consideration of landscape alongside ecology was an interesting aspect of the design, particularly given the potential visual impact of felling large trees. The approach taken was to:

• engage Forest Research to consider the condition of the trees and identify short, medium and long

term management needs • use a NE landscape architect and Forest Research to consider the ecological needs of the river,

management needs of the trees and landscape issues • select a small number of trees to fell and others to manage, balancing the river ecology, landscape and

tree management issues • propose planting of shrubs next to the river, reinforcing the typical character of the valley and

providing habitat. The full Forest Research report can be viewed electronically in the “landscape‐trees” folder in Annex 2. The integration of landscape and ecology is summarised in the Environmental Report in Annex 2. Works proposed in bid Alternative (constructed) Reason for change Reclamation of gravel on site, reinstatement in channel to provide spawning areas

Gravel and stone purchased from local supplier, creating 1500m2 of spawning habitat

Gravel not present on site in the quantity/quality needed

Felling of entire line of poplar trees

Specific tree felling and pruning undertaken at a level which proved ecological and landscape enhancement and material for restoration works

Large scale tree felling to access gravel not required (see above)

Removal and replacement of tractor bridge to reduce impoundment

No action Topographic survey showed no hydraulic benefit in removing tractor bridge

Re‐grading banks and gravel replacement in lower reach where necessary.

Construction of tree kickers and securing of large woody debris to deflect/vary flow and enhance marginal habitat.

Rail bridge controlling slope of reach, therefore very limited hydraulic benefit to be gained in re‐instating gravel into channel. Machine access restricted and practicality/cost of importing material prohibitive.

Felling of entire line of mature polar trees

Identification of selective tree works to balance landscape and river ecology needs.

Felling note required in order to re‐claim gravels. Ecological benefit could be obtained by more selective tree work.

N/a Definition of front edge of berm (2009) Need to define front edge of berm, reducing flow across the structure, speeding up the siltation process, and create a defined edge visible to anglers.

The fishing club were involved in the design and construction, being present on site weekly. The involvement of the club was invaluable in ensuring that their knowledge of the river was incorporated and that they are satisfied with, and committed to maintaining the works. A management agreement between the club and NE is in place for the site. The work was carried out by Clancy Docwra, EA existing framework contractors. Clancy Docwra did not have previous experience of this type of project and their involvement has added to the expertise available to the Agency.

107

Due to the nature and location of the restoration works, measures were put in place minimise the risk of adverse public reaction. This was particularly important in relation to the tree works and potential for a perception of changes to flood risk due to the work. A public meeting was held to explain the works, press releases issued, and a briefing note circulated to all participants and relevant parties. The briefing note is contained in this Annex. Only 2 enquiries were received during the construction period, both wanting to know more about the project. Minor modifications 2009 Since construction, a combination of 2 years of high flows means that water levels have been consistently 10‐30 centimetres above the level of the upstream reach berm. As the structure has settled, less silt has accreted than required to consolidate the front edge. The result is a soft, uneven edge, with the cross wires that held material down originally presenting a trip hazard in places. There was a need to create a more defined front edge to reduce flow across the structure, speeding up the siltation process, and create a defined edge visible to anglers. The agreed solution was as follows:

1) Brushwood bundles overlain with a single layer of coir roll (not pre‐planted) to be wired along the front edge of the structure.

2) Cross wires that are a trip hazard should be either covered by the brush/coir or removed . 3) Coir rolls securely staked down perpendicular to bank at the 5 most bare areas, slowing flow. 4) Approximately 500 chalk river plants to be supplied and planted behind the new front edge.

The additional minor works were done in June 2009.

Coir font edge along front of berm – the coir will quickly be covered by emergent vegetation

Monitoring Detailed ecological and geomorphological monitoring under action F8, and assessment including fixed point photography action F9 was undertaken. Refer to Annexes 9 and 10 for full details.

108

Figure C1.4‐1 Overview of restoration proposals as in original bid

109

Figure C1.4‐2 Overview of restoration following option appraisal and detailed design

110

Seven Hatches ‐ extending banks in upper reach

Placing large woody debris as part of extending banks in upper reach (left) and structure prior to infill

(right)

Extended bank showing large woody debris (left) and in March 2008

Pre‐planted coir pallets used to top the structure

111

Gravel bed reinstatement middle reach

Top area of gravel reinstatement speeding and varying flow during construction (left) and March 2008

Middle area of gravel reinstatement , and transition between dredged and reinstated bed

Lower area of gravel reinstatement during construction (left) and March 2008

112

C1.5 Dockens Water Construction was completed in August 2008. Dockens Water is predominantly straight and ‘confined’ by floodbanks and bank armouring as it flows between water‐filled gravel pits and abandoned floodplain land. The bed substrate is dominated by mixed coarse gravel/pebble with bank material a mixture of gravel and earth (where not reinforced by concrete or other artificial materials). Banks are predominantly tree‐lined. As the channel rarely has a bed width exceeding 4‐5m, the trees create heavy shade over the channel. In the original bid a combination of works was to be carried out ‐ small scale work under STREAM and larger works funded by the aggregate levy. Both sets of proposals are shown in Figure A4.8, with STREAM actions shown in yellow. The original larger scale works and modified STREAM project works are now complete. The object of the STREAM work is to modify the river bank to a more appropriate shape and re‐connect the river and floodplain. The work involved:

• forming a small (approximately 15 metres long) floodplain pool connected with the river via a small channel that mimics a natural chute

• decreasing heavy shading by felling a small number of non‐native trees alongside and around the chute (there is increasing concern about the effect on Atlantic salmon of rising temperatures in the Avon catchment; tree work must aim to leave patchy shade)

• creating brushwood barriers between the new path and pool to ensure safe public access to the area.

The aims of the original proposals at Dockens Water are still valid, but the approach was modified to reflect the New Forest LIFE project findings, the larger restoration work done downstream and a new disabled access opened since the bid was submitted. The project team considered options for more extensive works on Dockens Water, however land ownership, infrastructure and cost constraints meant that no feasible alternative was identified. The final works (Figure A4.9) differed from those proposed in the original bid as shown in the table below. The final works ensured that the objectives were met at the optimum environmental benefit to cost comparison. Works proposed in bid Alternative (constructed) Reason for changeRe‐profiling bank in 2 places to connect river and floodplain

Slot cut in bank, and low level chute created, which fills up from the river in high flows. Chute retains water for several days, mimicking a natural chute.

Survey showed that re‐profiling of bank unlikely to enable regular flow of water between river and floodplain Once the excavations began it became apparent that it would not be desirable to significantly re‐grade the river bank, as the underlying material was very soft and there would be a risk of eroding or flooding the adjacent footpath.

Tree felling to open canopy

Tree feeling in area of chute and from bank adjacent to chute and river

Tree felling area adjusted to complement chute design. Felling planned to ensure dappled shade retained over river, avoiding large increases in water temperature.

Since the completion of the works the new chute has started to naturalise well. Initially it did not retain water, but following a number of high flow events it is starting to seal. The chute fills via the inlet.

113

A new wheelchair accessible footpath runs within 3 metres of the works, and the depth of the new chute means a brushwood barrier was required to ensure wheelchair users can view it safely from the adjacent path. An interpretation board has been placed adjacent to the chute, explaining the importance of the Natura 2000 site, the river and the works.

Figure 4.5 Dockens Water chute – newly dug in August with inlet in the background, and naturalising in

November 2009

Figure 4.6 Illustrating the depth of the chute, and brushwood barrier being built (right) to ensure safe

viewing

Figure 4.7 Larger aggregates levy funded works downstream on completion and one year later

114

One of the major benefits in doing work on Dockens Water at this location is that it is within the Blashford Lakes Nature Reserve. As public access to the River Avon SAC is generally very limited, this is a rare opportunity to do enhancement work in an area that will be regularly visited by the public. The LIFE works are relatively small scale, but in combination with the aggregates levy works downstream have restored a significant proportion of Dockens Water at Blashford Lakes. For more details of the restoration works, including images and detailed plans, refer to the enclosed CD. Monitoring Detailed ecological and geomorphological monitoring under action F8 and F9 was undertaken. Refer to Annexes 9 and 10 for full details.

115

C1.6 Hale The River Avon has been heavily dredged in the past in the Hale/Woodgreen area and is now missing the gravel beds that salmon need for spawning. The main channel is generally over‐sized, due to past dredging, with deposited spoil creating a bund on right and left banks in places. The bed is dominated by poorly sorted fine gravel and sand, with very limited spawning and juvenile habitat for salmonid species. Submerged macrophytes including un‐branched bur‐reed and starwort are relatively abundant. Growth of water crowfoot (Ranunculus species) is generally poor throughout the reach. Due to the lack of riparian shrubs and trees there is very little large woody debris present in the reach, which should be characteristic of the river at this location. The object of the river restoration work was to:

• ‘Re‐energise’ the reach by providing variations in flow characteristics and channel dimensions • Increase both the heterogeneity of bed morphology and margins in previously dredged reaches • Promote localised sediment transport • Increase the availability of suitable spawning habitat for salmon, bullhead and brook lamprey • Increase the amount of large woody debris in the channel in order to increase both the availability of

this habitat type and morphological diversity of the channel • Enhance the availability and quality of habitat for SAC species and habitats.

The restoration involved:

• re‐instating the gravel shallows in two places using existing and imported gravel • introducing larger woody debris in the form of deflectors to vary flow and clean the gravel bed, and

installing a floating tree kicker • coppicing willows, planting riverside shrubs and fencing small sections of river bank.

The restoration work was completed in November 2007. Local materials were used where possible and no waste was generated. A summary of the works undertaken is given below and shown in figures C1.6‐1 and C1.6‐2, with supporting documents and images supplied electronically on the accompanying CD. The final works differed from those proposed in the original bid as summarised in the table below. Works proposed in bid Alternative (constructed) Reason for change Reclamation of existing gravel, no import of materials

Gravel imported for top riffle but existing in‐channel gravel used for lower riffle 2,125m2 spawning habitat created


Riffle locations Riffle location moved. Amount of riffle habitat not changed. Better for demonstration purposes, as the various techniques are closer together.

No practical access route for importing gravel and access would have damaged landscape/archaeologically sensitive water meadows

Excavation of marginal shelves adjacent to riffles (for flood risk management and habitat enhancement)

River bank profile softened as a consequence of machines working along banks

No need to regrade banks to achieve improvements in spawning habitat or for flood risk management. Excavation and subsequent removal of material off site not cost beneficial, and damaging to water meadows.

116

It was originally proposed that gravel for re‐instating spawning habitat would be re‐claimed on site. Subsequent investigations found that it was not present in the quantity or quality required, therefore Portland stone and gravel from local quarries had to be used to create one of the riffles. Recycled aggregate was considered as a substitute for Portland stone, but not felt to be appropriate for an SAC river. In the original proposals, the reinstated gravel areas were in the centre of a water meadows and wetland area which is of high ecological, archaeological and landscape value. With no existing access tracks in the locality, bringing over 1,000 tonnes of gravel and stone onto site would have unacceptable environmental impacts, and would be prohibitively expensive. In addition to the access issues, the detailed design process found that the size of the channel in the original locations meant it would not be possible to work with a machine in the river. As the river was approximately 40m wide and up to 2m deep at the original locations, physically placing gravel was not feasible. In the final designs, suitable shallower/narrower locations closer to access points and to where woody debris was to be installed were identified and utilised. This also improves the site for demonstration purposes, being spread over 1km rather than split up over 2km. One gravel spawning area was re‐instated using imported material, and one using existing in‐river gravel. The work was carried out by the EA’s own workforce, building on the experience they gained at Fovant in 2006. Their involvement has added greatly to the expertise available within the Agency. The site is located close to residential property which is right on the edge of the existing extreme flood zone. A key design consideration was the potential impact of the work on flood risk. The EA did not require a formal assessment for consenting purposes; however the extensive summer floods in the UK meant that local residents were particularly concerned about this issue. A simple conveyance estimation was undertaken, which was felt to be proportionate to the potential impacts, and the results circulated to residents. In cases where the impact of restoration works is likely to be low, conveyance estimation is a simple, cost effective approach. The conveyance estimation can be viewed electronically in this Annex. Due to the nature and location of the restoration works, measures were put in place minimise the risk of adverse public reaction. This was particularly important in relation to the perception of changes to flood risk due to the work. A public meeting was held to explain the works, articles placed in local magazines and a briefing note circulated to all participants and relevant parties. The briefing note is contained in this Annex. Two residents requested copies of the conveyance estimation before the work began. Update The fishing club at Hale report that salmon spawned on the imported gravel riffle in January, just 2 months after completion of the works. Monitoring Rapid ecological and geomorphological monitoring is being carried out under action F8, and assessment including fixed point photography under action F9. Refer to Annexes 9 and 10 for full details and results.

117

Figure C1.6‐1 Overview of restoration proposals as in original bid

118

Figure C1.6‐2 Overview of restoration following detailed design

R1

R2

R3

R1 - flow deflectors (woody debris) to scour existing gravel and floating tree kicker R2 – re-distribution of existing gravel into riffle, and flow deflectors to vary flow direction and speed R3 – creation of riffle using imported gravel Fencing and tree/shrub planting on both banks next to riffle

119

Creating a riffle in area R3

Placing the stone base layer, shown in place on the right.

Finished riffle‐ original water depth 1.5‐2m, final depth approx 0.5m.

Installing current deflectors in sections R1 and R2 – the wooden cross in the foreground is buried into the

bank (right) as a ground anchor

120

Deflector pinned to river bed using re‐bar (left) and the final structure (right). The influence of the deflectors

will increase as sediment builds up around them.

Floating tree kicker, anchored by cable ties

121

Annex 5 Linking river and floodplain A2‐3 Prioritising fisheries in floodplain restoration report C2 Hatch operating protocols (HOPs)

HOP leaflet HOP template HOP baseline template HOP baseline technical report Guidance on developing structure operating protocols

Refer to enclosed CD

123

Annex 6 Events E2 workshops Workshop 1 summary 14 Sep 2007 and images Workshop 2 summary 3 Oct 2008 and images Workshop 3 summary 14 May 2009 and images E3 Open days Seven Hatches open evening Blashford play day E4 Seminars UKRRC seminar ECRR European Directives seminar Conference programme Conference delegate list Conference images Conference presentations Conference summary notes E 5 Community conservation days Laverstock family fun day and images Week of water flyer Salisbury big play and images E11 Exchange trips CASS exchange visit Houting exchange visit Refer to enclosed CD

125

Annex 7 Public relations and media coverage RADIO AND TV

Date / time

Station + programme

Subject Length Interviewees

28.11.05 Spire FM Launch of River Avon LIFE Project Site interview – 5 mins Dagmar Junghanns, acting project manager 28.11.05 BBC Radio

Wiltshire Launch of River Avon LIFE Project 5 minutes Dagmar Junghanns, acting project manager

20/09/06 Spire FM Start of restoration 2‐3 minutes Jenny Wheeldon28/09/07 Spire FM Start of restoration 2‐3 minutes Jenny Wheeldon01/07/08 Spire FM* Laverstock 2‐3 minutes Jenny Wheeldon28/10/08 Spire FM STREAM lands award 2‐3 minutes Jenny Wheeldon24/6/09 Spire FM Conference 2‐3 minutes Jenny Wheeldon

PRESS RELEASES

Ref Date TitlePR1 25/10/05 £1 million to flow into River Avon restorationPR2 25/11/05 River Avon restoration project to be launched todayPR3 15/09/06 STREAM brings new life to the Avon and NadderPR4 19/09/07 STREAM brings new life to the Wylye and AvonPR5 29/6/08 Seven Hatches open eveningPR6 4/7/08 Laverstock fun dayPR7 8/9/08 River restoration starts in AmesburyPR8 18/9/08 Family fun day BlashfordPR9 28/10/08 STREAM successPR10 12/02/09 Living Wetlands CIWEM awardPR11 18/06/09 River experts STREAM inPR12 18/09/09 International riverprize

126

REGIONAL/LOCAL PAPERS AND MAGAZINES

Ref Date Source Subject DescriptionA1 15/9/05 Salisbury Journal River Avon project LIFE and HLF bids ArticleA2 27/10/05 Western Daily Press River Avon LIFE Project Article & photos A3 3/11/05 Salisbury Journal EU funding for River Avon LIFE Project Article A4 28/11/05 Western Daily Press Launch of River Avon LIFE Project Article A5 1/12/05 Salisbury Journal Launch of River Avon LIFE Project Article A6 10/8/06 Salisbury Journal River Avon to benefit from lottery grant (Living River) MentionA7 5/08/06 Western Daily Press Cash flowing through river (Living River) ArticleA8 18/09/06 Western Daily Press £1m Euro cash river boost ArticleA9 16/11/06 Salisbury Journal Club lands Euro cash to boost river Wylye ArticleA10 26/11/06 Salisbury Journal River set for a revamp ArticleA11 27/09/07 Western Daily Press £1 million river clean up that has a crystal clear goal ArticleA12 4/10/07 Salisbury Journal Upgrading the Wylye ArticleA13 09/07 Hale & Woodgreen magazine Restoring the River Avon near Woodgreen/Hale ArticleA14 09/07 5 Parishes magazine Restoring the River Wylye near Chilhampton ArticleA15 01/07/08 Laverstock, Ford, Old Sarum and Hampton

Park Parish newsletter River fun day Article

A16 15/07/08 Primary Times‐ Round and about What’s on‐Laverstock event ArticleA17 01/08/08 Stonehenge trader* Restoring the River Avon in Amesbury Article A18 01/09/08 LIFE in Amesbury Restoring the River Avon in Amesbury Article A19 22/08/08 Ringwood and Fordingbridge news Dip into the Dockens Article A20 05/11/08 Western Daily Press STREAM lands award Article

127

ADDITIONAL PUBLICATIONS

Ref Date Source Subject Description P1 Sept 05 Wessex Chalk Streams Project Newsletter Update on the Avon LIFE bid Article P2 Oct 05 Wiltshire Nature River Avon and the Avon Valley Initiative‐LIFE bid successful Article P3 Oct05 UKRRC newsletter Life for the River Avon Brief article P4 Nov 05 Shooting Times & Country Magazine EU funding for River Avon LIFE Project Article P5 Mar 06 Wessex Chalk Streams Project Newsletter Update on the Avon LIFE bid Article P6 Mar 06 Wiltshire Nature Introducing the STREAM team Article P7 Aug 06 Wiltshire Fishery Association Newsletter STREAM project Article P8 Sep 06 Fly fishing and fly tying Leading by example Mention P9 Winter 06 Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust magazine Valley‐wide initiatives Mention P10 Winter 06 Wessex Chalk Streams Newsletter STREAM –saving the River Avon Article P11 Mar 07 UKRRC newsletter STREAM – Strategic restoration and management of the River Avon SAC Article P12 Aug 07 ECRR newsletter Form ECRR database: The River Avon Initiative – STREAM and the Living River Article P13 Apr 07 Wessex Chalk Streams newsletter STREAM project update – website goes live Article P14 July 07 Living River newsletter Signs of LIFE up STREAM Brief article P15 Nov 07 Wessex Chalk Streams newsletter Stream project update – restoration completed Article P16 Winter 07 Living River winter newsletter 2 STREAMlines, a project update Article P17 Feb 2008 WSRT Newsletter STREAM and history of the Valley Article P18 Spring 08 Wessex Chalk Streams Project Newsletter 16 STREAM project update Article P19 Spring 08 Living River spring newsletter 3 Sign of LIFE upstream Article P20 Summer 08 Sou’wester 1 –NE regional staff magazine Integrated delivery in the Avon catchment Article P21 Winter 08 Living River winter newsletter 4 (draft) Fresh salmon/Riverside fun Article P22 3/11/08 2 weeks in Natural England The return of salmon Article P23 Autumn 08 Sou’wester 2 –NE regional staff magazine STREAM and Living River Article P24 Autumn 08 Wessex Chalk Streams Project Newsletter 17 STREAM project update Article P25 Spring 09 Wessex Chalk Streams Project Newsletter 18 STREAM project update Article P26 Spring 09 Living River spring newsletter 5 Sign of LIFE upstream Article P27 Spring 09 Sou’wester 3 –NE regional staff magazine Integrated delivery in the Avon catchment Article P28 Summer 09 Sou’wester 4 –NE regional staff magazine Integrated delivery in the Avon catchment Article P29 Spring 2009 UKRRC newsletter STREAM wins conservation award Article P30 April 09 Salmon trutta – WTT annual magazine STREAM project wins award/overview Article P31 May 09 Fieldsports STREAM project overview Article P32 Aug 09 Sou’wester 5 –NE regional staff magazine STREAM and Living River update Article

128

CONFERENCES, SEMINARS AND PUBLIC MEETINGS

Date Location Attendees Description Action/05 Wilton 20 Project launch Introduction to STREAM and site visit

26/09/05 Lech, Austria ? International LIFE‐symposium Riverine Landscapes

Presentation on STREAM

16/03/06 Coventry 250 EA annual national conservation and ecology conference

Presentation on STREAM and circulated project summary to delegates

26/04/06 Edinburgh 250 UKRRC annual network conference Circulated project summary to delegates13/06/06 Brockenhurst New Forest LIFE3 technical conference Attended, met project team to share experience of UK consent processes 5/10/06 Worcester 15 Forum for active conservation techniques Presentation on STREAM

26/10/06 London ‐ LIFE annual start up meeting Presentation on STREAM08/11/06 Minehead 150 Institute of Fisheries annual conference Presentation on STREAM23/11/06 Lincoln 30 Chalk rivers BAP UK steering group Mention in presentation and circulated digest01/02/07 SOAS, London 120 World Wetlands Day conference International conference, paper presented

07/03/07 UCL, London 20 UCL Masters course Workshop for Masters course using C1.4 Seven Hatches as an example. Repeated in 08.

08/03/08 Exeter 50 Institute of Fisheries Management regional meeting

Promotion of Living River invasive plants strategy & wider partnership work within the river valley. Brief introduction to STREAM included.

30/03/07 Lake rod room 10 Wessex River keepers annual meeting Project presentation to river keepers21/04/07 Langford lakes 50 Wild Trout Trust open day Project presentation and river walk17/05/07 Christchurch, Dorset 20 Dorset Wildlife trust members evening River talk on wildlife of the Avon, STREAM and Living River project 08/06/07 Salisbury, Wilts 30 Living River launch STREAM display boards presented03/07/07 Wilton 20 Wilton town Council mtg Briefing on C1.4 Seven Hatches for parish council04/07/07 South Newton 15 South Newton community talk Presentation on C1.4 Seven Hatches for local people11/07/07 Woodgreen 12 Woodgreen/Hale community talk Presentation on C1.6 Hale for local people31/07/07 Winchester 15 Chalk rivers UK BAP Steering group Presentation on project 14/09/07 Langford lakes 35 STREAM open day Open day ‐ action E2 for landowners and fishery managers21/09/07 Southampton 120 International Salmonids in 21st century

conference International conference. Upper Woodford used for site visits

03/10/07 Wiltshire 40 Natural England region staff meeting Presentation given on STREAM and Living River27/10/07 Wiltshire 20 Wiltshire Fishery Association AGM Site visits to Upper Woodford and Seven Hatches15/11/07 Durweston, Dorset 20 Workshop Workshop to discuss action A2 and A3 outputs with EA staff15/04/08 Exeter, UK 200 UKRRC annual conference Presentation of project experiences16/07/08 Venice, Italy 300 ECRR quadrennial conference Presentation of project experiences, paper in conference proceedings

129

05/08/08 Amesbury, UK 20 River restoration talk for community Presentation, questions and answer session21/10/08 London, UK 30 Wild Trout Trust Conservation Awards

presentation Collected award as winner of professional category

01/08/08 Exeter, UK 15 Regional fishery forum Summary of project action04/12/08 Bristol, UK 30 University of West of England lecture Workshop for EA foundation degree students02/04/09 Nottingham, UK 50 UKRRC annual conference Seminar on river restoration techniques and HOPS28/05/09 Leilstad, Holland 110 ECRR 10th anniversary seminar River restoration and European Directives08/09/09 Yeovil, UK 15 EA Area management team Project experiences and lessons for future delivery22/09/09 Brisbane, Australia 200 (est) River symposium Presentation of STREAM and Living River, finalists in the International Riverprize

130

INTERNET

Website Description LinkSTREAM website Dedicated project website www.streamlife.org.ukLiving River website Description of and links to STREAM http://www.livingriver.org.uk/about_avon/wildlife/Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust Project details under rivers and wetlands and link to

website http://www.hwt.org.uk/what‐we‐do/conservation/rivers‐and‐wetlands.htm#stream

Environment Agency intranet Environment Agency intranet news page Summer 2007 Internal websiteNatural England Intranet – local teams and south west region

Natural England Intranet – Technical information exchange, projects and freshwater section

http://www.english‐nature.org.uk/About/teams/Init.asp?Id=16 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/southwest/stream.htm http://neintranet/content/technical/topics/wiki.asp?ID=8&PG=1315&AT=2

Wiltshire Wildlife Trust Description of project, direct link to website. STREAM newsletter directly downloadable.

http://www.wiltshirewildlife.org/Default.asp?mainmenu=standingup&EntityID={E35D7D48‐72C3‐40A7‐A5FF‐E8112F0CADA0}

Wessex Water Links to other related projects http://www.wessexwater.co.uk/lowflowrivers/sub_lf2005.aspx?id=1737&adverts=no

UKRRC News item ‐project summary and link to websiteLinks section – direct link to project website

http://www.therrc.co.uk/news_events.phphttp://www.therrc.co.uk/links.htm

ECRR Entry in projects database http://www.ecrr.org/prjdb.htmSTREAM website Dedicated project website www.streamlife.org.ukLiving River website Description of and links to STREAM http://www.livingriver.org.uk/about_avon/wildlife/Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust Project details under rivers and wetlands and link to

website http://www.hwt.org.uk/what‐we‐do/conservation/rivers‐and‐wetlands.htm#stream

Environment Agency intranet Environment Agency intranet news page Summer 2007 Internal websiteGreat Wishford web site What’s on http://www.greatwishford.co.uk/whats_on_village/whats_on_in_your_village.html Fly fishing and fly tying News and views – STREAM lands award http://www.flyfishing‐and‐flytying.co.uk/ (cached)Salisbury Journal website Celebrating best of the Avon See CDSalisbury Journal website Ford and Laverstock fun day See CDSalisbury Journal website Work starts at Amesbury See CDFordingbridge Town Council Fun for all the family See CDRiver Foundation International Riverprize finalists http://www.riverfoundation.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id

=27&Itemid=45 Please refer to the enclosed CD for copies of articles, seminar abstracts etc

131

Annex 8 Project management and organisation Minutes of steering group, working group and communication group meetings Steering Group 1, 04 November 2005 Steering Group 2, 18 May 2006 Steering Group 3, 23 February 2007 Steering Group 4, 14 November 2007 Steering Group 5, 01 December 2008 Steering Group 6, 15 September 2009 Working Group 1, 15 November 2005 Working Group 2, 04 May 2006 Working Group 3, 10 August 2006 Working Group 4, 14 November 2006 Working Group 5, 15 February 2007 Working Group 6, 17 May 2007 Working Group 7, 14 August 2007 Working Group 8, 01 November 2007 Working Group 9, 01 February 2008 Working Group 10, 13 May 2008 Working Group 11, 12 August 2008 Working Group 12, 11 November 2008 Working Group 13, 10 March 2009 Working Group 14, 02 June 2009 Working Group 15, 13 August 2009 Communication Group 1, 26 May 2006 Communication Group 2, 05 September 2006 Communication Group 3, 16 November 2006 Communication Group 4, 02 May 2007 Communication Group 5, 16 August 2007 Communication Group 6, 08 November 2007 Communication Group 7, 07 February 08 Communication Group 8, 08 May 2008 Communications group 9, 23 October 2008 Refer to enclosed CD

133

Annex 9 Monitoring programme Monitoring Protocol Year 1 monitoring report Year 2 monitoring report Year 3 monitoring report Year 4 monitoring report Wessex Water invertebrate sampling Nathan Hall (2008) Invertebrate sampling at Fovant and Woodford Refer to enclosed CD

135

Annex 10 UKRRC Audit of restoration sites UKRRC assessment of STREAM restoration sites –summary UKRRC assessment of Upper Woodford UKRRC Assessment of Fovant UKRRC assessment of Amesbury UKRRC assessment of Seven Hatches UKRRC assessment of Hale Refer to enclosed CD

river avon sac: demonstrating strategic restoration and

Documents